you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Canbot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

People in authority with power are biased. It's very simply a matter of follow the money.

There is a big difference between bias and corruption. People taking money to falsify data, or push a lie are not biased, they are corrupt.

People who "finesse" results are doing the latter.

Most of the powerful elite are just as ignorant of good science as the unwashed masses. They care about money that's about it.

This doesn't make sense. The people in power are the ones corrupting the institutions to push thier narratives. They know it's bullshit. They are paying to spread the bullshit.

It's what happens when science becomes financially incentived and universities become focused on profit rather than immaterial goals.

You have this weird loopy logic going on where you seem to think all the corruption is just circumstantial. That it can somehow just happen without anyone intending for it to happen.

It literally can't. Without bad actors the situation would not look like this.

[–]Alienhunter 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Corruption involves intent. Bad science isn't necessarily done with an intent to deceive. Rather it may simply be that the bias of the scientist leads them to make conclusions that are incorrect and in an environment where everyone is biased proper vetting may not occur.

[–]Canbot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Corruption involves intent.

If there were intent how would it look different than what we see already?

[–]Alienhunter 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

If there were not intent would it look different than a situation where there is intent?

This is the issue as it's difficult to ascertain whether or not there is intent or whether or not what we see is an emergent property of the system in question. I'd argue that there is some of both.

[–]Canbot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

If there were no intent then scientifically rigorous papers would not be getting blacklisted. They would be openly debated.

We would not have situations, for example, of doctors losing thier licenses for treating people with ivermectin when it is known to be safe and no other treatment is available.

No one would be afraid of speaking up for fear of losing thier career.

It's really not that difficult to differentiate when you aren't trying to deny reality. Of course you will just deny my exampls with more hand waving, that's not the point. The point is if you were intelectually honest you would be able to answer the question.

[–]Alienhunter 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I'd argue it's more a case of mass delusions brought on by the rapid onset of social media and the internet before society has developed sufficient mechanisms to process it rather than outright corruption, though certainly the corruption exists and will drive some of it, for the average person involved I do not believe they are acting in a corrupt matter, rather they actually believe what they say and cannot see the issue with their views. It is not much different than a religious revival type movement. As time goes on people will learn that simply choosing to ignore the Twitter feed is the best option and that it is a polarizing force in society that is counter to learning.

Until that time however we must understand properly how the orthodoxy is run and maintained in order to successfully navigate around it and bring people to more neutral viewpoints when it comes to scientific research.

Whether it is corruption or not is hard to prove. But I so believe that most scientists are motivated more by their own biases rather than any over corrupt intentions. They simply are not aware of what is in their blindspots and the current idiocracy like state of mass science media only serves to promote the most low resolution and sensationalist takes which drives the orthodoxy.

The question then comes down to, are there people intentionally controlling the narrative, or are there people swept up in the social tides that they are powerless to change but able to navigate to get themselves richer?

A sailboat is at the mercy of the winds that it cannot control although it's direction may be altered by the pilot. A steamboat may simply go where it wishes without concern at considerable effort against the grain. Do you believe our society to be a sailboat or a steamboat? I see it as more the former than the latter. Attempting to control the wind is a folly. One must set their course in line with the waves or sink.