MAGA- please explain…
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
There are some valid concerns about reproducibility, driven by the publish-or-perish nature of academia, and driven by what funding may be available, however you oversimplify and mischaracterize, and it does not logically follow to make a blanket claim that "science is partisan." Engineering is application-driven, with immediate feedback loops. Science is by design exploratory, often dealing with uncertainty, abstraction and long timelines. Engineering benefits from tight coupling between theory and outcome, while science often operates in open-ended domains. You do indeed demonstrate you don't understand science with your expectation that science should operate the way engineering does. And worse yet, your attitude suggests we should just abandon science rather than reform the incentives and models. Science is a method, not a belief system. As for what's "taboo" one should also look at things like the massive disinformation, fear/uncertainty/doubt campaigns that the fossil fuel industry has poured into climate denial, easily over a billion dollars. https://www.budget.senate.gov/chairman/newsroom/press/new-joint-bicameral-staff-report-reveals-big-oils-campaign-of-climate-denial-disinformation-and-doublespeak It's sad that they didn't instead put that money into funding research toward solving problems. That massive disinformation campaign has resulted in delays in improving the research, delays in legislation, delays in strategic investments toward solving the problems, while undermining public trust in the research. But again, it wasn't scientists who did that - it was industry, using PR firms, lobbyists, conservative media outlets, front groups and so on. |
Anonymous
I never said that science should operate like engineering, rather it is a criticism of how science is being validated vs how engineering is validated and how poorly science is validated. I disagree that the take away should be that we should abandon science, rather that we need to reprioritize how science is validated and how it is funded. A combination of how science is gatekept+funded means that it is partisian. That is to say you can not just merely research whatever you want unless you are self funded (like the natural philosophers of old), nor will your discoveries be recognized should they get past the gatekeepers. Let's talk about climate denial since you brought it up. Why has albedo been largely ignored until really the past 5 years? Hotter temps mean that more water vapor, aka the primary green house gas can increase, yet conversely this increases albedo which reflects sunrays and causes a cooling effect. Why is such a known basic scientific effect not been modeled, let alone discussed in the past few years. This doesn't mean that climate science is magically invalidated, it just shows that it is poor science (and largely done in excel spreadsheets and fairly recently without even Kalman filtering!) which is why many of the earlier models and predictions should have been taken with a grain of salt. |
Anonymous
You're yet again misrepresenting both the scientific process and climate modeling. Science is not partisan. Funding and politics can influence priorities, but the method itself is neutral. Reproducibility issues are real, but they’re being addressed transparently across disciplines. That’s reform, not collapse. It's astounding that you are making claims that are demonstrably and provably false. Albedo has never been "ignored." It’s been a core variable in climate models for decades - See NASA’s CERES project, IPCC reports, and any basic Earth science textbook. Your claim that it’s "Excel spreadsheets without Kalman filtering" is not merely wrong, it’s a cartoonish misrepresentation of how global climate models work. Gatekeeping isn’t partisanship, it’s quality control. You don’t get funding to chase fringe ideas unless you show rigor. That’s not censorship; it’s standards. Peer review isn’t perfect, but it’s not a conspiracy. Retractions happen because science is self-correcting. That’s a strength, not a weakness. You falsely try to compare science to faith or religion - which are NOT self-correcting. You’re conflating frustration with institutional inertia and funding politics with a blanket dismissal of science itself. That’s not critique, it’s outright sabotage. You've gone so far out over your skis that you've lost this debate, friend. |
Anonymous
|
Basically, they don’t understand that science is ever-changing as we get more information and technology. This mindset is nothing new. My 5th grade students are currently learning this. Just think about the fact that it was widely believed that the earth was flat. And then new data, observations, and technology came about. Can you imagine how unhinged it must have sounded when people started suggesting it was…round? That we are just hanging out here upside down or sideways? Lol
Maga went completely anti-science when pandemic guidelines changed as new data and technological/medical advances were made. I have a science degree, so I completely expected those changes. I just continued to follow those guidelines and adjust with the changes. I still do. I have never had covid. Closing schools really did them in. I don’t know how they blame democrats for this when a) Trump was potus b) this was not a US thing. Schools were closing all over the world. I am a teacher and still don’t know what the best approach would have been. It was an unprecedented and constantly evolving situation. Keeping schools open and continuing as usual definitely would NOT have been the way to go. |
Anonymous
Anonymous
Anonymous