Political Interference in the Scientific Process

[xorbie]

[ QUOTE ]

Arguing over exactly HOW to interfere with science reporting and research is missing the point.

The OP posted an article about scientists complaining about "politics interfering with the scientific process". The only way that's going to stop happening is if the govt stops spending money on science. Period. Idealistic hopes aside...

[/ QUOTE ]

But then they will just complain that economics is interfering with the scientific progress. One of the main problems with the libertarian/ACist line of thinking is precisely that... the assumption that the market (as opposed to individual gain from politics, which is assumed to be the current system, and as opposed to any other possible system) is the best arbiter of what is good.

[timotheeeee]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Arguing over exactly HOW to interfere with science reporting and research is missing the point.

The OP posted an article about scientists complaining about "politics interfering with the scientific process". The only way that's going to stop happening is if the govt stops spending money on science. Period. Idealistic hopes aside...

[/ QUOTE ]

But then they will just complain that economics is interfering with the scientific progress. One of the main problems with the libertarian/ACist line of thinking is precisely that... the assumption that the market (as opposed to individual gain from politics, which is assumed to be the current system, and as opposed to any other possible system) is the best arbiter of what is good.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the problem is that ACists are saying there shouldn't be an arbiter of what is good, because once you've assigned that label to something, everyone wants a hand in it so that their own personal 'good' is the one that is looked after. Which, obviously, can be seen in certain arguments about where to send federal money (for science as well as everything else).

The argument is more like this: If people want science funded, they will pay for it just like anything else. If people are unhappy with the progress of [insert branch of science here], it will be reflected in the market. If people are unhappy because the lack of long term investment in [insert branch of science here], people will be willing to pay for it, and therefore there will be investment.

That's the argument, at least (or at least my understanding), so take it as you will. To be honest I have no idea whether it would work out that well, but I see no reason why the market for scientific research would react differently from other markets.

[ShakeZula06]

[ QUOTE ]
No matter what you say, or what the subject is, the ACer will always sneak in an argument about the bad, bad state being the root of all evil. Yet when I gently point out that this is akin to the religious fundamentalists' ways, they get all indignant.

[/ QUOTE ]
Huh? All he said was that science shouldn't be funded by the government.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
No matter what you say, or what the subject is, the ACer will always sneak in an argument about the bad, bad state being the root of all evil. Yet when I gently point out that this is akin to the religious fundamentalists' ways, they get all indignant.

[/ QUOTE ]
Huh? All he said was that science shouldn't be funded by the government.

[/ QUOTE ]

This simply points out the fact that statists cannot follow an argument.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Arguing over exactly HOW to interfere with science reporting and research is missing the point.

The OP posted an article about scientists complaining about "politics interfering with the scientific process". The only way that's going to stop happening is if the govt stops spending money on science. Period. Idealistic hopes aside...

[/ QUOTE ]

But then they will just complain that economics is interfering with the scientific progress.

[/ QUOTE ]

Let them complain. Economics is interfering with the process by which I acquire a BMW, who's going to pay for that?

[ QUOTE ]
One of the main problems with the libertarian/ACist line of thinking is precisely that... the assumption that the market (as opposed to individual gain from politics, which is assumed to be the current system, and as opposed to any other possible system) is the best arbiter of what is good.

[/ QUOTE ]

The market makes no value judgement at all.

Who is the best arbiter of what system is the best arbiter of what is good?

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
No matter what you say, or what the subject is, the ACer will always sneak in an argument about the bad, bad state being the root of all evil. Yet when I gently point out that this is akin to the religious fundamentalists' ways, they get all indignant. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Strange how that works with absolutely anyone who has strong opinions about something, regardless of what those opinions are. Liberals do much the same with corporations and global warming, and they had much the same reaction when I compared them to fundamentalists.

[Mickey Brausch]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
No matter what you say, or what the subject is, the ACer will always sneak in an argument about the bad, bad state being the root of all evil. Yet when I gently point out that this is akin to the religious fundamentalists' ways, they get all indignant. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Strange how that works with absolutely anyone who has strong opinions about something, regardless of what those opinions are. Liberals do much the same with corporations and global warming, and they had much the same reaction when I compared them to fundamentalists.

[/ QUOTE ]You do have a point.