dbr wrote:Strangelove wrote:
This post belongs in the Conspiracy Theory thread!
*reports post to the CSE*
So nothing to contribute, then?
The first step is to admit you have a problem Dave.
Scientists have human weaknesses just like you and I.
Also their science is limited and sometimes flawed.
And what if a scientist is not a great communicator or tends to get his facts mixed up?
What if a scientist is driven at least partially by a private agenda.
If a scientist leans a little to the left politically and holds a certain environmental ideology…
Well that scientist just might end up screaming something like:
“This (Harper) government is not acting according to our scientific findings!”
… when it is not necessarily true (he’s overreacting).
He may even seriously believe it to be true, even though it is not (his ideology may be leading him astray).
What if he’s a paranoid conspiracy nut who thinks the (government paid!) team leader is one of...
them.
Alotta folk seem quick to question the ideology of the government, and wonder if it’s skewing the truth.
But what about individual scientists doing the same?
Or what if the editor (media) is the one with the hidden agenda?
What if the media misrepresents what the scientist has to say… does that ever happen Dave?
What if the media is searching out only the scientists that will say what they want them to say on a subject?
(effectively “muzzling” the majority of scientists who say something different)
Does
that ever happen?
Yeahno, these things happen all the time brah! (#youngasyoufeel)
I’m always doing research on American scientific articles and finding major flaws.
(a lot of the time you will see that reflected in the comments section)
Perhaps the Harper government wants Canada to be more civilized.
Folks are always running around half-cocked based on some silly messed-up media tripe.
Do you really think the average person is smart enough to parse scientific information for themselves?
Don’t you think the government that paid for the research has the responsibility to arbitrate the access?
To put that info into proper perspective?
I have a family member who is a biology professor; I’m always catching him getting biology facts wrong.
It’s a good thing he doesn’t give interviews.
Now where was I….
Oh yes: If you think the government is hiding evidence that would undermine its policy agenda
…. you’ve become a
wide-eyed conspiracy nut.
(same thing if you believe Jim Benning doesn’t know what he’s doing as an NHL GM)
These researchers are public servants who are paid to provide information that helps set policy.
It is not their place, after that policy is made, to say the policy is wrong.
They should be fired on the spot for doing so.
Anything less would be uncivilized.
Then they can go out and find a real job (and spout to the media to their heart's content)
You must remember that research results often conflict with other research results.
That research teams come to different conclusions than other research teams.
And that raw research is just one of the factors that goes into policy decisions.
We need our researchers to work hand-in-hand with…
bureaucrats/engineers/economists/statisticians/sociologists/politicians.
This is how civilization works Dave (you fucking anarchist you).
The facts/evidence are weighed and the decisions are made.
There are always going to be folks (from any of the above groups) unhappy with the final decision
…. but yeah, those folk should shut the fuck up and remember they’re part of a governmental team!
And conspiracy nuts should be rounded up and locked up IMESHO.
![Puff :mex:](./images/smilies/mexican.gif)