Science is the handmaiden of capitalism

Philosophy Forums Science, Technology, and Math
121

The ruling just occurred. I don’t know if Trump will ignore it or not. We’ll see. For sure, he will appeal to the Supreme Court.

The Republicans hold majorities in the Supreme Court and in both houses of congress and they’re going along with Trump so far. So yes the checks and balance effect is weak. But, there are signs that unified support is fraying among the Republicans. Powerful MAGA influencers are split on whether or not to join Israel’s war with Iran.

More to the point, “yesterday, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released an updated estimate for the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act”, which was passed by the House in May. The CBO’s analysis revealed that the House bill would add roughly $2.8 trillion to the national deficit over a decade, which is more than initially projected. This estimate includes the impact of interest accrued on the national debt. The CBO also highlighted that the bill would increase after-tax incomes for the wealthiest households while potentially decreasing incomes for the poorest.”

Let’s see how fiscally conservative Republican senators react. Will they really pass this bill just because it is what Trump wants when it will tank the American economy and lose the popular support they need to get reelected?

122

I’ll not hold my breath

123

Trump sucks.

Anyway, back to the Science thing…

I realized a checkmate argument to Neil De Grasse Tyson saying “trust the experts”.

Firstly, would you trust a car mechanic? No of course not, they try to scam people and inflate prices. Even though a car mechanic is a car expert.

Second, I found some guy with several PhDs and was an “expert” of political science, yet he posted that Denmark and Norway are “shithole countries” and America was superior to those countries.

124

Evidence? You can always find “some guy” claiming to be an expert.

125

I searched for articles about Trump changing his mind about immigrants and deciding to not deport immigrants. Then found an article on a website I think was called washington slate or something idk. And browsed the comment section with some guy saying Denmark and Norway are shithole countries, so we can’t let California become like them. And his profile lists a bunch of PhDs, I think I checked to make sure his PhDs are real but I’m not sure. I meant to keep the tab open but I don’t see it anymore. If I feel up to it I may search for the website again. I think his name was Andres or something and he lives near/in Arizona or Nevada.

126

Not all mechanics are arseholes.
Some will make a good diagnosis, find a quality part at a reasonable prices and charge a fair rate for their work. These sorts of mechanics tend to stay in business and gain reptuations based on trust.

And not all PhDs are stupid.
As far as “the best country in the world goes”, then its obviously a childish idea, and would depend on the criteria.
Yes the US has the biggest military. SO if that is your criterion for saying what is best..
However, Child mortality, literacy, freedom index, life expectancy, access to health care, working rights, .. I could go on. Then the US scores pretty low in the G20 and Scandinavian countries score pretty high,

Now to Tyson. I think his comments ought to be taken in context. In a world where any spotty individual “doing his own research” whilst blogging on the toilet in his work break from the drudgery of scewing on gormmets to flange -sockets - ought not to be “trusted” against people who have dedicated their lives to the field they are working in..
Do people that have dedicated their lives to their fields succumb to standarised (sometimes out of date) beliefs? Yes. Are they pressurised to find results that the money men of industry want to find, Yes.
Does this always happen? No.

There exists scientific knowledge that was once taken for granted that is no longer sustainable. It’s a common enough example but the geocentric hypothesis took a lot of effort to dispel, and the heliocentric hypothesis always existed alongside it.
But the Ptolemaic system served navigators and astrologers for over a thousands years before Copurnicus. And his system was rejected because in was more clumsy.
People stake their careers on a systems and have a tendancy todefend it beyond its value.
More recently Fred Hoyle, though still regarded as a great astronomer, proposed and defended his “Steady State Theory” of the universe, way beyond it empirical value.He famously coined the term “Big Bang”—ironically, while criticizing it during a radio broadcast. And that phrase stuck as opinion turned against him.

Today we have a similar problem with Ancel Key’s ideas against choloesteral and saturated fat which is widely believed still to be the two biggest causes of atherosclerosis and heart disease, as well as obesity, yet 50 years of dietary advice has failed to show benefits. Now his old adversary, John Yudkin who pointed to sugar consumption as the big change in the diet that was the liekly cause of our health problems is back in fashion. But this time it comes with a history of new evidence and reflections upon the paucity of the old.

Progress is possible.

1 Like
127

It needs to be noted that the problem does not lie with science as such.
As time passes the truth will out.

The problem here is all about capitalism, which posions everything.

Science projects publically funded tend not the be so obviously corrupt.

128

Political system? Doesn’t matter. Science is dogma. At its core—just invented rules and made-up values.

Reminder: belief is a herd instinct. Animal-like. Simple logic—if the foundation is animal instinct, then what is science really?

It’s a brake on anything new. An executioner of progress.

Don’t get it? Okay, here’s on the fingers: every time something new shows up, academic science fights it off. Because it only teaches the old.

Imagine a funny case—what if something completely destroys the old concept? Or an entire worldview?

Say, someone explains what Chaos really is, or how Nothingness truly works. Then what?

No one gets anything. Because of science. Science made people into dumb animals.

More proof? They burned a man for saying “The Earth goes around the Sun.”

Modern science would burn a demon too—for saying something like, “The universe moves relative to my nose.”

Of course the educated animals will be against it.

129

No. Science is not dogma.
It’s an evolution of thinking that has been going on formally for over 2500 years.
I cannot say whether you are speaking from ignorance, but you do not seem to know what you are talking about.

Those “rules” are not arbitrary. They have been hard fought for and taken the best minds to build.
he rules of science are basically the guidelines we use to figure out how the world works. They say we should base our ideas on what we can observe and test, not just on opinions or guesses. Any idea—called a hypothesis—has to be something we can test to see if it’s true or false. Science also tries to stay fair and open-minded, and results should be repeatable by others, not just a one-time thing. These rules didn’t just pop up overnight. They developed over time as people like Galileo and Francis Bacon looked for better ways to understand nature. Instead of relying on tradition or authority, they pushed for careful observation and experiments. That approach caught on and became the foundation of how science is done today.

Your objections - like “herd logic”; animal-like simple logic - these are the things science is designed to overcome. They are common in politics and religion. And can creep into science - we are human.
But so far science is the means to overcome the worst aspects of human cognition.
I think your post is an example of the herd thinking that has put science in the pillory chained for attack by the mob. Science is getting pushback these days because a lot of people are following the crowd instead of thinking things through for themselves. It’s a kind of herd mentality—when someone’s friends, family, or favorite influencer says science can’t be trusted, they start to believe it too, even if they don’t fully understand the topic. People want to fit in and feel safe in their group, so they go along with whatever that group believes. It’s not always about facts; it’s about belonging.

There’s also a lot of fear and confusion out there. Science moves fast, changes its mind sometimes, and uses complicated language. That can make people feel lost or even tricked. When they see scientists disagreeing, they think, “Well, if they can’t even make up their minds, why should I listen?” It’s easier and more comfortable to just trust what your group says, especially if it confirms what you already want to believe.

Social media makes this worse—people get stuck in bubbles where they only see ideas that match their own, and anything that challenges that feels like an attack. So rejecting science becomes more about emotion and identity than logic or truth. It’s not that people hate science itself—they just don’t trust who they think is behind it.

There is simething in this since the driving force of nutritional science is the Agri-business and Pharma, often the same massive corporations.

No kid goes into science to be rich, or tell lies. Most are just trying to keep a job and put food on the table for their family.

130

Big Food and Big Pharma have their hands in a lot of health advice we hear—from groups like the American Heart Association and American Diabetes Association. These organizations get big money from food companies and drug makers, so they’re not always quick to criticize processed foods or push lifestyle changes that could cut into profits.

For example, sugary cereals used to get a “heart-healthy” stamp just because they were low in fat, even though they were packed with sugar. And for years, the diabetes groups pushed high-carb diets and downplayed low-carb or fasting—even though those can actually help reverse type 2 diabetes—because they don’t make money like meds do.

It’s not some big evil conspiracy, but when these groups rely on industry funding, their advice tends to line up with what keeps people eating often and taking pills, not what actually helps them heal.

131

Dusty old scientists tend to fight to the end to stay relevant.
I make this point about Hoyle.

132

he is talking about how modern science always dismisses the aether or tired-light theories. then uses the michelson morley experiment as “proof” yet never does a michelson morley in space at all.

also science terminology is unnecessarily archaic. There are certain science phrases that make no sense and only seek to confuse people on purpose. And they name every “principle” off of dead people and sometimes the names don’t even fit the principle or are counter-intuitive. Even in the equations they reuse the same letters and numbers to make it confusing because there aren’t enough latin and greek letters i guess. And even most Computer keyboards in modernity are missing basic math functions for some reason.

133

Nope.
Hyperbole is never convincing

134

its not hyperbole. If you even mention aether or tired light you will be dismissed as a crackpot by modern scientists and/or lose your career. It is like a heresy of the religion.

135

There is probably a really good reason for that. Have you considered why?

136

Einstein was not anti-aether as mainstream would have us believe.

There is a good reason for aether, do you ever wonder why?

137

RFK Jnr is NOT qualified for his job. His personality is not fit for office. He has a “conspiracy theory” complex and like a Magpie will collect a series of left field ideas without really understanding what they are. Now, like a broken clock that is right twice a day RFK has scopped up some good ideas in areas that genuinely needs change. The realm of diet (guidelines, food pyramid) certinaly need change and uncoupling from corporate interests, so that we can bring the attack on UPF, sugar, HFCS, “wheat as heart healthy” myth and more. But he is a complete dickhead when it comes to vaccinations.

138

When Secretary Kennedy first took office, medical experts and scientists were primarily concerned about his weak messaging on vaccines—notably, his failure to strongly endorse measles vaccination and his promotion of dubious cures in the midst of a major measles outbreak in Texas. But Kennedy’s actions away from the cameras went further. He altered research priorities at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) by canceling studies on mRNA vaccines and vaccine hesitancy as well as by closing a network of centers working to prevent future pandemics. He reduced transparency by limiting public comment opportunities during the development of new regulations. And, alarmingly, he hired David Geier, a known vaccine skeptic who Maryland regulators disciplined for practicing medicine without a license, to lead a study to reinvestigate the long-discredited theory that vaccines cause autism.

Secretary Kennedy’s actions also have had chilling effects at the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the agency under HHS that regulates vaccines. In March, Dr. Peter Marks, the FDA’s top vaccine expert and a major figure in developing the COVID-19 vaccine, resigned over concerns about Kennedy’s promotion of vaccine misinformation. FDA vaccine policies changed soon thereafter. For example, in May, the FDA announced it would no longer approve COVID-19 vaccines, except for people over the age of 65 and those in high-risk groups.

Based on available information, Kennedy has a background in law and environmental studies, but not in statistics or epidemiology.

  • He holds a Bachelor of Arts in American history and literature from Harvard University, a Juris Doctor from the University of Virginia School of Law, and a Master of Laws in environmental law from Pace University.
  • He is not a physician and has no medical or public health training.

He appears to lack the knowledge base needed to evaluate to the subject matter with which he is charged as secretary of health and human services and is therefore unfit for the job. The consequences of this are likely to be catastrophic for thousands if not millions of people.

The people that Kennedy influences are likewise unable to understand and evaluate the marginal health risk versus the health risk due to vaccine avoidance. The possibility that he is well meaning doesn’t mitigate against the irresponsibility of appointing him to this position or the potential horrendous consequences his appointment likely to have for Americans.

139

Yes of course.
But it seems to me that it looks like he has a personality type that seems to be attracted to a conspiracy theory POV.
I wonder if his early life growing up with the assassinations has inured him a mode of thinking where conspiracies are the norm.

In his wheelhouse, there are areas where such an attiude might beuseful. There is a host of scientists, clinicians and journalists who are pointing the finger at a set of dietary guidlines that have presided over a massive growth in diabetes, obesity and heart disease. THey have offered a host of books, podcasts, and documentaries that have seen people banging their heads against a wall to get noticed for at least 15 years now.
They have been pushed back by accusations of “conspiracy theory”. I was talking about this in another thread.>

The worst are the silent one that are more like a systemic alignment of incentives.
The Food Pyramid looks less like a grand conspiracy and more like a case of powerful interests all pulling in the same direction. Grain and corn industries had a lot to gain from pushing carbs, and government guidelines reflected that—not because of secret deals, but because those voices were loud, organized, and profitable. Food companies loved it too, since processed carbs are cheap and easy to sell. Scientists and media, often funded by these same players, went along with the story, and over time it became accepted truth. No one had to lie in a dark room; the system just naturally favored the story that kept money and influence flowing, and made it hard for anyone to say otherwise.

Some “influencers” are now aligning themselves with RFKjnr. But they may well do more harn to their reputation.
We’ll see.

140

The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) in partnership with the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), just filed a lawsuit challenging the Trump administration’s use of a secretly convened group of climate skeptics to prepare a now widely disparaged report in its attempt to undo the Endangerment Finding. The longstanding finding has provided scientific support or commonsense emission standards to reduce climate pollution and protect people from the more powerful floods, more extreme heat waves, more frequent fires and other deadly hazards made worse by climate change.

Here’s a partial statement from Dr. Gretchen Goldman, president of UCS:

“A few months ago, Secretary Wright secretly hand-picked five long-time climate skeptics to form the ‘Climate Working Group’ and write a report to attempt to undermine widely accepted climate science. The development of this corrupted report, cloaked in secrecy, and Administrator [Lee] Zeldin’s use of it to undermine pollution protections, puts the American people in harm’s way and violates federal law. The public deserves transparent climate policy decisions informed by the best available science advice from the nation’s top experts. Yet, the process for this sham report, conducted in secret by five known climate deniers, lacked any sort of rigor and it shows in the shoddy final product rife with errors."

1 Like