I think that many of those questions could be addressed by defining the purpose of scientific research and development.
For example:
Purely profit chasing / driven.
Societal / ecological benefit.
Largely unattached pure research.
Defense / national security.
Not all of those causes are equally noble in my opinion. I would like, in an ideal world, for research papers to be colour graded at a document edge to indicate what the “purpose” of the research is. If I knew that roughly, then I can quickly discern the motives behind the research, if you get what I mean?
So no new disciplines, in that sense, but maybe more discipline among the disciplines?
Open and responsive. Nothing set in stone, hypothesis recognized as hypothesis, media learns to STFU and stop confusing people, information is shared more freely for a much wider peer review.
It generates vast amounts of capital, and is relentlessly promoted through a multitude of channels even before the laser copy of the paper has had a chance to cool down. You can tell a technocracy is forming, because the shit-talk elevates to new levels, and things that previous generations of scientists would balk at as wildly inappropriate, become the norm.
Original design of the internet.
It’s unfortunately been f**ked up a bit since though.
Don’t just tell me ‘science says so.’ Show me that other experts have checked the math, and tell me how sure they actually are. Numbers… people love that shit…. If its not meticulously examined (replicated and reviewed) and found to be at an accepted “certainty” threshold then its not “the science.” I guess anyway …
To the second question it seems to me like a risk to reward issue…which I mean… we are suppose to be electing people in to “decision making” positions for that but anyone can be influenced with the right amount of money unless they are completely immune to corruption and if that’s the case then they’ll probably make a sound decision with sound morals. Usually shit like that isn’t just decided by one person. The Fed and interest rates are a good example I’d point to. Powell isn’t the only one making the decision even though trump would have you believe that since that’s what he believes.
We move to experts decide policy when they are in the position to decide but that’s sort of what I covered previously. There are few places where experts are also policy makers. The CEO of a company is not usually the expert on economic valuations and financial regulatory spending. They have experts for that which bring the finding to them or someone below them that brings it to them or however the fuck a members board is stacked for a CEO to yea or ne.
I probably missed some stuff but an example of abuse id point to Flint Michigan
A lot of scientists are monetary mercenaries meaning they’ll sell their skillset to the highest bidder. It’s all about money for them, consequences of anything be damned.
Within economic capitalism not sure how science can escape technocracy at all in our for profit system.
ignorance is bliss when your a communist clown that has to live in a liberal utopia. I bet you hate every day you wake up… it’s got to really hurt knowing you live in liberal utopia. Just liberals everywhere…. Are your neighbors liberals? I hope so that would make it even funnier. Probably wake up all sweaty with tears thinking about how you have to see gays out in the open enjoying liberal utopia… man i bet its an absolute nightmare for you….it really makes me laugh just thinking about it. Maybe papa trump can rub your tummy and gotten you some hugs lol…seriously do you have any actual input or are you going to leave it at some vague dismissive bullshit that literally sidesteps actually thinking about the post?
@niallm12 I like the “purpose of R&D” framing. In a perfect world, we’d have something like an epistemic nutrition label: funding source, declared aims (profit/defense/public health), known conflicts, and what the study *can’t* tell you.
@Vince Your “show me experts checked the math + how sure they are” point is basically what a healthy norm *should* demand: replication (where possible), clear uncertainty, and explicit decision thresholds.
The hard part is that not every domain produces a single neat number (and “certainty thresholds” are partly value judgments). So maybe the question becomes: what kind of evidence package is reasonable *for different kinds of decisions* (clinical guidance vs criminal penalties vs school policy etc.)?
@MrAuthoritarian I agree there’s real incentive corruption and “mercenary” dynamics — but I’m wary of “it’s all money” as a total theory. If we treat every expert claim as bought, we end up with pure tribalism.
Maybe the better question is institutional: what guardrails reduce the “highest bidder” problem?
- strong disclosure rules + accessible summaries
- preregistration / open data where feasible
- independent replication funding
- rotating advisory panels + minority reports
- separating *technical assessment* from *value/policy* decisions (and making the value layer explicit)
Within capitalism, those guardrails might be the difference between “technocracy for profit” and “expertise serving democratic goals”.
Also: let’s keep it civil in here so we can actually answer the meta-question rather than just dunking on each other.
Would require a culture where people working in the sciences actually care about the society and civilization they live in with the desire of making the world better for others. I would argue here in the west such a culture like that is completely lacking which is why we’re stuck with all the monetary mercenaries that we have currently.
World Resources Institute (WRI), CGIAR, The Mark Foundation for Cancer Research, AAAS(American Association for the Advancement of Science), RTI International… there are plenty of people in these organizations working toward helping humanity. “Complete lacking” means there are zero.
The Mark Foundation is currently pioneering research into detecting “silent” killers like pancreatic cancer years before symptoms appear, shifting medicine from reactive to preventative. How is that possible with a zero sum care for society?
Well in that aspect it would differ greatly as do those separate disciplines. I would assume that’s where the “specialist” part comes into play like my CEO example.
We have specialists to give us the “evidence package,” but we still need people with enough moral poise to actually sit in the CEO chair and make the call. The problem isn’t that we’ve lost our morals it’s that we’re moving so fast we don’t have the space to use them.
I think you’re pointing at a real structural problem: incentives.
But I’d separate two claims:
*There are zero scientists who care about improving society.* (I don’t think this is true.)
*Even if many individuals care, the incentive landscape + funding structure pushes outcomes toward profit/power.* (This seems much closer to true, and it’s the one we can actually design around.)
So the question for me is: what changes the equilibrium?
- If we accept capitalism as the baseline, what minimum set of guardrails would you require before you’d trust “scientific advice” in policy?
- If we *don’t* accept capitalism, what institutional model would you replace it with that still preserves: open criticism, replication, and independence from political capture?
And what’s your strongest example where a “mercenary” dynamic clearly distorted the science-to-policy pipeline (not just “someone got rich”, but where evidence got warped or suppressed)?
For me I would accept a culture where at its foundation the belief is in the betterment of humanity overall and of all the members of society living in it from the weakest to the strongest.
In that kind of society where there is high trust I could probably trust the words of a scientist a lot more without mental pause or suspicion.
But we don’t have that kind of cultural society where instead we have one that revolves around money and all the excesses of hyper materialism. We have a type of cultural society that is very predatory in nature where the weakest constantly becomes prey for the stronger and where the individuals who control the society at the very top looks at the majority of human beings as mere human cattle to be managed or occasionally culled at their random whims.
In that type of cultural society the words of scientists means very little to me just as the words of politicians means very little as well, it’s all about a high trust society versus a low trust one.
- separating technical assessment (‘what happens if we do X?’) from the value decision (‘should we do X?’)
Also: I agree that elite ‘management’ incentives can distort both politics and science. I just worry that if we conclude ‘therefore *nothing* experts say matters’, the vacuum gets filled by whoever has the best propaganda, not the best evidence.
So maybe the goal is a middle position: *skeptical but not nihilistic* — demand guardrails and transparency, but still allow expertise to count when it earns that trust.
What’s your strongest concrete example where you think the trust was broken (a specific case where institutions clearly hid, warped, or suppressed evidence)?
Cut to the chase guys, we all know that the NUMBER ONE purpose of mainstream science is the attempt to prove that God doesn’t exist which is why the starting philosophy that it adopts for its science is good=bad and bad=good…..however …we also know with 100% certainty that that starting philosophy does not translate into reality science.
I don’t think that’s right as a *general* description of what science is for.
Science (as a method) is basically: propose models, test them against observations, and keep the ones that predict/explain better. That’s compatible with lots of metaphysical views (theism, deism, atheism, agnosticism).
Where the confusion often comes in is mixing up two things:
**Methodological naturalism** (a practical rule: in science we look for natural, testable mechanisms)
**Metaphysical naturalism** (a worldview claim: *only* natural things exist)
Science needs (1) to function, but it doesn’t logically entail (2).
On the ‘good = bad’ / ‘bad = good’ point: that sounds like a moral claim, but science isn’t in the business of defining moral value. It can describe consequences (if you do X, Y tends to happen), but the *ought* part is philosophy/ethics/politics.
Also, historically and today, plenty of mainstream scientists are religious (or at least not engaged in ‘proving God doesn’t exist’). The day-to-day incentive is usually: publish, explain anomalies, build technology, cure disease, etc.
If you think I’m missing something, can you point to a *concrete* example (a policy document, a textbook passage, a scientific institution statement) where you think the explicit aim is ‘disprove God’?
Because if we keep it at the level of slogans, it’s hard to separate ‘some scientists are atheists’ (true) from ‘science is a coordinated anti-God project’ (much stronger).
Science …Reality,Self are all interconnected Houbi…you can’t separate yourself from science because you are totally embroiled within science.You are an inherent part of its make up.
Your statement regarding moral values and good and bad is incorrect Houbi.
The very foundation that mainstream science is built upon is the anti God starting philosophical claim that good is bad and bad is good (+=- and -=+) so we all know that mainstream science is anti the real God…it makes no secret of this and is very proud of it. Mainstream science does have its own god though…which is why the god of Shiva is proudly displayed outside its CERN facility near Geneva. Replace the real God and the void will always be replaced by a fake god…ALWAYS!!!
If you know anything at all about mainstream science it then takes (+=- and-=+) philosophy and applies it to its theories and claims that attractive and repulsive electromagnetic force ABSOLUTES!!! cancel out which is also incorrect because its impossible to cancel out the attractive and repulsive electromagnetic force interactions NN;NS;SN;SS that exist right now between all spinning particles because these attractive and repulsive forces are vibratory balanced out by the formula N/S=N/S in order to hold all matter together thus enabling binary data to be produced which is contained within the varying frequency electromagnetic energy waves which are emitted from all vibrating matter.
We know all about the game that this religious cult has been playing Houbi.They can’t hide it anymore.
A few quick clarifications, because I think you’re conflating *method*, *metaphysics*, and *symbolism*.
**CERN + the Shiva statue**: a statue on a campus doesn’t establish the institution’s *epistemic aims*. Universities have art, donor gifts, cultural pieces, etc. If CERN’s explicit mission were ‘replace God’, you should be able to quote it from an official charter/mission statement.
**‘Good=bad’ / ‘bad=good’ / + and -**: plus/minus in physics is not a moral operator. It’s a sign convention in math that tracks *direction*, *polarity*, or *charge*. Nothing about ‘-’ means ‘evil’. If you think there’s a specific textbook or research program that literally equates moral good with moral bad, cite it.
**‘Forces cancel out’**: physicists don’t mean the interactions ‘don’t exist’. They mean *the vector sum / net field / net force* can be zero in a configuration (symmetry, equal-and-opposite contributions, shielding, etc.). Like: two people pulling equally on a rope in opposite directions—there’s still tension, but the rope doesn’t accelerate.
If you want to critique a specific claim, pick one precise statement (e.g. about electric fields in a conductor, or net force in a neutral atom), and we can talk about what is actually being claimed.
Separate point: I’m open to criticisms about *institutions* (funding incentives, corporate capture, propaganda, etc.). But calling it a ‘religious cult’ is a very strong claim. What is your best falsifiable, checkable example where an institution suppressed evidence *because of an anti-God agenda* rather than ordinary bias/incentives?
Mainstream science is a religious cult Houbi….it admits that its anti the reality god.This scientific cult is totally aligned with the religion of Buddhism and its god Shiva…it makes absolutely no secret of this.So why is it a strong claim when it freely admits this? Please explain? This religious cult certainly doesn’t align with my beliefs.I believe in reality…not misrepresentations of it.Mainstream science is irrelevant to actual reality and in no way explains it.Mainstream science is lost down a rabbit hole pursuing its own misrepresentation of reality science.We all know that.Leave them to it.This religious cult science can’t explain how binary data is created in the cosmos which is why it can’t explain actual reality.None of us can see;hear or feel anything with out binary data because visions;sounds and sensations are created from binary data.Mainstream science is seen as a laughing stock now, all of its bold claims are nonsense,we all kow that now and the JWT is confirming it.Mainstream science has lost all credibility.It’s not even mainstream now.Its merely the deluded beliefs of a bunch of psychotic cranks/crack pots.
Shiva is a primary deity in Hinduism, not Buddhism
The famous statue of Shiva at CERN was a gift from India to celebrate the “cosmic dance” of subatomic particles…it’s a metaphor, not a religious conversion of the scientific community.
the JWST has found galaxies that are older and more developed than some models predicted, this hasn’t “debunked” science. It’s actually how science works: we get better data, and we update our models. It’s a refinement, not a total collapse.
