If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
SCIENTIFIC THINKING IS STIFLED UNDER TOTALITARIAN REGIMES
Wednesday, September 03, 2003
REDFLAGSDAILY.COM SECOND OPINION SCIENTIFIC THINKING IS STIFLED UNDER TOTALITARIAN REGIMES You can see strong signs of this tragedy unfolding in so-called "democratic"nations By RFD Editor, Nicholas Regush "Research cannot flourish if you cannot communicate with your fellow scientists; if you cannot explain your ideas freely…" "Thinking needs a free environment. Empirical research, where you have a well-defined project with official approval, can indeed flourish even under a totalitarian regime…" "There are always barriers to science. Some come from the nature of the research itself, and these have to be recognized and acknowledged. Others come from outside, and these need to be minimized or eliminated. If you are asked to confirm predetermined conclusions to further a social, political or religious causes, that has to be resisted…" *** Sometimes we need to jump outside of our cultural box in order to better appreciate our own limitations. The above quotations are from an interview in New Scientist (August 16, 2003) with philosopher of science, Abdolkarim Soroush. He is Iranian and has recently returned to that country after being away for six years. A well-known Iranian intellectual, he has argued that science cannot progress under totalitarian regimes. At least not a "thinking" science. Reading the interview with Soroush reinforced in me the increasingly visible tragedy of how science — and that includes medicine — is hampered by ideology. Not only in "totalitarian" nations but in "democratic" ones as well. Indeed, many people involved in health cannot freely communicate their ideas, but rather do so in a growing atmosphere of intolerance and corruption. I'm not referring to Iran here, but to the U.S., Canada, the U.K. and elsewhere. This is happening because of a build-up of an authoritarian reality in our midst — in politics and in science itself. Thinking does require a free environment; otherwise, people live in fear of expressing themselves, of losing their status, their funding, their jobs. And as for predetermined expectations, well, this has now become the heart and soul of science in Western culture. Social, political and religious causes are becoming the cornerstones of science. Possibly more than ever. And I get the sense that more and more people are "believers," rather than "seekers." In my various journeys through medical science as a reporter, either for print or television, I found it very numbing to discover time and again people calling themselves scientists who were afraid of their own shadow. Too fearful of expressing opinion that went against the grain. Too timid to declare that some portion of science had gone wrong. Too entrenched in the Great Money Grab to care about the consequences of their sellouts. Fortunately there are those who still haven't caved in but they are in the minority. Of course, there have always been people who wouldn't bend to the sound of a dollar bill flapping. But there is even more to resist these days. Science in our culture is ensnared in ideologies; it is stifled science, one that can't breathe except for those who hold the power. Can you see it? Can you feel it? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ www.BreastImplantAwareness.org |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
SCIENTIFIC THINKING IS STIFLED UNDER TOTALITARIAN REGIMES
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
SCIENTIFIC THINKING IS STIFLED UNDER TOTALITARIAN REGIMES
In article ,
"Peter Moran" wrote: "Ilena" wrote in message m... Wednesday, September 03, 2003 REDFLAGSDAILY.COM SECOND OPINION SCIENTIFIC THINKING IS STIFLED UNDER TOTALITARIAN REGIMES May be true, but in the contexts referred to here the underlying message is ""what I believe is absolute truth, and it is only "intolerance and corruption" (rather than weak evidence) that stops scientists from being in agreement". In the context of alternative medicine there are hundreds and hundreds of claims that could quite simply be proved if they were true e.g. that the "cleanses" produce real gallstones, that live cell analysis can demonstrate numerous medical problems, that the Synrometer does anything at all, that an applied kinesiologist can tell anything through muscle testing someone holding glass vials, that chelation dissolves atherosclerotic plaque etc etc etc (the list is endless).. Can anyone suggest any element of alternaitve medicine where truly scientific thinking is being stifled? All I can see I see is a steadfast and universal avoidance of it. Quite true. Actually, I thought Ilena's article was particularly applicable to alternative medicine. Truly, anyone who suggests that any of the sacred cows of alternative medicine (chelation therapy, enema/colon therapies, etc.) don't do what is claimed for them is immediately attacked with a religious fervor as a heretic, which is not all that surprising, given how much of alternative medicine is based not on science, but rather on belief and faith. -- Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent." | |"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you | inconvenience me with questions?" |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
SCIENTIFIC THINKING IS STIFLED UNDER TOTALITARIAN REGIMES
"Orac" wrote in message news In article , "Peter Moran" wrote: "Ilena" wrote in message m... Wednesday, September 03, 2003 REDFLAGSDAILY.COM SECOND OPINION SCIENTIFIC THINKING IS STIFLED UNDER TOTALITARIAN REGIMES snip Quite true. Actually, I thought Ilena's article was particularly applicable to alternative medicine. Truly, anyone who suggests that any of the sacred cows of alternative medicine (chelation therapy, enema/colon therapies, etc.) don't do what is claimed for them is immediately attacked with a religious fervor as a heretic, which is not all that surprising, given how much of alternative medicine is based not on science, but rather on belief and faith. Yes. Wherever science has been skeptical about new ideas, it has always yielded to the weight of evidence. Alternative medicine is characterised by a staunch reluctance to even look at all the evidence. Reference to basic anatomy or physiology, or even electronics or parasitology, would be enough to dismiss many claims. Peter Moran |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
SCIENTIFIC THINKING IS STIFLED UNDER TOTALITARIAN REGIMES
In article ,
"Peter Moran" wrote: "Orac" wrote in message news In article , "Peter Moran" wrote: "Ilena" wrote in message m... Wednesday, September 03, 2003 REDFLAGSDAILY.COM SECOND OPINION SCIENTIFIC THINKING IS STIFLED UNDER TOTALITARIAN REGIMES snip Quite true. Actually, I thought Ilena's article was particularly applicable to alternative medicine. Truly, anyone who suggests that any of the sacred cows of alternative medicine (chelation therapy, enema/colon therapies, etc.) don't do what is claimed for them is immediately attacked with a religious fervor as a heretic, which is not all that surprising, given how much of alternative medicine is based not on science, but rather on belief and faith. Yes. Wherever science has been skeptical about new ideas, it has always yielded to the weight of evidence. Indeed. It may sometimes take a long time, occasionally a very long time, but eventually evidence always prevails in science. Alternative medicine is characterised by a staunch reluctance to even look at all the evidence. Reference to basic anatomy or physiology, or even electronics or parasitology, would be enough to dismiss many claims. Sadly, very correct. Indeed, one wonders at the lack of enthusiastic support among many alties for the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine, which is handing out big grants to study alternative medicine scientifically. Most altie practitioners are not truly interested in evaluating their therapies in rigorous studies to see if they actually do what is claimed for them or not. -- Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent." | |"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you | inconvenience me with questions?" |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
SCIENTIFIC THINKING IS STIFLED UNDER TOTALITARIAN REGIMES
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
SCIENTIFIC THINKING IS STIFLED UNDER TOTALITARIAN REGIMES
There are some valid points. For example, if an administration uses it power
to bring in as advisors to the President people who are only of his or her mind (e.g., on issues related to going into Iraq, energy policy, environmental policy, and health policy), then the President will basically dictate what will be done. I think Orac's point is correct about this could be intrepretted as "I am right; all those scientists fail to see the truth because of money or the 'establishment'". While there is no question that everyone comes into any situation with prejudice (e.g., science is a valuable way to find out how to improve treatments and that unproven treatments can be dangerous or not work). And clearly scientists have their beliefs about who things really work and tend to become entrenched in those beleifs (for example, doctors in the mid 1800s refused to beleive that washing hands between deliveries was a good idea, despite the evidence). I do disagree with the statement that scientists are "too timid to declare that some portion of science has gone wrong." Read Science magazine every week. There are editorials and other stuff about this. Also read the parts about global warming. Scientists on both sides of the issue get to have their say, in the various journals. They are not afraid of going against the grain. And they have to defend their beliefs. And I do disagree that scientists are "too entrenched in the Great Money Grab to care about the consequences of their sellouts." Scientists do greatly care about the consequences of their actions. In the case of global warming, scientists are concerned about global warming, but also about taking steps that can hurt the economy and not really help global warming if there is no global warmign. They care about wasting research money on deadend projects or clinical studies won't really get an answer. An example: One scientist thought that the levels of mercury were higher in vaccines than they should be because mercury theoretically could cause problems (despite the fact that mercury in vaccines has never been shown to harm anyone and is excreted from the body pretty rapidly). Guess what? The FDA and CDC and drug companies agreed, and most childhood vaccines are mercury free. Jeff |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|