A Parenting & kids forum. ParentingBanter.com

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.

Go Back   Home » ParentingBanter.com forum » misc.kids » Kids Health
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

SCIENTIFIC THINKING IS STIFLED UNDER TOTALITARIAN REGIMES



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old September 4th 03, 06:30 PM
Ilena
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old September 4th 03, 10:53 PM
Orac
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default SCIENTIFIC THINKING IS STIFLED UNDER TOTALITARIAN REGIMES

In article ,
(Ilena) wrote:

Wednesday, September 03, 2003



REDFLAGSDAILY.COM



SECOND OPINION

SCIENTIFIC THINKING IS STIFLED UNDER TOTALITARIAN REGIMES


[Snip]

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?


Of course, even the harshest critics of modern science recognize that
most scientists will admit the possibility that they are wrong and will
admit uncertainty about things that science is uncertain about. In
contrast, those pushing pseudoscience won't even admit the possibility
that they might be wrong, no matter how much evidence indicating such is
laid at their feet. They won't do the studies to validate or refute
their pet theories and then complain when real scientists don't take
them seriously because the pseudoscientists can't marshal even the most
rudimentary valid scientific evidence to support their ideas.

Can you see THAT? Can you feel THAT?
--
Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
|
|"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you
| inconvenience me with questions?"
  #3  
Old September 5th 03, 02:12 AM
Orac
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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?"
  #4  
Old September 5th 03, 03:39 AM
Sean
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default SCIENTIFIC THINKING IS STIFLED UNDER TOTALITARIAN REGIMES

Orac wrote in message ...
In article ,
(Ilena) wrote:

Wednesday, September 03, 2003



REDFLAGSDAILY.COM



SECOND OPINION

SCIENTIFIC THINKING IS STIFLED UNDER TOTALITARIAN REGIMES


[Snip]

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?


Of course, even the harshest critics of modern science recognize that
most scientists will admit the possibility that they are wrong and will
admit uncertainty about things that science is uncertain about. In
contrast, those pushing pseudoscience won't even admit the possibility
that they might be wrong, no matter how much evidence indicating such is
laid at their feet. They won't do the studies to validate or refute
their pet theories and then complain when real scientists don't take
them seriously because the pseudoscientists can't marshal even the most
rudimentary valid scientific evidence to support their ideas.

Can you see THAT? Can you feel THAT?



Oh Mighty Orac You blinded me with science,
your religion of faith,
you must have figured out by now,
your evolution of death.
Your creed of DO NO HARM,
unless you try to prove me wrong...
Then all bets are off.
Can you understand this ?
  #5  
Old September 5th 03, 07:56 AM
Peter Moran
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old September 5th 03, 12:57 PM
Orac
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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?"
  #8  
Old September 6th 03, 03:00 AM
Jeff
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:04 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 ParentingBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.