3.27.2015

THE UNSCIENTIFIC POLITICS OF SCIENCE

In modern science, the term "theory" usually refers to a well-confirmed explanation of some aspect of nature or natural phenomenon which is not immediately obvious. For example, in earlier times, observers of nature had no firm explanation for things such as lightning, astronomical eclipses, earthquakes and many other phenomena which were baffling. Often supernatural beliefs of the time were supported solely by the force of religion. The scientific method was designed to take the mystery or supernatural out of what ultimately prove to be perfectly natural phenomena.

A valid theory is made in a way consistent with scientific method. It is presented in such a way that any scientist in the field can understand it, and either provide actual evidence to support the theory, or empirically contradict or disqualify it.

Some use the term more loosely... describing an idea which is little more than speculative... an “hypothesis.”

Generally speaking, more than one “theory” can satisfy the same known evidence and scientific criteria needed to explain a given question. In other words, several different theories can be posited to explain the same mystery, and each can be a valid theory until disproved by factual evidence. But because of economic pressures and political correctness, certain theories are preferred over others, based on politics, not factual evidence. If a major University places its imprimatur on a politically preferred theory, politicians and hucksters will run with it. If hucksters can’t find actual scientific evidence to support their own vaunted cause, they will find and fund a science group which will fabricate evidence.

As scientific knowledge has progressed dramatically in the modern era, it has become more and more difficult and expensive to develop and empirically prove or disprove a given theory. Unfortunately (or fortunately for many research scientists) the more answers science finds, the more questions arise. In the macrocosm, the farther into the Cosmos our telescopes can see, the larger and more mysterious it seems to get. In the microcosm, the higher the energy of our sub-atomic particle accelerators, the more our questions can only be answered by even larger, more energetic and expensive particle colliders. In medicine, expensive treatments abound while cures do not. Thus, the need for greater and greater investments of time, facilities and funds has opened the door for politics to replace the force of religion in the furtherance of preferred scientific theory.

In earlier times, someone interested in science could work in his basement or garage, theorize about electro-magnetism, wrap some wires around an iron core, and invent an electric motor or generator to prove his theory. He took off his theorist’s hat and donned his inventor’s cap, generating electricity while generating an income. Not so today. Big Science has become so complex that now theorists are different cats from experimenters and inventors. Sometimes they work together, sometimes not. Either way, vast sums of money are required to pursue our era’s science goals.

The money of politics enters quickly. Large government, military and private grants flow to the science research departments of the world’s most advanced universities. From there the funds funnel down to specific fields. Want a big grant? Concentrate on those areas of science and technology which the government, military and private concerns want most. Co-operateth and thy beakers shall overfloweth. Disagree-eth and thy beakers shall go dry.

The empirical evidence of this can be seen in the scandals surrounding falsifying and skewing data to “prove” global warming theory, Darwinian evolution theory, and the efficacy of so many medical/pharmaceutical products and services. Scientists and their employers seem willing to provide favored evidence. At a price.

It took centuries to disprove the “theory” that Earth was the center of our solar system and the known universe. Or that lightning and flooding were caused by angry gods. Or that the world was flat and held up by Atlas or on the backs of elephants. Or that demons could enter our minds and control our bodies. But in their day, people believed these things because the experts of the time said it was so. And if the experts say it’s so; it must be so.

Again I urge, be skeptical of anything the experts tell you. Don't believe something simply because you like the theory, or that it agrees with your personal politics. Believe only when all the evidence is in, the source has been consistently reliable, and you have weighed all the known facts. Besides your good looks, God gave you intuition, and if you have read this far, you are probably using it. Think about some of the totally unproven theories experts of our time espouse. They are probably no more true than what Copernicus, Galileo, Columbus, Franklin and so many others ultimately proved were wrong – often at the risk of life. Because their intuition told them not to believe the experts.