"The View from Outside" Why science is losing credibility

[Binkie The Clown]

---snip---These days, in any field where science comes into contact with serious money, scientific studies are increasingly just another dimension of marketing. From influential researchers being paid to put their names on dubious studies to give them unearned credibility to the systematic concealment of “outlying” data that doesn’t support the claims made for this or that lucrative product, the corruption of science is an ongoing reality, and one that existing safeguards within the scientific community are not effectively countering.

Scientists have by and large treated the collapse in scientific ethics as an internal matter. That’s a lethal mistake, because the view that matters here is the view from outside. What looks to insiders like a manageable problem that will sort itself out in time, looks from outside the laboratory and the faculty lounge like institutionalized corruption on the part of a self-proclaimed elite whose members cover for each other and are accountable to no one. It doesn’t matter, by the way, how inaccurate that view is in specific cases, how many honest men and women are laboring at lab benches, or how overwhelming the pressure to monetize research that’s brought to bear on scientists by university administrations and corporate sponsors: none of that finds its way into the view from outside, and in the long run, the view from outside is the one that counts..

The corruption of science by self-interest is an old story, and unfortunately it’s most intense in those fields where science impacts the lives of nonscientists most directly: yes, those would be medicine, pharmacology, and nutrition. I mentioned in an earlier blog post here a friend whose lifelong asthma, which landed her in the hospital repeatedly and nearly killed her twice, was cured at once by removing a common allergen from her diet. Mentioning this to her physician led to the discovery that he’d known about the allergy issue all along, but as he explained, “We prefer to medicate for that.”

---more at link---

The Archdruid Report

[upaloopa]

1. This is relevant to our GMO fights.

Those who preach science first last and forever should take notice I think.

[GreatGazoo]

15. Yes! and the war on GMO critics has nothing to do with science and everything to do with marketing

http://foodtank.com/news/2015/02/the-war-on-genetically-modified-food-critics-et-tu-national-geographic

[upaloopa]

20. Thanks bookmarked that article

It is hard when the science bullies have practiced techniques to use here.
The very idea of people making decisions for themselves pushes their buttons to the point that the insults and derogatory language comes out.

[djean111]

28. Ever notice that the thing that angers them most is the price organic food is sold at?

Of course, if they could patent all the food, they would likely charge more than that.

[GreatGazoo]

32. And that is supposed to be another marketing point for GMO I guess: it is allegedly cheaper

But arguably the two big names in their respective retailer categories are able to sell non-GMO at the same price:

McDonald's isn't charging any more to stay with non-GMO:
http://modernfarmer.com/2014/11/mcdonalds-refuses-buy-genetically-modified-potatoes-fries/

Wal-Mart is now selling Wild Oats Organics at the price of conventionals
http://www.forbes.com/sites/greatspeculations/2014/04/14/wal-mart-strikes-a-deal-with-wild-oats-to-sell-cheaper-organic-foods/

The consumer wants healthier, fresher and tastier food. GMO food is designed to be sprayed, shipped and stored, taste be damned. So these corporate giants are starting to get it. 93% of the population wants GMOs in the foods they buy to be labeled but while labeling is yet to come, retailers are starting to answer to the 93%.

And at the same price!

[jeff47]

19. Yes, "science first" clearly need to abandon their position.

The claim of the article in the OP is that we have to throw out all studies about GMOs. Because big companies are bad, according to someone whose qualifications appear to be calling himself "The Archdruid".

How 'bout showing some actual harm instead? Why can't we get a study showing harm that has a decent control group? You want to prove GMO corn is bad? Use "normal" lab rats. Give group 1 GMO corn. Give group 2 non-GMO corn. Give group 3 standard "rat chow".

But that study does not ever seem to get publicized by anti-GMO sites. Instead it's only 2 groups. Or it's rats specifically bred to get cancer. Or many other confounding variables.

Why are we supposed to question every experiment done by "big money", but can't question why these "brave truth tellers"? Why do they have to use pay-to-publish journals or their own web sites? Why can't they run that simple and cheap experiment above?

[alp227]

26. And what is the great alternative to science? Dr. Oz? Anyone's blog? nt

[upaloopa]

31. You argue like people in the gungeon.

Read the f.....ing article
It doesn't ask for an alternative it asks for truth.
Science and blog are only words they carry no threat or magic power.

[Binkie The Clown]

41. Science is the best answer, but that wasn't the question.

The question was why don't people trust science, and the answer has three requirements (or maybe even more):

1) better science education
2) less corporate money bending science to it's own purposes
3) scientists who can communicate their findings better.

[closeupready]

2. If science becomes just another common racket, like Congress has become,

then yes, of course it will lose credibility - and like Congress - public support will wither precipitously.

[Binkie The Clown]

3. What's really troubling to me is...

When independent research says a certain food item or additive is dangerous and there is other research funded by the particular Big Ag company that produces that particular food item or additive, the industry supported "science" gets all the press. Same for when a new drug is shown to have a tiny positive effect when compared to some fundamental lifestyle change, the nearly useless drug gets big press, hailed as a "major breakthrough" while the simpler and more effective lifestyle change gets ignored or even actively discouraged.

[closeupready]

4. Look to where the money is - in America, there's a sucker born every minute.

Well, that probably applies everywhere, but the larger point being, propaganda WORKS, and using it effectively by Big Money interests reaps benefits in deceiving the public, at worst, or even simply distracting the public, at best.

I mean, there's a whole Big Money loop of those who profit from hiding cold, hard truths - and if your living depends upon doing your part, then even some ethical people will try to find way to rationalize their participation, or argue to themselves, 'well there's a method to our madness.'

Always know where the money is, in any public controversy.

[jeff47]

16. It applies to the not-big-money side too.

A whole lot of "natural" sites on the Internet are very happy to sell you their amazing new (whatever) that big money does not want you to know about!! Buy today! The book costs $39.95 and you can get our miracle powder for only $19.95/mo.

[closeupready]

38. Last week, I watched Russell Crowe's "The Insider", a Big Tobacco documentary

(or docu-drama, I guess) that illustrated the sums involved in the kinds of snake oil hijinks I'm talking about here.

Hundreds of billions of $$. Not the small-time stuff you compare it to.

[jeff47]

68. The relatively small amount of money does not guarantee truthfulness. (nt)

[Binkie The Clown]

42. Big money to a mega corp and big money to a small time crook

are very different. A snake oil salesman selling worthless vitamins, herbal "cures" or homeopathy from his garage can make "big money" for an individual entrepreneur con artist.

[jeff47]

67. Yep, and they can both lie to do so. (nt)

[phil89]

5. That's the point of peer review

Research is evaluated by more than one party. The anti gmo crowd hasn't come close to meeting the burden of proof for their claims so they result to conspiracy nonsense.

[GreatGazoo]

17. quite the opposite -- "settled science" ? Since when??

Here is a peer-reviewed meta-study that say the science on GMO food safety is anything but settled:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21296423?dopt=Abstract&holding=npg

Now it's your turn.

[jeff47]

22. All your "study" says is that some people want more studies.

That's not really anything but lining up quotes of people who want more money to run more studies.

You can not prove that there is no harm. If your study shows that there is no harm, it hints that the product is safe. But it does not prove that the product is safe. As a result, it is impossible to do enough studies to prove that there is no harm.

On the other hand, you can prove that there is harm. And it's a pretty damn easy experiment to run too.

[GreatGazoo]

27. You did not repsond with your own peer reviewed study

YOU LOSE.

[jeff47]

35. I also did not dance on your command. How rude on my part.

How 'bout you post an actual study instead of something that just used Google Scholar?

[GreatGazoo]

48. So you are down one meta study to nothing. Clock is running down...

You have nothing but a bogus ad hom so far...

Btw, here is the conclusion of the abstract of the 2011 meta study from Laboratory of Toxicology and Environmental Health, School of Medicine, IISPV, Universitat Rovira... Catalonia, Spain for those who don't click links:

An equilibrium in the number research groups suggesting, on the basis of their studies, that a number of varieties of GM products (mainly maize and soybeans) are as safe and nutritious as the respective conventional non-GM plant, and those raising still serious concerns, was currently observed. Nevertheless, it should be noted that most of these studies have been conducted by biotechnology companies responsible of commercializing these GM plants. These findings suggest a notable advance in comparison with the lack of studies published in recent years in scientific journals by those companies. All this recent information is herein critically reviewed.

emphasis added

[Art_from_Ark]

50. And from another European research paper:

"A broad community of independent scientific researchers and scholars challenges recent claims of a consensus
over the safety of genetically modified organisms (GMOs). In the following joint statement, the claimed consensus
is shown to be an artificial construct that has been falsely perpetuated through diverse fora. Irrespective of
contradictory evidence in the refereed literature, as documented below, the claim that there is now a consensus on
the safety of GMOs continues to be widely and often uncritically aired. For decades, the safety of GMOs has been a
hotly controversial topic that has been much debated around the world. Published results are contradictory, in part
due to the range of different research methods employed, an inadequacy of available procedures, and differences
in the analysis and interpretation of data. Such a lack of consensus on safety is also evidenced by the agreement of
policymakers from over 160 countries - in the UN’s Cartagena Biosafety Protocol and the Guidelines of the Codex Alimentarius
- to authorize careful case-by-case assessment of each GMO by national authorities to determine whether the particular construct satisfies the national criteria for ‘safe’. Rigorous assessment of GMO safety has been hampered by the lack of funding independent of proprietary interests. Research for the public good has been further constrained by property rights issues, and by denial of access to research material for researchers unwilling to sign contractual agreements with the developers, which confer unacceptable control over publication to the proprietary interests.

"The joint statement developed and signed by over 300 independent researchers, and reproduced and published
below, does not assert that GMOs are unsafe or safe. Rather, the statement concludes that the scarcity and
contradictory nature of the scientific evidence published to date prevents conclusive claims of safety, or of lack of
safety, of GMOs. Claims of consensus on the safety of GMOs are not supported by an objective analysis of the
refereed literature."

http://www.enveurope.com/content/pdf/s12302-014-0034-1.pdf

[GoneFishin]

76. "claims of a consensus over the safety of genetically modified organisms (GMOs)" when it is patently

obvious that no such consensus exists is the key to recognizing a GMO shill.

[jeff47]

70. Again, you post a study that says people want more money for studies.

Does it occur to you yet that these statements are people asking to be given more money? And that might color their statements?

How much money do you think they'd get for "Everything looks fine, but we'd like some more money anyway"?

Your "studies" all say "people have vague concerns". How about some proof? Why can't these people with vague concerns run a simple 3-group experiment (GM food, non-GM food, standard "rat chow&quot and demonstrate the danger?

[GreatGazoo]

74. At this point the mercy rule kicks in and you forfeit: 2 - 0

Final score: 2 peer reviewed meta studies to absolutely nothing.

No points for your logical fallacy ad homs and mischaracterization of the well defined concerns.

[liberal_at_heart]

37. People on this thread are talking about the purity of science and the corruption of it. Well,

we used to compile data from studies for decades before we came up with definitive conclusions on a subject. Now, we have new studies that come out every other week, and we flip flop back and forth on our conclusions every other week too. Why do you think the public is so frustrated by scientific studies? The fact of the matter is there just hasn't been enough time to either prove or disprove the safety of GMOs. Some would rather stay away from GMOs until we know. Some are willing to use them until we know more. I tend to fall into the camp that information is not bad. Therefore, we should give people information and let them decide. Personally, I'm not afraid of them and will continue to use GMO products until we know one way or the other.

[GreatGazoo]

46. the most common GMO crops are DESIGNED to be used with more pesticides.

That isn't woo or a biased attack -- that is the selling point of GMO crops.

That's pretty much all that many consumers feel they need to know. So they want them labeled.

[liberal_at_heart]

47. I already said I'm not against labeling, and the USDA has stated that more research needs to be done

to find solutions to the pesticide resistant weeds. With every new thing comes problems. We can research solutions to the problems we find. We don't necessarily have to get rid of GMOs. Like I said before, I'm not against labeling. Let people decide for themselves. Again, personally, I will continue to use them until the long term data comes in.

[GreatGazoo]

49. Their "solution" to the as predicted increase in Round Up Ready weeds is Dow's Enlist Duo --

more pesticides. Doubling down on pesticides.

http://www.enlist.com/en/growing-problem

I respect your choice and position. For me and many others, the idea that GMO crops are designed for increases in pesticide use makes their downside self-evident.

[GeorgeGist]

6. Ancient Order of Druids?

Definitely out there.

[Binkie The Clown]

43. Kill the mesenger.

Why not judge the message on its own merits instead?

[hifiguy]

7. The "free market" corrupts and infects everything it touches.

[HereSince1628]

10. Reduction of tax support puts tremendous pressure on outside money to cover overhead

It's one of the reasons why although I got my PhD from one of the major research universities I chose to teach at primarily undergraduate institutions.

It's a horrible racket to be pushed to generate money that gets skimmed to pay for university administrations that demand
research productivity, but provide next to nothing, not even the light bill.

[hifiguy]

11. That is a very good and valid point.

What has happened to public universities in particular with regard to funding cutbacks, is beyond scandalous.

[Maedhros]

33. It has forced them to seek "partnerships" with corporate interests in order to fund research.

And, of course, the research that gets funded is only what the corporations want....

[Art_from_Ark]

52. It's the "publish or perish" mindset of universities

Gotta pad that list of published works so that corporate donors will contribute beaucoup bucks to the university. But yeah, the ones doing the actual research get a pat on the back, and exhortations to continue with their work on a shoestring budget.

It's one reason why I gave up trying to become a professor, although I am still involved with research.

[HereSince1628]

54. There's some of the 'padding' thing, but even at small schools most PhDs

are committed to their work in their disciplines. Publishing becomes a lot like journaling or blogging. You do it for yourself, with some hope it will provide information for others, but mostly as a matter of having others check your work and insight.

It also develops weird habits...I never sleep much after 4:30 am and have weird triggers for recollections... like the smell of gull colonies and being guided through fog by that smell to colonies out on artic islands.

And I can't walk past a display of 'fresh' fish fillets without looking for worms...and often finding them!

[ND-Dem]

63. Giving over control of science (and universities) to business is exactly the reason for the

defunding; people need to understand that.

[LWolf]

69. Yes.

I don't trust research that's been bought by those who have a financial stake in the outcome.

[jeff47]

8. You know it's gonna be a great argument when it lies in its first paragraph.

Psst....anyone can do science. You don't have to have a fancy degree. You think GMOs cause demons to leap from your skull? You can go study that without the permission of any corporation.

The fact that you do not hear about studies attempting to measure the rate of forceful craneal demon expulsion does not mean there is a vast corporate conspiracy.

[sendero]

12. It costs a lot of money...

... to do any real science involving medicine or the human body. Used to be that there were lots of universities and other organizations funding that research. Nowadays most research is paid for by, oops pretty obvious, big corporations and often those with a point of view to prove.

You think nobody has noticed that scads of pharmaceuticals have had to be recalled in the last 15 years or so after causing all kinds of "unforeseen" side effects including death? Why do you think that is? Could it be because big pharma runs their own research, does their own testing and cooks their own results?

Of fucking course it is, and we're supposed to believe it's "science". Science is indeed a wonderful thing but it can and is corrupted like anything else. You can call a bunch of cooked results "science" but that does not make it science.

[jeff47]

14. Which is why you'd start with non-humans.

They're cheaper to study.

You think nobody has noticed that scads of pharmaceuticals have had to be recalled in the last 15 years or so after causing all kinds of "unforeseen" side effects including death?

You think a study involving maybe 2000 healthy people will show you every single drug interaction? And every single situation where a medical condition responds poorly to a medication?

Studies tell you if the drug works most of the time, and does not kill people most of the time. It doesn't tell you it works all the time, and it does not tell you it will never kill anyone.

It doesn't matter if that 2000 person study was funded by the drug manufacturer or funded completely independently. It can't show you everything.

You can call a bunch of cooked results "science" but that does not make it science.

First you'd have to prove the results are cooked. And "something came up when we gave it to millions instead of thousands" is not evidence of a cooked study.

[sendero]

23. LOL

"You think a study involving maybe 2000 healthy people will show you every single drug interaction? And every single situation where a medical condition responds poorly to a medication? "

LOL do some reading pal, these are not isolated cases. And if 2,000 is not enough then real SCIENCE would demand more.

Apologist.

[jeff47]

24. I apologize that reality does not conform to your desires.

LOL do some reading pal, these are not isolated cases.

How 'bout you actually read the studies that show how the drug in question caused harm? See, that actually tells you something. Reading web sites that just insinuate malfeasance don't actually tell you anything.

And if 2,000 is not enough then real SCIENCE would demand more.

Real Science is a movie. And it does not proved a good indication of what science really is. But you do get to see a young Val Kilmer.

If you actually understood science you'd realize that you can not prove a negative. You can not prove a drug does not cause harm.

You can run a study where no harm happens, and that hints that the drug does not cause harm. It does not prove the drug does not cause harm. Because your study can not include every possible combination and situation.

The only thing you can prove is that the drug does cause harm. Drugs get released when that fails to happen after multiple attempts. But those failures do not prove the drug does not cause harm.

Apologist

Restorting to name calling is not exactly a convincing argument. In fact, it indicates you're running out of ways to support your position.

[sendero]

25. I'm sorry..

... if you don't get why trust in science, which was very high when I was young, has diminished greatly. Folks correctly recognize that the funders usually get the result they were looking for one way or another. Which means it is not science at all.

[jeff47]

36. Trust was lost because of marketing....to people like you.

"Miracle cures" and other secrets "they don't want you to know" is a very lucrative con.

You just need to look at the vitamin aisle at your local grocery store to see that in action - absolutely nothing in those bottles has been shown to have any benefit over what you get in a normal diet.

Folks correctly recognize that the funders usually get the result they were looking for one way or another.

Here's why: when the drug turns out to be harmful in studies, the FDA won't let them sell it and you never hear about it.

Golly, I wonder why every drug that gets sold was not found to be harmful.....hrm.....could be regulations.....nah, must be a massive conspiracy.

[Binkie The Clown]

45. If you two don't knock it off I'm sending you both to bed without diner. n/t

[BillZBubb]

39. What an absolute pantload.

Your juvenile attempt to trivialize a serious subject is contemptible.

An adequate study costs money. It takes time. It takes people. It takes careful statistical analysis.

You know this.

[NuclearDem]

9. Let me fix that for you:

"The View from Outside" Why we want you to think science is losing credibility

[Johonny]

13. +1

science is a process... it has no credibility to gain or lose.

[Avalux]

18. Ah yes, science bashing disguised as concern. Nice try. n/t

[upaloopa]

29. Why don't you have anything real to add instead of

insults? Take the article and line by line present the opposing view?
No science freaks just insult and bully.
My guess is you are not a scientist. You are someone who for whatever reason has a belief that science is a positive end in itself. Something pure that can't be bastardized. To you science is a religion to be accepted on faith.

[Skittles]

51. actually, "science bashing disguised as concern" *IS* something added

that makes MUCHO sense to me - it was DEAD ON

[upaloopa]

73. All science freaks can do is use derogatory

phrases and insults as you have done here. That adds nothing.

[Skittles]

75. LOLOLOL

I'm pretty sure no amount of "science" would convince you of anything

DONE HERE

[muriel_volestrangler]

80. Skittles insulted no-one; you, on the other hand, called people 'freaks'

It's you who is using the derogatory phrases and insults.

[zappaman]

66. I think it added to the discussion

Since it's spot on!

[Avalux]

85. Actually, I am a scientist.

How can you assume to tell me what I believe?

[Maedhros]

34. I don't know if I would call it "science bashing."

There certainly are unscrupulous scientists and questionable research.

However, I'd say a bigger reason that science is "losing credibility" is the widespread and debilitating scientific illiteracy that plagues this country, which is a direct result of the assault on education.

[NuclearDem]

71. A WINNER WE HAVE

is the widespread and debilitating scientific illiteracy that plagues this country, which is a direct result of the assault on education.

THIS

[liberal_at_heart]

30. Sorry this whole things sounds made up.

"Mentioning this to her physician led to the discovery that he’d known about the allergy issue all along, but as he explained, 'We prefer to medicate for that'.”

First of all the majority of doctors are good doctors who want to help people be healthy and happy. Secondly, even if their motivation was money who is going to say, "We prefer to medicate for that."?

[DeSwiss]

40. K&R

The Science Delusion

[Binkie The Clown]

44. It astounds me how quickly civility goes out the window

when someone's cherished beliefs are questioned. And this applies to all sides of any debate here.

Shame on those posters who so quickly descend to insults, shouting and name calling. Frankly, in doing so you are not helping your cause one bit.

By shouting "you're a stupid poopy head" at one another you are not behaving like adults. You are behaving like Congress! If you have something solid to base your conclusions on, share it. If you have nothing solid to base your conclusions on then just admit it, and stop acting like children on the playground.

[NickB79]

53. How ironic we point and laugh at global warming deniers like Inhofe who "ignore the science"

And yet we have thread upon thread here on DU where the basic tenets of science are shat upon over and over again.

[Binkie The Clown]

55. If you had read the article at the link

You would see that NO basic principles of science were questioned.

Don't be a headline reader. Read the whole thing before reflexively passing judgement.

If it is replies to the OP that you accuse then, please, list which basic tenets of science were "shat" upon, and in which posts, so that we can at the very least, evaluate your claim objectively. As it stands, you claim is vacuous, and until backed up with evidence, has to be considered an emotional response rather than a rational one. If you wish to make a rational objection then do be specific about your objections.

[NickB79]

56. It propagates the "all scientists are just lying for money" mythos

Especially but not only in those branches of science concerned with medicine, pharmacology, and nutrition, the prostitution of the scientific process by business interests has become an open scandal. When a scientist gets behind a podium and makes a statement about the safety or efficacy of a drug, a medical treatment, or what have you, the first question asked by an ever-increasing number of people outside the scientific community these days is “Who’s paying him?”

Which, ironically, is the what my example (Inhofe) says all the time about global warming:

http://grist.org/article/2010-02-25-james-inhofe-senate-top-skeptic-explains-climate-hoax-theory/

When in actually, the VAST majority of scientists do not operate in this manner. He in fact only offers ONE link to back up the ENTIRETY of his central tenet:

These days, in any field where science comes into contact with serious money, scientific studies are increasingly just another dimension of marketing. From influential researchers being paid to put their names on dubious studies to give them unearned credibility to the systematic concealment of “outlying” data that doesn’t support the claims made for this or that lucrative product, the corruption of science is an ongoing reality, and one that existing safeguards within the scientific community are not effectively countering.

Are they increasingly succumbing to marketing? Is this true, or BS he pulled out of his ass because it's what he thinks to be true? He offered only one citation to back this up (though he promises later he's heard plenty more, and asks us to believe him on it), and that particular link is very specific to one British conflict of interest in their food industry, not a synopsis of a broader, global problem in science itself.

And, just for good measure, he throws up enough strawmen to keep my livestock in bedding for a year:

Parents who encounter a medical industry that would rather medicate than heal are more likely to listen to anti-vaxxers; Americans who watch climate change activists demand that the rest of the world cut its carbon footprint, while the activists themselves get to keep cozy middle-class lifestyles, are more likely to believe that global warming is a politically motivated hoax; Christians who see atheists using evolution as a stalking horse for their ideology are more likely to turn to creation science

-Building on the quasi-conspiracy theory that modern medicine is only interested in treating, not curing diseases because cures aren't as profitable
-Sounds an awful lot like the RW talking point about how big a house Al Gore has
-The myth of the militant atheist shitting on the poor, persecuted Christians

I'm surprised he didn't throw something about a man-hating, penis-chopping femi-Nazi into the mix just to hit all the bases.

[Binkie The Clown]

57. Fascinating

You read into that piece a lot more than I did. I really don't see that he said what you claimed he said. I'm wondering which one of us is suffering from confirmation bias. More likely, we are probably both guilty of that (unless, of course, you wish to claim infallibility for your interpretation.)

You do realize that he was talking about perceptions. "The view from the outside."

It doesn’t matter, by the way, how inaccurate that view is in specific cases, how many honest men and women are laboring at lab benches, or how overwhelming the pressure to monetize research that’s brought to bear on scientists by university administrations and corporate sponsors: none of that finds its way into the view from outside, and in the long run, the view from outside is the one that counts.

I can't even begin to tell you how many times I've heard ordinary people presented with some new medical or nutritional finding say words to the effect that "You know you can't believe them because they are going to change their minds tomorrow." That is the "view from the outside" that the blog post is all about.

The problem he points out in that blog post is exactly the problem you point out.

Your title: It propagates the "all scientists are just lying for money" mythos

His words: The same process on a larger and far more dangerous scale is shaping attitudes toward science across a wide and growing sector of American society.

Your words: When in actually, the VAST majority of scientists do not operate in this manner.

His words, cited above: It doesn’t matter, by the way, how inaccurate that view is in specific cases, how many honest men and women are laboring at lab benches...

It sounds to me like you both agree that there is a problem, and you both agree on the nature of the problem, but you don't agree on the ultimate cause of the problem. Ironically, neither of you is providing much in the way of citations to support your views. I tend to agree with his point of view because I, too, have seen the kind of specific cases he uses in his anecdote. I had a medical condition that several doctors told me I would have to take medication for for the rest of my life. I dug deeper and found quite a number of M.D.s who had reversed that very condition in their patients using a non-drug method. I tried the "unconventional" non-drug approach and reversed my problem completely. Now, many years later, I still do not take the drugs I took for many years because my doctors told me there was no other way.

Yes, that is just an anecdote. But it's an anecdote that happened to me, and I read peer reviewed papers by several M.D.s with hard and fast statistics showing very nearly 100% cure rates using their approach. The real science backs up the non-drug approach. After medical school, quit a bit of the education M.D.s get is from drug company reps telling what to prescribe for what conditions. Not to cure, mind you, but to medicate the symptoms away.

So, in spite of my scientific training (I have only a Masters degree in engineering, so I won't claim to be a scientist) I have a deep respect for science, and a deep distrust of many scientists. I believe in global climate change because I can read and understand the science. I believe in evolution because I can read and understand the science. I believe that drug companies have a lot of researchers in their pockets because I can read and understand the science.

We clearly need better science education in this country and more emphasis on critical thinking. But critical thinking does not mean blind acceptance of "the scientist's" word about something. We need to be able to read and understand the science for ourselves.

Then you add: "Sounds an awful lot like the RW talking point about how big a house Al Gore has"

I have followed this man's blog for many years. If you knew anything about him you would know he is the furthest thing from a right winger that it is possible to be. What's that rule about "he who evokes "Hitler first..." Well around here it seems to be "He who calls anyone he disagrees with a right-winger first..." So in a sense "RW" is just another curse words flung around to be insulting for the sake of being insulting, as opposed to providing any enlightenment concerning the matter under discussion.

You sum up with "I'm surprised he didn't throw something about a man-hating, penis-chopping femi-Nazi into the mix just to hit all the bases."

Really? Do you honestly consider that a reasonable claim, or it is just hyperbole meant to belittle the opposition? You sound like someone interested in factual discussion. If so, then we should stick to factual discussion and leave character assassination to the children.

[ND-Dem]

61. "I have only a Masters degree in engineering, so I won't claim to be a scientist" = well, "the

science guy" (Bill Nye) only has a BS in Engineering, and he's not shy about claiming to be a scientist, and the "scientists" here at DU claim him as one, so you shouldn't hesitate.

[Binkie The Clown]

62. I will call myself an avid and enthusiastic science groupie. How's that? n/t

[ND-Dem]

64. then you cede the ground to people like bill nye and the kibbitzers at DU.

[Binkie The Clown]

65. I Yam What I Yam. (toot toot).

And I loves me some spinach.

[magical thyme]

81. that Inhofe chairs the congressional committee on environment kind of proves JMG's point

That so much of the country is "faith-based" and denies the validity of scientific research, believes climate change is a hoax, etc. also supports him.

One problem is that this is not an "article" so is presented out of context. It is a blog post from a long and ongoing series of posts about the current decline of the US in particular and the world in general, due to peak oil. Without context, the post may appear as an attack on scientists, but it is not intended as such. He is simply pointing out a trend, what he sees as the cause of the trend, and what he believes we (his readers) need to be done about it.

Greer is actually extremely well versed in the sciences. One activity he actively encourages, for those who are so inclined and have the ability, is to do their own "garage" science projects where they can, especially focused on energy efficiency and low-tech, appropriate tech and clean tech for things like heating, communications, etc.

[DemocraticWing]

58. Anti-science Republicans are morons.

At the risk of bashing fellow party members, anti-science Democrats don't strike me as much better

[magical thyme]

82. name-calling doesn't generally win people over or educate them about anything other than

your inability to engage in meaningful discussion.

So thank you for proving one of JMG's points. He is actually extremely well-versed in many of the sciences and very pro-science.

[HuckleB]

86. This OP and this thread are bogus excuses to ignore science when preconceptions...

... are not upheld by science.

It's the ugly, bad propaganda. Yet, so few at DU challenge it.

And those who do are fatigued. There's just no point, anymore. Too few people care about getting things right. They just want to believe they are right, in the moment. Nothing else seems to matter.

[ND-Dem]

59. money corrupts, and big money corrupts absolutely big-time

[Binkie The Clown]

60. Preaching to the choir

[gollygee]

72. People are skeptical because of how politicized everything is

including regulations and scientific research. Corporations and their money are involved in everything, and people know that.

[ladjf]

77. False reports by bribed scientists aren't science, they are counterfeit artifacts. nt

[Binkie The Clown]

78. Exactly. But the general populace doesn't know that. Hence...

"The View from Outside"

It's the false perception of science by the average person that he addresses, not real science. And a big part of the cause of that problem is false reports by bribed scientists.

[ladjf]

79. In other words, they are selling "snake oil" under the guise

of legitimate science. The con goes on.

[Bjorn Against]

83. Exxon has tried very hard to buy scientists to refute climate change without much success

If it were so easy to buy off scientists then there would not be a consensus on climate change, the people with the money want studies telling us climate change is not happening but virtually every scientific study goes against what the wealthy energy interests want us to hear.

Sorry, but linking to the Archdruid Report as a way of refuting science is really no better than linking to Pat Robertson to refute science.

[KingCharlemagne]

84. A really great thread and discussion. I got to it a bit late, so am recommending it

to increase exposure to it.