[ExI] Discontent with the path physics is taking

[Kelly Anderson]

On Sat, Aug 20, 2011 at 11:30 AM, David Lubkin <lubkin at unreasonable.com> wrote:
>  Kelly wrote:
> Another explanation for what's reported is that minimizing AGP is in the
> perceived interests of the Chinese ruling class, since their
> industrialization
> strategies might be harmed if they conceded its validity. In another era,
> fear of offending TPTB definitely did affect the public stances of
> scientists
> in communist countries, e.g., in the USSR.

Exactly. So, if the government in China can change the outcome of
research done there, why would we assume that our government doesn't
do the same here? I believe that it does, specifically by choosing who
gets grants and who doesn't.

> In the USSR and the PRC, certain fields of research were declared
> "bourgeois pseudoscience," and banned e.g., [from Wikipedia]
>
> << Scientific dissent from Lysenko's theories of environmentally acquired
> inheritance was formally outlawed in 1948, and for the next several years
> opponents were purged from held positions, and many imprisoned. >>

That could have an outcome on research. On the other hand, it appears
to me that the USSR spent way more than we did investigating ESP,
UFOs, remote viewing and other things that we quickly labelled as
pseudo science.

> I'm not clear how strongly scientific research is skewed in the PRC
> nowadays, but the possibility exists that these scientists have made their
> anti-AGP statements out of self-preservation, not from belief in them.

Of course that is possible. Perhaps even probable. But who is to say
that US scientists are not acting from similar motives.

> (This posting should not be taken to address either global warming per
> se or whether skews are also seen in capitalist societies. I'm just
> discussing your conclusion that the Chinese scientists believed what
> they said.)

Good, let's keep it that way. :-)

Culture and zeitgeist has just as much impact on the skewing of
scientific results (at least the ones that get published in peer
reviewed publications) as totalitarian regimes.

To bring up another hot potato, as an example only, nobody would dare
publish a scientific paper today that was viewed as being somehow
anti-gay, even if it were good science. Those kinds of papers would
only get published by the 700 club or similar organizations, where
they lose their potency as "science". So a theoretically good paper
that found some anti-gay correlation would never be viewed as
"science" by the general populace, even if it were well researched and
even ultimately true. Everyone accepts without significant scientific
proof, however, that gay people are more creative, especially if they
are left handed or appear on HGTV... ;-)

-Kelly