Yes, I agree, that the pressures that capitalism puts upon scientists to manipulate their data are profound - almost as bad as the kind of pressures that scientists in the Soviet Union were subjected to.
The example of the global panel on climate change, strong-armed into
adopting the theory of anthropic climate change for political reasons,
at a point where evidence was already being published that did not fit
the proposed model is a case in point.
>
>CB: Perhaps it is your unquestioning optimism about how scientific discoveries
>are likely to be used under our capitalist regime that starts to move toward a
>religious type of outlook. "Don't worry , be happy" optimism is not scientific;
>it is not "questioning everything" and looking at the "objective" history of
>capitalism to warrant your answers about what capitalism is likely to do in the
>future with powerful scientific discoveries.
>
Charles, this is a sleight of hand. I say 'optimistic' and you smuggle in the charge 'unquestioning' as if that was my case. But my case is precisely the opposite. I am the one defending rational enquiry against religious belief.
In message <F159Odutox7nyeKzGZu00001d42 at hotmail.com>, Carl Remick
<carlremick at hotmail.com> writes
>
>I can't accuse you of laziness, James. However, your strenuous efforts do
>nothing to refute my point that belief in science is, at base, a religious
>belief.
Well that might be because my arguments are unconvincing, or it might be because your point is not a point at all, but an article of faith, and therefore beyond refutation.
> A technological society involves much more than a mere willingness
>to "test every proposition." It involves a willingness to stake countless
>lives and great fortunes on claims that are merely provisional and subject
>to endless correction.
You talk of claims that are 'merely provisional' as if that was a weakness. On the contrary, it is the provisional character of scientific knowledge that is its strength. Where the opportunity - exigency - to refine and develop understanding further is at a premium, knowledge is placed on a much firmer foundation. By contrast dogmatic thinking *assumes* that the whole truth can be grasped exhaustively at once.
Which is the more secure footing for knowledge, then the 'merely provisional' scientific understanding, or the dogmatic? In appearance the dogmatist apes certainty, but his dogma is in truth at a wholly tangential relation to reality. The 'merely provisional' rational findings, by contrast are being corrected and reappraised all the time.
> As we so often see, one generation's industrial
>miracle is merely the next generation's high-toxicity cleanup job. (Again,
>the problem with GM technology is its potential for creating an
>uncontainable, self-replicating disaster -- beyond the scope of any such
>remediation).
Do we see so often? Your one example is wholly speculative. No evidence exists of any harm to man from genetic modification. But your dogmatic belief that it is an 'uncontainable, self-replicating disaster, waiting to happen' needs no empirical proof, because it is a subjective prejudice on your part, not susceptible to reasonable argument.
>
>The really curious thing is, even if certain scientific findings are in fact
>true in an objective sense, most people have to accept that fact as a matter
>of faith. For a scientist, proof of principle comes from studying two
>microscope slides and realizing that slight variations in the shapes shown
>thereon confirm a hypothesis. If shown those same slides, however, a
>layperson will see only indistinguishable blobs; that person can believe in
>the "proof" provided on faith alone.
This is beneath you. All you are saying is that there is a division of labour in society. The warrant that the particular research laboratory has to expect a degree of trust from their peers is the reproducibility of published results. This was the test that defeated Dr Pushtai, whose scary results with mice were not reproducible.
The analogy would be citations in sociological or historical papers. I take it on trust that the quotation has not been made up, because it would be too much to re-check every quote. But the writer who does make up his quotes takes a substantial risk of being exposed.
-- James Heartfield