0

I wrote in a comment that I don't agree that scientists should be paid for doing things that are of no benefit whatsoever for the ones from whose pocket their salary is paid. As an example I gave three people who took a considerable time in coming up with calculations involved in a paradox (the information paradox). There endless musings (I have seen them at work) led to a paper in which the paradox was alledgely solved but there are others who deny this. This paper was written entirely for self satisfaction and appraisel from others. Why should the tax payer oay for this?

Is it this what Feyerabend meant by saying that state and science should be separated ("Science in a Free Society")? Would the world really be in a deplorable state (as the argument often goes) if science and state are not separated? Isn't the world in a deplorable state already because of science being made the new state religion?

It would be different if the scientists were paid by people who really wanted the three scientists to make their thousands of calculations to arrive at a priorly determined result.

Deschele Schilder
  • 1
  • 6
  • 17
  • 1
    You never know when research in basic science will be useful down the line. Knowledge leads to power, even if it's not obvious how at first. Aside from usefulness, understanding the world is what puts us above animals; it is our minds that have moral worth, not our bodies. Science thus inherently elevates us, a valuable goal in itself. If we accept that basic science ought to be done, it is necessary for the state to fund it, because basic science doesn't appeal to a corporate short-term profit motive. – causative Jul 07 '21 at 21:28
  • 1
    Also, corporation-backed studies are at greater risk of bias, only reporting results favorable to their employer. We've seen this with how the tobacco industry and the fossil fuel industry have paid for studies, contrary to fact, that say everything they're doing is A-OK. It takes independent researchers, not beholden to a corporation, to dispel the illusion. – causative Jul 07 '21 at 21:31
  • @causative I agree with your last comment. Corporates should be closely kept an eye on. But then the entirity of corporates itself should investigated too. If science and state wouldnt have gone along in the first place corporates wouldnt – Deschele Schilder Jul 07 '21 at 21:50
  • 1
    Yeah, and who is going to be qualified to "keep an eye on" fraudulent research by corporations, other than an outside researcher trained in the field, and funded by the state? A layman certainly can't do it. Regulation of corporate research requires state funded researchers. – causative Jul 07 '21 at 22:01
  • (I had to put my wife in bed) ...exist in the first place. But they do. So the best we can do is limit their actions as far as possible (to stop them transforming the world in their image) and to stop it being obligatory to learn it in our schools. Science is just one worldview aming many and is not inherently better. See "The Tyranny of Science". – Deschele Schilder Jul 07 '21 at 22:03
  • 1
    Sorry, science is inherently a better worldview than superstition or just believing whatever makes you feel good. Science is what you get when you go out and look at the world and try to figure out what it's doing, instead of consulting ancient dogma or social media. "Ah," you say, "but going out and looking at the evidence is only one approach of many! Couldn't it be just as valid to not do those things?" No. No, it could not. – causative Jul 07 '21 at 22:07
  • @causative I think the laymen should decide if they want fraudulous or polluting corporates may exist. The oeople directky involved. Not some specialist froup of scientist. What can they do? – Deschele Schilder Jul 07 '21 at 22:09
  • Laymen like the people who think 5g causes cancer, or that airplanes deploy chemtrails, or that essential oils are an effective treatment, or that covid vaccines make you magnetic? Are these the people you want setting policy? Or do you only want people whose views are informed by science setting policy? – causative Jul 07 '21 at 22:13
  • @causative According to your own standards it is better only. Why should someone be obliged consulting science instead of an oracle? Look in what deplorable state the world is thanks to science. It would have been a much more beuatifull one still without it. Though the internet wouldnt be there indeed. As many other things that make life worth. The easy way serves us but we are serving the easy way too. There are just to many man made objects and economists say that production must grow...according to the second law of thermodyn. increased artifical order results in a diminishing biodiversity. – Deschele Schilder Jul 07 '21 at 22:20
  • @causative I dont say I want these people as leaders. The examples you gave can be resolved in science itself and they are a consequence of scientific thing itself. Chemtrials and magnetic are scientific concepts. – Deschele Schilder Jul 07 '21 at 22:54

0 Answers0