Take a look at the link from Wikipedia below...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_Affair
Do you believe that scientist have the ability to fully objective? Is objectivity even possible? Should there be stricter laws establishing the publishing of these scientific journals? Does the public give scientist too much credibility?
2006-12-18 03:31:05 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
If you read the wikipedia article, you'll note its about the system of accountability within the scientific community not the mistakes of a single scienctist.
2006-12-18 03:40:48 · update #1
If you read the wikipedia article, you'll note its about the system of accountability within the scientific community not the mistakes of a single scientist.
2006-12-18 03:40:58 · update #2
Aviator: That is assuming "group think" never happens.
2006-12-18 03:48:31 · update #3
You're trying to use one scientist to generalize all scientists, like you people always do. Most scientists are very objective. The real problem is politicians (mostly conservative) warping science to fit their own needs.
2006-12-18 03:34:02 · answer #1 · answered by incorrigible_misanthrope 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
that was one article in a NON peer reviewed journals... which means nobody reads it or checks it over. there have been dozens if not hundreds of studies that have linked CO2 to global warming in peer reviewed journals, which means the article is checked over and reviewed by many experts. hell, just look outside its getting progressively warmer have weve had something like 7 of the last 10 winters have been the warmest winters ever. and why would anybody makeup global warming? just for fun to scare people?
and even if global warming was a hoax, its not like cutting back on pollution is a bad thing. why SHOULDNT we cut back on emissions and conserve energy, other than it might cost a little bit of money? you think its a bad thing to put less crap into the air you breathe? could you give us some pros of polluting more? no? then quit complaining....
global warming probably wont be as bad Al Gore says, but the effects are difficult to predict and its very possible that it could be. and its a pretty big gamble (not to mention stupid) to sit on your hands and not make any effort to conserve a little energy.
and you do realize oil will probably run out in 50-100 years which means we will have to find new and renewable energy sources possibly within your lifetime anyway if we want to keep living the way we do, right? and thats not a liberal conspiracy, thats pretty well been established even by the oil companies. why not get started sooner rather than later to ease the economic repurcussions?
and if this is happening, how do you know its not the other way around; global warming is real and conservative groups who have monetary interests arent feeding lies and propaganda?
2006-12-18 03:55:23 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
The system of accountability within the scientific community is intact. The article you reference is outside of the process of "peer review." Any college student can tell you that a non-peer reviewed article is about as useful for citation as a wikipedia article.
Had this article been peer reviewed, you would have something. But since it was not, your argument holds little weight. All you have proven is that some editors don't fact check.
2006-12-18 03:47:41 · answer #3 · answered by Schmorgen 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
science is not an exact science (no pun intended). the answer to your question in order. No, objectivity is not possible. No we do not need stricter laws on the press, just more responsible scientist. Yes and no, those who sway to the left give science more than it deserves. But there is an element in this postmodern culture who totally distrust science. those on the right like science, yet know it makes mistakes and is often antagonistic to them.
2006-12-18 03:38:32 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Global warming is a fact. The part that is debatable is the impact humans have on it. Evolution is a theory, but the best one we have so far. Much of science is debatable, which is why it ALL should be taught, and people should read it all. If the scientists are wrong, pollution is down...if the republicans are wrong, we're dead. I'm going to go with science...it can't hurt anyone.
2006-12-18 03:35:45 · answer #5 · answered by hichefheidi 6 · 5⤊ 0⤋
Your post proves that you CAN'T use bad science to further an agenda. Scientists will eventually call out those who are making up facts. So, based on your post, if something like Global Warming has stood up over time in the science world, it is correct.
2006-12-18 03:46:48 · answer #6 · answered by Take it from Toby 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
1. Journals are subject to extensive peer reviews these days
2. No, nothing is fully objective.. not even Newtons Laws of Motion.. but we pretty much except some things
3. If you don't believe it fine.. in 40 years I'll have a good laugh at your expense.
2006-12-18 03:38:44 · answer #7 · answered by pip 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Yes. Exhibit A: Al Gore.
2006-12-18 04:56:00 · answer #8 · answered by yupchagee 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Al Bore seems to believe its working out for them.
2006-12-18 03:42:01 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes they could and have, i.e. Al Gore's movie, Bad Science
Yes it is passable to be completely objective, that's what science is
supposed to be about. Unfortunately, scientists have forgotten.
that little fact.
MERRY CHRISTMAS and have a nice day.
Thank you very much, while you're up!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
2006-12-18 03:37:33 · answer #10 · answered by producer_vortex 6 · 0⤊ 4⤋