On Science
You make a false distinction between “politics” and “science,” one based on argument and the other on “objectivity.” They are of exactly the same form, conducted in exactly the same way, by exactly the same people.
Both are done by humans, humans who want. Whatever truth is out there is barely detectable through the mist of envy and need and hope. They will make their words and their numbers say anything they need them to.
- Are Women Prone To Paranormal Beliefs? at TheLastPsychiatrist.com
… and it is far easier to report on “research” which reinforces an agenda – the problem of sorting out fact from contrivance (particularly if the “researcher” believes his or her own distortions of truth) cannot and should not be left to the news media but, most unfortunately, it cannot be left to the news consumer either.
Update: T+37:20:00
Need examples of the organizations disingenuously blurring the line between politics and science? An institute is defined by Princeton WordNet as “an association organized to promote art or science or education” – the following are, in fact, political lobbyist organizations and industry trade groups. The organizations’ names belie their intentions, because who wouldn’t trust Gavin Gibbons of the prestigious National Fisheries Institute?
He must be a respected scientist and not just some lame PR flack, right? *
They don’t research anything, they just game the system with political contributions and spew a seemingly-endless stream of press releases.
- Advertising Research Foundation
- Marketing Research Association
- Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America
- American Beverage Institute
- American Frozen Food Institute
- American Institute of Constructors
- American Iron and Steel Institute
- American Meat Institute
- American Petroleum Institute
- Community Associations Institute
- Edison Electric Institute
- Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries
- Investment Company Institute
- National Fisheries Institute
- Nuclear Energy Institute
- Pellet Fuels Institute
- Tobacco Institute
* Yes, I pick on Gavin Gibbons regularly. Why? Because he seems to be using automated means to post comments to blogs like this one (in which case he is a spammer – if not that, then at least blithely foolish) and he says things like “I have had a look at an advanced copy of the Sept/Oct edition of Mother Jones. And I must say “Tuna Surprise” is not much of a surprise coming from such a blatantly agenda-driven outfit.” while he works for an industry trade group and, quite obviously, minimizing and/or discrediting negative press is his employer’s sole agenda where posting comments to my blog is concerned. If you can find a more transparent hypocrite, please let me know.
i’m sure there’s someone to pay for research that supports particular business interests. the governments of the world definitely have their hands in a lot of research too.
that said, there’s also funding for publishing research in journals and funding from various organizations with competing interests, so the cards aren’t entirely stacked to one side. if you can demonstrate that some publication is bogus, you might get a platform to say it. i suppose it would be ideal if there was always funding coming in from several competing sources.
it might be worth researching different fields of research and making note of which organizations are responsible for their funding to find out which fields *should be* biased and which fields *shouldn’t be* according to their pay-masters.