Does the government regulate science?

Science is not only knowledge, in recent years it was the guarantor of economic progress, which guarantees social stability and creates an adequate historical context for the progress of science, it is a virtuous circle, but in recent years science has degraded ,outrageous things like infinite ad hoc hypotheses to maintain frames junk theories that are a waste of time, but are promoted by scientists for personal reasons as true, both for the public and other scientists, especially young students who are hooked by junk science For example, things that happen in theoretical physics, psychoanalysis, medicine, history, geology, theoretical biology such as exobiology, that’s rubbish, we should prohibit hypotheses that are too speculative and only accept the data or only promote speculation about falsifiable things, for example string theory, grand unified theory and multiverses that is not falsifiable many times impossible energies are required, and if theory a of strings is not falsifiable, the only thing we can prove is supersymmetry, but we could never see extra dimensions, we should regulate science or university students and the public will be hooked and they will say things like that there was an alien civilization on Mars and similar non-falsifiable hypotheses It is a hidden lie behind mathematics and a very harmful obstacle to progress…
What do you think?

Communication is important for intellectual development. But in recent years on the internet communication has degraded, outrageous things like infinite ad hoc hypotheses to maintain junk theories that are a waste of time, but promoted by people dedicated to putting up elaborate websites to promote this stuff. All kinds of conspiracy theories and pseudo-science that’s rubbish. We should regulate communication or students and the public will be hooked on all kinds of strange ideas with all their own ideas about what should be called knowledge instead of the one the government determines is the right one.

Or we could let people do what they like whether it is experimenting with flying machines like the Wright brothers or experimenting with electronic devices like Edison and Bell. We might even let people babble all sorts of anti-constitutional nonsense like in this OP threatening to turn science into even more of a tool of the government than recent administrations have done (science will be gone replaced by pseudo-scientific rhetoric, but that is the price of progress towards a brave new world).

2 Likes

Where in that ignorant weak hostile diatribe are these well regulated occupations? Employing 25,000,000 - that’s twenty five million - science graduates in the US.

1 Like

I’m glad you aren’t in charge of policy, funding, etc.

Whose government? Which country? And whose science?

It’s a big world. Many countries and many governments.

Science is international.

3 Likes

Some have tried imposing severe regulations on scientists. During Stalin’s draconian reign of the Soviet Union, Lysenkoism was the official position on inheritance, and Mendel and his adherents were even declared to be enemies of the people. Scientists who accepted standard genetics risked losing their livelihoods and even their lives. The effects were disastrous, of course.

No, Lysenko, you can’t make fruit sweeter by watering a fruit tree with sugar water!

Well, indirectly you might as sugar water may well promote soil health and lead to healthier plants that produce better fruit. It is common to use molasses as a plant supplement. Which does not support Lysenko of course, but does show how science is not simple and often messy.

I know those against human induced global warming (climate change) are usually convinced the need for funding largely drives its “consensus.”

You’re kidding, right? The misuse of science and pseudoscience have certainly been able to guarantee economic progress for some in some evil government hands, often for a short time. I think for example of the perversion of early understanding of genetic inheritance that became known as “eugenics,” imported from my own Battle Creek, Michigan to NAZI Germany in the 1920s. (Thank you Dr. Kellogg!) Who wants the kind of “social stability” that that “science” provided for a short moment, or who wants to be a target of the “Final Solution?”

Or maybe you have in mind the Tuskegee Syphilis Study, which used Black men from the Tuskegee Institute (one of the few institutions of higher education available to African Americans at the time), as the untreated control group among infected men.

Right. Do you mean crazy stuff like theoretical physics from the early 1900s has been completely debunked as fraudulent?

Maybe you mean that because Freud didn’t understand it all, and psychoanalysts today don’t understand it all, but mentally ill people, who had been condemned to hellish existences in asylums even 50 years ago actually get help today that allows many of them to life more independent lives, The Government should regulate such research?

Maybe you have in mind that because absurdly speculative things like the Germ Theory has been refuted so thoroughly, no one takes it seriously or would rely on it in any way?

Perhaps you have in mind that some historians are “complicating” history and dispelling mythologies of dominating groups that keep power in the same group’s hands over centuries? So the dismantling of illegitimate societal uses of power might lead to a truer form of democracy?

I really don’t need to go on. Do I?

What I think is that you need to find a serious, academic science library with professional librarians on staff, who can provide you bibliographic instruction for the better development of serious research skills, and point you to the resources available in such a library. Stop “searching” around on the Internet, which is very much like the subway station walls, covered in graffiti. Learn to do real research with real information sources. Then dig in.

1 Like

And you think this causes the next generation of fruit to be sweeter as well?

Of course not. But it complicates things. And perhaps inadvertently might make an observer think so, especially if they were biased and chose sweeter fruit from a genetic variant to grow the next generation, Thus confusing correlation with causation.

Doesn’t seem likely. Do you think that this is what happened with Lysenko?

Soil type affects the taste of produce. So Jersey sweet corn and blueberries are the best. And sweet onions from the South are the best. And if you wait until a light frost to dig turnips they will taste better.
So there are many other factors that affect the taste of produce. Luther Burbank developed many cultivars with highly desirable features, and he didn’t know squat about genetics.

So the question is very different from your first post that
Is suppose to tease it out more.

Do governments regulate science? Sure. The government regulates everything.

But your venting needs to be narrowed. What’s one specific thing you’re mad about. You mentioned geology. How is the government weaponizing geology in a way to harm Americans and presumably your sect of Christianity?

What do you mean by germ theory? Germ theory to me
Is that microorganisms can cause diseases and complications within their hosts.

Mi,
I deliberately (and sarcastically) used the term that I’ve heard used by people, who would like to encourage doubt in regard to the validity of real biology and medicine, the practitioners of which understand the variety of microorganisms that make us sick, how those organisms live, die, breed and create disease, and who work to develop preventative or therapeutic treatments that help us survive exposure or infection by these mircroorganisms.
Kendel

I’m sorry I don’t understand very well what you are saying, but no, I am not against global warming, although it is not a favor or against it, it is best a civilized intellectual discussion, but honestly, we humans are the superior beings and those who do not survive the Anthropocene, well, it is natural selection, I just think we should protect some specimens in case in the future they have some practical application for industry, such as the fungi from which we extract antibiotics.

I mean string theory, quantum multiverse, quasi steady state of smolin, that is, universal Darwinism, instead of wasting time, why don’t they spend the money doing something useful and solve the problem of non-conventional superconductors?

Maybe you should be useful and grow food.

1 Like

I actually pulled topics you listed in your OP.

1 Like

As far as which ideas get funding, that is usually left up to the experts in the field instead of politicians, which I think is a good thing. Scientists are the best judges of which ideas show promise.

As to unfalsifiable ideas, that’s where all theories start. At one time we had no way to detect the Higgs Boson, but we do now. All ideas in science start at the unfalsifiable stage, but through hard work and construction of better instruments we can potentially test these ideas if we think they are worth it.

Universal Darwinism? What in the world is that?

“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6

This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.