amok: ahh, but the slant a scientist gives is based on his own bias, such as fame or wealth. If the doctor presenting this drug is invested in the pharmaceutical company, or a competitor, there is a choice here. Also in science, people believe in different theories, it has also been proven that scientists are more likely to promote those theories more aligned to their own world view, not those that opposes it. so they can give different slants there.

Mafwek: Of course, hence why I said that political beliefs/bias can help in development of science - one own s worldview can shape their theories and they may even be correct. However, one's own interest in fame and wealth is not matter of worldview shaping science as it is the case promoting one's own interest by (ab)using science.

Now about those doctors: until we have evidence that they were on certain's company payroll, we can't claim their refusal or acceptance of the cure was biased by interest or not. Seems to me it was simple psychology test, and I can't say I have a respect for that branch of science.

squid830: OK then - what's a better alternative?

I hope that there is something better than democracy - not just due to bureaucracy, but also due to it being much easier to manipulate people to go for stupid (short-term) ideas than it is to convince people to back logical ideas for the long term.

Agree one needs critical thinking in education - unfortunately this has been distorted from critical thinking to SJW politics infusion, and even worse these days it appears to be at the expense of actually learning something useful (which required before learning critical thinking - learning the basics such as reading/writing, math, etc.).

Somehow I doubt that there is ever a system that is perfect. Why? Because all of these systems rely on people, and people tend to suck. The more powerful the person, the more crap they've had to do to get there, which generally increases the likelihood that they're assholes. All power structures inevitably suffer from this - even structures that were originally designed to encourage excellence (e.g. where people are supposedly rewarded based on skills and merit that's relevant).

The best thing about democracy is the fact that there's an explicit option to change the Government on a regular basis, where everyone's vote counts. Sure votes get manipulated by various media, but again that comes down to "people" and how easily manipulated they are.

In a dictatorship (for example), one would have to overthrow the existing system, which would generally involve a coup or an uprising of some sort - which generally wouldn't happen unless things were really bad (and if the incumbent possesses Stalin-like ruthlessness, the chance may never come due to any hint of dissent being squashed immediately).

Oh and there definitely is such a thing as "too many safeguards". We've got tons here - an Obudsman for almost every industry, strict consumer laws, safety laws etc. Unfortunately this causes vast amounts of red tape, while simultaneously encouraging stupidity. Example: Just because some idiot started a bushfire with fireworks, they're effectively illegal most places (except the capital, strangely enough). And while all those "anti-corruption" watchdogs or whatever give many people a nice fuzzy feeling of Government transparency, they're all staffed by moronic public servants - who are generally mates with the other idiotic public servants who they're supposed to be "watching".

Sarang: Well I'd been hinting about the system in my comments and one of the smartest people in the world advocates it. I don't feel comfortable outright saying it because it scares those in power enough they murder those who advocate for it who make inroads.
Guess if you will but I'm not saying it out loud.

amok: no, the point was that the doctors who wrote the letter for the experiment used a fake drug and made up company, but presented the same scientific facts, just swapping mortality for survival rate. it was just to show that even natural science, though just facts and numbers, are biased in the way it is presented or promoted. there is noting neutral about science, even natural science.

Mafwek: Saying nothing is neutral about science seems to me like going too far in other direction. I cannot deny gravity, nor evolution or other natural facts. What I can deny is interpretation of those facts.

LootHunter: And provided goals of politics and science are aligned.

Both provisions are, obviously, false.

squid830: Oh and there definitely is such a thing as "too many safeguards". We've got tons here - an Obudsman for almost every industry, strict consumer laws, safety laws etc. Unfortunately this causes vast amounts of red tape, while simultaneously encouraging stupidity. Example: Just because some idiot started a bushfire with fireworks, they're effectively illegal most places (except the capital, strangely enough). And while all those "anti-corruption" watchdogs or whatever give many people a nice fuzzy feeling of Government transparency, they're all staffed by moronic public servants - who are generally mates with the other idiotic public servants who they're supposed to be "watching".

Mafwek: Now about those doctors: until we have evidence that they were on certain's company payroll, we can't claim their refusal or acceptance of the cure was biased by interest or not. Seems to me it was simple psychology test, and I can't say I have a respect for that branch of science.

GameRager: What about the Spanish Inquisition? Didn't those in power work quite well(in a manner of speaking) with those in power in religion at the time?

Mafwek: Saying nothing is neutral about science seems to me like going too far in other direction. I cannot deny gravity, nor evolution or other natural facts. What I can deny is interpretation of those facts.

GameRager: But even so, one would assume there are some out there who make such agreements behind closed doors(for good or ill, on small stages and large). Just as how many things are considered myth online/irl yet they've likely happened before(just no one's recorded them somehow).

An aside/addon: Didn't the big bang theory originate from a religious person/priest? Would that not qualify as science and religion "working together"?

GameRager: I didn't see the sgtuff you mention(and i'm not siding for such bad behavior if true), but saying one cannot make a proper argument because they hold "nasty" beliefs of some sort is like saying one can't love both meat and vegetables at the same time. They aren't mutually exclusive, you know.

LootHunter: Ok, the thing is, when people say "politics, religion and science don't mix" they mean that all three have different goals. Poliitcs it is a power play, religion is about finding own purpose and higher calling, science is a pursuit of knowledge. Yes, to some degree "don't mix" is hyperbolisation and in some cases those three goals for some people can be aligned. But more often than not those goals contradict each other.

=================================================

LootHunter: But being against racism and judging people by skin color ARE mutually exclusive beliefs. Because racism by definition is judging people based on their race. So you either believe that such judgement is ok or not - you can't believe both.

LootHunter: ...religion is about finding own purpose and higher calling, ...

StingingVelvet: I'm as agnostic as you can get, but I don't mind religious themes in games (or movies or whatever else).

toxicTom: As long as they don't try to proselytise... which I yet have to encounter in games, but is sometimes prevalent in other media.

toxicTom: As long as they don't try to proselytise... which I yet have to encounter in games, but is sometimes prevalent in other media.