I want to be clear about my response. I took offense to the fossil fuel company talking point that climate scientists' research is corrupted by the process of getting government grants. There is real corruption in corporate-funded science in the pharmaceutical business where negative results are suppressed, making some drugs look more beneficial and safer than they actually are. Corporate funded research has a tendency to be tainted by the profit motive. Government funded research does not have the profit motive for potential bias.
The process of government funding may be affected by group think on "what's hot" but strong competition of ideas and intense scientific debate prevent corruption of the basic science. The notion, promoted by fossil fuel interests and internet trolls, that there's some vast international conspiracy of scientists to misinform or defraud the public so that they can continue to get government grants to do work on climate science is beyond absurd. It's anti-intellectualism at its worst. Yet, the U.S. government is now led by a con man who actively promoted that vile lie.
I know that you did not go that far in what you wrote but that's today's political environment. Scientists have been bullied by dishonest right wing attacks such as "Climategate" for years and that has negatively affected the communication of science to the general public.
however it sounded, no personal or specific offense was meant, but it was meant to qualify the output of science in general, and even more make people verify as much and as good as they can because statements and work of science have lead to among the worst outcomes in history, beside the fact that of course we all benefit a lot from the work of science.
i used a few terms that i hoped made it clear but i gladly repeat:
- many not all
- in my opinion, no dogma or absolutism.
further the negative example are more prominent in human minds like are accidents and
other negative headlines etc.
this does not mean that i find this ok, it just makes it a bit more understandable.
further when it comes to the main reason of that post, it is because many times, not only scientists, people with a top education and/or knowledge in some fields or group of fields, disard easily and in a condescending manner input that comes from so called laymen while in history many break through ideas came from people who know little about the topic but had phantasy and logical thinking, an analytic mind so to say.
there are quite a bit too many "holy grails" (holy cows) that whoever speaks agains is
ridiculed and/or muted. it's a kind of elite thinking and title and money worshipping and
i'm for neutral exchange of ideas and information, not for preset patterns into which
all that don't belong can hardly break in.
then there are the specialists and those with good knowledge in many fields and one can perhaps acquire several doctorates but not each of those, does not make genuine and honest thinking
less worth to listen and to consider.
now a young person might be unsure about the quality of most his/her ideas while over the years one can somehow measure the quota and even though it's hard to proof, if one has feel for things and the quote is high enough there is not much one can do to break that self-confidence, even though there is not only room but kind of a certainly that errors occur.
for someone who errs 80% it's easy to shut up and step back while for others it's one of the hardest thing, one gets used to everything