Science Journals Have Become Intensely Political

Science proclaiming the moral implications of policy choices becomes more theological than scientific.  Attempting to persuade policy makers to adopt a given policy is not unbiased, apolitical objectivity, either.

Reporting the facts is one thing.  Opining on the moral implications of the facts is another thing entirely.

Oh yeah ..... i call it the "Academia" effect.

Our learning institutions are become liberal indoctrination centers more and more each year.

The so called pro science fascists have indeed made the field and its research and study into a rigid ideology and more a belief system.  The way the try to put down dissent and opposing views is pure control freak and cancel culture.  

A confused mess of misguided conspiratorial nonsense.   Good grief.

In science, opposing views are only as good as the evidence to support them. Since you never offer any evidence, your opposing views are generally worthless and easily dismissed.

It is important to distinguish the abuse / exploitation of science from science itself.

It seems many fail to make that distinction.

It is important to distinguish the abuse / exploitation of science from science itself.

It seems like the greatest failure to do that is coming from scientific journals and scientists with political agendas. The problem is coming from within the scientific fields.

Or perhaps political influence is affecting scientific fields? 

Scientific journals are not science.   Scientists with political agendas are not science.   People are not science.

I expect that is true - especially funding. But the professional demand to publish is also a factor, I think, in getting junk science published accompanied by dramatic conclusions and recommendations. 

I’m not sure what your point is supposed to be.

My point is that science is a thing distinct from the people who use it, advance it, promote it, abuse it.    Science is a corpus of knowledge (facts, equations, explanations, etc.) derived using a disciplined method which does a very good job of mitigating human flaws such as bias, laziness, dishonesty and although imperfect, it self-corrects.

Science is a method, discipline and body of knowledge.  No agents (people) are listed in the prior sentence.  And no celebrity or authority from people is listed either.  

Corrupt and incompetent scientists exists.   Many people use science (or distortions of scientific information) to advance their agendas.   The failings you highlight are the failings of human beings.   If you want to speak of the failings of science then point to fact that the method does not produce perfection ... that it does not yield absolute certain truth ... that even though it has demonstrably impacted our lives net positive in the large, nothing is ever proven true and the closest one can get to the truth is 99.999% confidence ... that the corpus of scientific knowledge (call them facts) are the best we have but are subject to correction and improvement and science continues.

I feel like you are arguing a point everyone agrees on. 

science is a thing distinct from the people who use it, advance it, promote it, abuse it

Yep. I don’t think I have seen anyone say otherwise. Not me, not other members, and not the seed.

The failings you highlight are the failings of human beings.

Yep.

If you want to speak of the failings of science

I don’t believe I said anything about the failings of science. I don’t see it as relevant to the seed. That’s probably why my comments have not covered that ground.

I feel like you are arguing a point everyone agrees on. 

Great.  Then no need for me to continue to explain my opening comment.

I don’t believe I said anything about the failings of science. I don’t see it as relevant to the seed. That’s probably why my comments have not covered that ground.

This:

Tacos @3.2 - It seems like the greatest failure to do that is coming from scientific journals and scientists with political agendas. The problem is coming from within the scientific fields.

in context of this:

TiG @3 - It is important to distinguish the abuse / exploitation of science from science itself.

Reads as though you see scientists and journals as being part of science itself.   That is the connotation I am responding to.   If that is not your intent then no need to belabor this.

You're the one who brought up "science" as a thing to be discussed. Not me.

You said it was important to make the distinction. That's fine, but I don't think it's important for the author of the seed because he is already doing that and didn't try to conflate the two.

However, I think it's fair to recognize that the point of the seed is that scientists (and those who publish their work) are not just doing science. They are also doing politics. 

Anyone who holds science in high regard, though, I would think should take exception to the practice of deflecting challenges to political statements by claiming those statements are science and therefore unassailable.

So, in other words - and to reiterate - it is the scientists and the scientific journals who are failing to distinguish science from politics or morality. That's the point of the seed as I see it.

You're the one who brought up "science" as a thing to be discussed. Not me.

Well, sure, thread number 3 was created by my comment @3.

But I did not force you to reply within this thread so why are you complaining?   You chose to reply to my comment and thus the topic of thread number 3.

... but I don't think it's important for the author of the seed because he is already doing that and didn't try to conflate the two.

I am not replying to the author of the seed, I am replying to you.   My opening comment on the seed itself was:

TiG @3 ☞ It is important to distinguish the abuse / exploitation of science from science itself.

If you agree with that, why do you continue to argue?   Slow news day?

However, I think it's fair to recognize that the point of the seed is that scientists (and those who publish their work) are not just doing science. They are also doing politics. 

Yes scientists can be political like anyone else.   It is important to distinguish the abuse / exploitation of science from science itself.

Anyone who holds science in high regard, though, I would think should take exception to the practice of deflecting challenges to political statements by claiming those statements are science and therefore unassailable.

The abuse / exploitation of science is a bad thing.

So, in other words - and to reiterate - it is the scientists and the scientific journals who are failing to distinguish science from politics or morality. That's the point of the seed as I see it.

So you agree that it is important to distinguish the abuse / exploitation of science from science itself.

People are not science.

I think that oversimplifies the actual truth. People are science because science is an abstract thing. It cannot exist without people. The two cannot be separated. 

Combining science and the agents of science is an oversimplification.   Further, it is not difficult to understand science as a discipline and body of knowledge.   So why combine science and people other than to attribute to science the faults of people?

So why combine science and people other than to attribute to science the faults of people?

What is the subject of this discussion?  

Anything deemed "progressive" by the seeder.

So why combine science and people other than to attribute to science the faults of people?

Did you think the writer of the article was doing that?

My opening comment was this:

TiG @3 ☞ It is important to distinguish the abuse / exploitation of science from science itself.

The seeder opened up with this prelude to the seed:

Stating the obvious is no sin.

Scientific journals have been publishing political opinion under the guise of science.  The COP21 Paris accord was strictly a political agreement.  Touting support for the COP21 political agreement using moral arguments is not scientific.  Publishing such opinion in scientific journals tarnishes the objectivity the publication.  Nature isn't supposed to be competing with the New York Times.

Advising policy making is a purely political activity.  When that advisory function begins using moral arguments to persuade policy makers then the activity becomes more political than scientific.  Telling policy makers to adopt a given policy or they will be responsible for children dying is a purely political argument appealing to moral sensitivities.  That's not unbiased, that's not apolitical, and that's not science.

Science isn't supposed to be in the business of making moral choices.  And castigating policy makers by claiming they are making immoral choices isn't scientific.

My comment emphasizes the point of:  "That's not unbiased, that's not apolitical, and that's not science." and "Science isn't supposed to be in the business of making moral choices.".

It also was purposely written in this seed because of the seeders past positions on this topic.

That should answer your question.   But note that since TiG @3 there have been plenty of comments and my subsequent comments addressed those.   So your asking how my answers relate to the seed author's views misses the point since I am responding to NT member comments, not directly to the seed author.

What is the subject of this discussion?  

The discussion is hierarchic.   We have the topic established by the seed, the variant established by the seeder, and then the sub-topics established by member comments.

Which discussion subject are you referring to?   And why are you asking me to designate it for you?

That should answer your question.

I would be happy with just "yes" or "no." If "yes" it would also be nice to see an explanation of why you think that is so. If "no" maybe an explanation of why you think it's necessary to talk about it if it's not in the article.

I still don't know what the answer to my question is.

I don't see either the seeded article or the seeder trying to blame anyone but people for the acts of people.

And why are you asking me to designate it for you?

Because you are inexplicably arguing that hot chocolate is brown when everyone else is talking about how the quality has deteriorated. The discussion is the politicization of science journals, not what science consists of. No one seems to be confused about what science is. 

I would be happy with just "yes" or "no."

Now that is demonstrably false.   I have given you very clear answers and still you return asking even more nuanced questions.  

I still don't know what the answer to my question is.

Well Tacos! I have gone well overboard trying to be crystal clear.   I thus conclude that nothing I write will answer your question.

I don't see either the seeded article or the seeder trying to blame anyone but people for the acts of people.

You do not see Nerm arguing that scientists are Science and that the failures of people are thus the failure of Science??    Well, conveniently, Nerm has provided a recent comment that I can quote for you:

Nerm @3.3.8 ☞ Scientists are the science.  Science is what scientists say it is.  The seed article points out that scientists are saying that science involves making moral judgements and advocating a particular course of action based on those moral judgements.  Scientists are transforming science into something other than the pursuit of knowledge.  Scientists are creating a different type of science that includes morality advocated by opinion.

Science is a discipline;  it is a body of knowledge and methods.   Scientists are not Science, they are the agents of Science.   Individual scientists flapping their jaws to express moral judgments, proclaim false truths, etc. are acting as individuals.   They are not Science.

Precisely and colorfully articulated. Thank you.

Because you are inexplicably arguing that hot chocolate is brown when everyone else is talking about how the quality has deteriorated.

I am directly responding to the comments.   Read Nerm's comments and then read my responses.  

The discussion is the politicization of science journals, not what science consists of. No one seems to be confused about what science is. 

You should actually read what Nerm is writing to me.   Case in point:

Nerm @3.3.8 ☞ Scientists are the science.  Science is what scientists say it is.

I have given you very clear answers

Well, I disagree, which is why I gave you guidelines for an answer that could be understood.

You do not see Nerm arguing that scientists are Science and that the failures of people are thus the failure of Science??

No, not really. Where did he say there was a failure of science? What I read was that he thought the political statements of scientists - which they present as science - are not science. I didn't see him or anyone else attack science, and I am not the only one who is mystified at your apparent need to defend science, when no one has attacked it.

Well, conveniently, Nerm has provided a recent comment that I can quote for you:

Yes, and that quote makes it clear that Nerm has a problem with people, not science. Here's the important part:

Scientists are transforming science into something other than the pursuit of knowledge.  Scientists are creating a different type of science that includes morality advocated by opinion.

Note the subject of the sentences: "Scientists." Note the verb - the action word "are." There is nothing about "Science is . . . " followed by a negative assessment. No fault is found with science - just the scientists.

It is scientists who present themselves and their opinions as "science." That's the problem. That wasn't Nerm's invention. That was something the scientists do all the time and are here being criticized for it - appropriately, I might add. 

I am directly responding to the comments.   Read Nerm's comments and then read my responses.

I have already read been following. 

Scientists are the science.  

He is not wrong, in my opinion. While I would not word it the way he has here, science exists only in the mind of the scientist. 

Science is what scientists say it is.

Again, he is correct. Rationalism preceded Empiricism concerning what was considered science and disciplines such as psychology are debated as to whether they constitute actual empirical science since you cannot create a 100% predictive model concerning behavior, hence the distinction between hard and soft science and where that line actually is. 

What I read was that he thought the political statements of scientists - which they present as science - are not science.

Nerm has made conflicting statement in his responses.   Pay attention to what he writes to me when you read my reply.   I am replying to what he writes in his most recent comment to me.   That is, I am holding to a strict context.   I have made this easy for you to follow since I explicitly quote Nerm each time before I respond.

If someone states that scientists making political statements are not Science then I would agree with that and probably emphasize it.   You choose to not read what Nerm is writing in his comments.   That is your choice and your failing.

Yes, and that quote makes it clear that Nerm has a problem with people, not science. Here's the important part:

You are cherry-picking.   The full quote again as I presented it:

Nerm @ 3.3.8 ☞ Scientists are the science.  Science is what scientists say it is .  The seed article points out that scientists are saying that science involves making moral judgements and advocating a particular course of action based on those moral judgements.  Scientists are transforming science into something other than the pursuit of knowledge .  Scientists are creating a different type of science that includes morality advocated by opinion.

Nerm is arguing that Science is what scientists say it is.   That is incorrect.   Talking head scientists have no authority to change the discipline of Science.   The different type of Science Nerm refers to is not Science ... it is a facade of Science.

Nerm is flat out wrong to state that scientists ARE the science.   Science is not based on authority.   Science is not what is proclaimed.   Part of the beauty of Science is that its approximation to truth is founded in solid evidence, its explanations are formalized as scientific theories and its body of knowledge continually evolves in a self-correcting fashion per the scientific method.

Human beings playing human games does not make a new Science.

I would say he is right in that scientists are presenting their politics or morality as science. Thus, as far as the scientists are concerned, science is what they say it is. I hope we agree that is something that should not be. However, left unchallenged, that appears to be where the field is going. Of course, not all scientists are engaging in the abuse of a field that is supposed to be about a search for knowledge. But enough are that it's a problem. 

So there is what science is supposed to be and then there is what scientists are turning it into.

He is not wrong, in my opinion. While I would not word it the way he has here, science exists only in the mind of the scientist.

Then it appears you are arguing that the hot chocolate is not brown. 

Again, he is correct [Science is what scientists say it is].

Good grief.  

Rationalism preceded Empiricism concerning what was considered science and disciplines such as psychology are debated as to whether they constitute actual empirical science since you cannot create a 100% predictive model concerning behavior, hence the distinction between hard and soft science and where that line actually is. 

You are noting that scientists evolve the discipline of Science.  Well of course they do, Science does not evolve without its agents.   Science evolves just as Mathematics evolves (etc.).   But this evolution is formal and disciplined (as with Mathematics).   Science is not simply what scientists say it is.   It is not simply the result of authoritative statements by scientists.   A scientist cannot change Science by declaration.

In contrast, when a scientist proclaims that AGW is a hoax, that is not defining Science.   It is a misrepresentation of Science.   The discipline of Science (at its current state of evolution) has not changed because a scientist spins to favor his/her employer.  The flaw of the scientist is not the flaw of Science itself.

I would say he is right in that scientists are presenting their politics or morality as science.

Yes, as noted many times, there are scientists who (being human beings) engage in misrepresentation and/or misapplication.   Not the point.

Thus, as far as the scientists are concerned, science is what they say it is.

Really not what we are talking about.   Yes, sure, an individual scientist misrepresenting Science wants people to believe that Science is what he/she says it is.  Again, sure, obviously, but not the point.

I hope we agree that is something that should not be.

Well of course that is improper.   How could you not know that such is my opinion given just what I have written here alone??

However, left unchallenged, that appears to be where the field is going. Of course, not all scientists are engaging in the abuse of a field that is supposed to be about a search for knowledge. But enough are that it's a problem. 

Yes, rogue scientists and others such as Ken Ham who misrepresent Science are a problem.   But they are not Science, they are agents and talking heads.

So there is what science is supposed to be and then there is what scientists are turning it into.

The rogue scientists, et. al., are not changing the discipline of Science.   They are not changing the corpus of knowledge or the scientific method.   What they are doing is misrepresenting Science.    That is a problem, but it is not a problem caused by Science.

It is important to distinguish the abuse / exploitation of science from science itself.

Where is this science of which you speak?

If I understand your point correctly, you are arguing that science should not be blamed for the actions of scientists.  Does that adequately express the point you are making?

If my understanding is correct then how is that different than stating God should not be blamed for the actions of theologians?

My interpretation may well be incorrect; I am requesting clarification.  Are you comparing science to the status of God?  Or are you comparing science to the status of theology?

Where is this science of which you speak?

Since your question is odd, let's go to a very common basic example.   The theory of General Relativity is an example of science.   It is an explanation of many things but is centered on gravity and its effects on mass.   It was developed by Einstein but has earned its credibility by empirical observation and continued aggressive scrutiny (attempts by other scientists to falsify the theory). 

ToGR is a scientific theory.   It is a product of the scientific method.   It exists as part of the corpus of scientific knowledge that scientists and engineers use as a foundation for continued progress and innovation.

One can write articles to misrepresent the ToGR, but those would not be science.

One can claim the ToGR is famous because Einstein was a genius, but that misrepresents science.   The ToGR is not famous due to the celebrity of its creator (fame from the special theory of Relativity) but because it flat out works.

If I understand your point correctly, you are arguing that science should not be blamed for the actions of scientists.  Does that adequately express the point you are making?

I am saying that science is a method, discipline and body of knowledge.   It does not get blame nor receive credit;  similarly, one does not blame mathematics.  Science is an effective paradigm that helps mitigate the failings of human beings and enable us to expand out knowledge of reality.

If my understanding is correct then how is that different than stating God should not be blamed for the actions of theologians?

God, as popularized, is almost certainly an invention of theologians.   You are asking about blaming what is arguably a character of fiction.   Why not ask if it is correct to blame Harry Potter's Voldemort or Star Wars' Darth Vader?

Are you comparing science to the status of God?  Or are you comparing science to the status of theology?

Nerm, you brought God into this.   I made no mention of God or theology so how could you possibly ask me if I am comparing science to God or theology?   Seriously, are you trying to derail your own seed?

I am saying that science is a method, discipline and body of knowledge.   It does not get blame nor receive credit;  similarly, one does not blame mathematics.  Science is an effective paradigm that helps mitigate the failings of human beings and enable us to expand out knowledge of reality.

Thanks, that does add some clarity.

Nerm, you brought God into this.   I made no mention of God or theology so how could you possibly ask me if I am comparing science to God or theology?   Seriously, are you trying to derail your own seed?

Then let me use another analogy.  

The institution of jurisprudence employs hypotheses, evidence, adversarial refutation, and peer review to objectively make conclusions concerning justice.

The law is a body of knowledge.  The judicial method is a method.  The legal discipline is to apply legal knowledge using the judicial method.  And justice is a conclusion derived from evidence, adversarial refutation, and peer review.

So, would it be apt to compare the institution of science to the institution of jurisprudence?  Would that fit with your description of science?

So, would it be apt to compare the institution of science to the institution of jurisprudence?

It is a good analogy to compare 'science' to 'law'.   Emphasizing my point, I would say that the law is the body of knowledge, rules and procedures and that lawyers, et.al. are the agents.   These agents are not part of 'the law'; the law exists separate from all agents.   A famous attorney cannot ... no matter how much celebrity ... deem the law to be something other than what it is.   This attorney must, like everyone else, follow the methods and constraints of the law to effect change.   The authority of the law supersedes all agents.

It is a good analogy to compare 'science' to 'law'.   Emphasizing my point, I would say that the law is the body of knowledge, rules and procedures and that lawyers, et.al. are the agents.   These agents are not part of 'the law'; the law exists separate from all agents.   A famous attorney cannot ... no matter how much celebrity ... deem the law to be something other than what it is.   This attorney must, like everyone else, follow the methods and constraints of the law to effect change.   The authority of the law supersedes all agents.

Good, we have agreement which is starting point for discussion.

Legal knowledge (like scientific knowledge) does not change itself.  The judicial method is simply a process that can be followed with varying rigor.  Legal discipline can be tainted by biased selection of juries, selectively presenting evidence, and making non-legal appeals to juries.  The jury, itself, may be biased according to their predilections for interpreting evidence and arguments.

While the institution of jurisprudence strives for objectivity using knowledge, method, and peer review, we know from experience that justice is not always objective.  Objectivity can be tainted by pursuit of goals other than arriving at objective justice.

The same biases can seep into the institution of science.  Scientific knowledge does not change by itself.  The scientific method can be followed with varying rigor.  And scientific discipline can be tainted by pursuit of goals other than arriving at objective conclusions.

The point made by the seeded article is that scientific discipline is being tainted by pursuit of goals other than arriving at objective conclusions.  Science, as you have described it, cannot change itself; science cannot be separated from scientists.  Don't scientists create the science you have described?

The same biases can seep into the institution of science.  Scientific knowledge does not change by itself.

In short, science is effected by agents (human beings).   People are not science, they are the agents of science. 

The point made by the seeded article is that scientific discipline is being tainted by pursuit of goals other than arriving at objective conclusions. 

The scientific discipline is fine; imperfect, but impressively sound.   Scientific results are produced by agents and agents can make mistakes, be biased and be dishonest.   This violates the scientific method (and the discipline in general).   It is not tainting the discipline, it is violating it.

Science, as you have described it, cannot change itself; science cannot be separated from scientists.  Don't scientists create the science you have described?

Scientists effect science.   Just like lawyers effect the law.   So when an innocent person is convicted of murder, that travesty of justice is not a result of the law (the system of jurisprudence, precedence, courtroom procedures, etc.) somehow going bad.   It is a failure of the agents.    The law and science both cannot prevent human incompetence, bias or dishonesty but both systems are designed to mitigate same.   Distinguish the systems from the agents.

In short, science is effected by agents (human beings).   People are not science, they are the agents of science. 

Yes, that is partly true.  Einstein influenced science with the ToGR.  And consequently Einstein's influence on science also influenced other scientists.

Science is not something independent of people.  Science is an abstract construct derived from human activity.  Without human agents there would be no science.  Attempting to claim that people are not science only serves to elevate science to the status of an independent characteristic of nature.

Scientists effect science.   Just like lawyers effect the law.   So when an innocent person is convicted of murder, that travesty of justice is not a result of the law (the system of jurisprudence, precedence, courtroom procedures, etc.) somehow going bad.   It is a failure of the agents.    The law and science both cannot prevent human incompetence, bias or dishonesty but both systems are designed to mitigate same.   Distinguish the systems from the agents.

Yes, scientists influence science because scientists make the science.  People may not be be science, due to the diversity of people, but science isn't separate from people.  Scientists are science.

Carpenters are building construction.  Farmers are agriculture.  Teachers are education.  Doctors are medicine.  Lawyers are jurisprudence.  And scientists are science.

There can be no science without scientists.  Scientists make the science.  Scientists influence other scientists using science.  And scientists can transform science into something other than the pursuit of knowledge.

So, blaming the science also blames the scientists that made the science.

Science is not something independent of people. 

Of course not, people are required to effect Science.   Just like people are required to effect Engineering, Mathematics, Propositional Logic, try cases in court according to judicial procedures, create food dishes according to recipes, etc.

Science (and these other examples) are also distinct from the agents.   A famous recipe for bouillabaisse embodies knowledge and procedure.   When acted on by a cook, the skill of the cook could produce a great meal or a disaster.   Is the disaster a failure of the recipe or the cook?

Science is an abstract construct derived from human activity.

Science is a discipline consisting of knowledge and method.

Without human agents there would be no science.

Where do I claim that agents are not involved in Science?   I have stated that agents effect Science.   Similarly, without human agents there would be no Mathematics.

Attempting to claim that people are not science only serves to elevate science to the status of an independent characteristic of nature.

There is a big difference between agents (people) and Science itself.   You apparently want to claim that people are Science .   Does that phraseology not illustrate the problem to you?   The judicial procedure for a court case is codified human experience designed to approximate the truth.   A judge, jury, witnesses and attorneys engage using this procedure.   These people are not the judicial procedure they are the agents of an instance of the procedure.

Carpenters are [ building ] construction.  Farmers are agriculture.  Teachers are education.  Doctors are medicine.  Lawyers are jurisprudence.  And scientists are science.

Again, people are involved in everything.   That does not make them part of a discipline.   Your examples above illustrate my point.   I corrected your statement to be consistent by removing 'building'.

The statement:  carpenters are construction seems ridiculous to me.   It is at though one is purposely trying to hide the fact that Construction is a discipline that has evolved over millennia.   One does not just assemble a bunch of carpenters together and let them go to work.   There are proper methods for building something like a home.   If one does not get the foundation correct, for example, the house will fail.   If one does not properly vent, the airflow will be impeded and the furnace will not effectively heat the house.   Improper flashing will allow the roof to leak.

The statement:  farmers are agriculture is also ridiculous.   Agriculture is a very complex endeavor — a discipline with a substantial body of knowledge and methods that has evolved over time.   Farmers are some of the agents of Agriculture;  they are not the discipline of Agriculture itself.

Teachers are the agents of Education.   Again, one must go beyond the agents.   When one does that we find yet again a body of knowledge and method and that we call the discipline of Education.    Doctors are the agents of Medicine but the discipline of Medicine itself is a body of knowledge and method.   Lawyers are some of the agents of Jurisprudence but they are are not the discipline itself.   Finally, scientists are the agents of the discipline of Science.   They are not the knowledge and method of the discipline, they are the agents.

There can be no science without scientists. 

I have stated that repeatedly so clearly (right?) there is no reason for you to make this statement.   Of course Science needs human agents just as jurisprudence needs judges, Medicine needs doctors, Construction needs plumbers, etc.   Science will not advance without scientists but the extent base of knowledge and methods that embody the discipline of Science does not disappear if all scientists were to cease acting.

So, blaming the science also blames the scientists that made the science.

Odd, this is the inversion of the point in question.   My point has been that one does not blame the discipline due to the failure of the actors.   If a scientist is corrupted by a company with an agenda, the subsequent dishonesty (and false science) is not the fault of the scientific method but that of the agent (the scientist).  

As noted, one can blame Science for being an imperfect discipline.   The body of knowledge of Science is not truth.   It is impressively good, but it is still an approximation to truth (the best we have thus far).   The scientific method is imperfect.   Its goal is to mitigate the failures of human beings (bias, errors, dishonesty) but the method does not prevent it 100% of the time.   Agents still find ways to violate the method (but it is generally self-correcting so these human failures typically are corrected).   So if you want to blame Science for something you can always blame it for being imperfect.

But if you find scientists falsifying their findings for $$$, blaming Science itself is misguided.   That would be the act of someone who has an agenda against Science (for some reason).

The statement:  farmers are agriculture is also ridiculous.   Agriculture is a very complex endeavor — a discipline with a substantial body of knowledge and methods that has evolved over time.   Farmers are some of the agents of Agriculture;  they are not the discipline of Agriculture itself.

Farmers created agriculture.  Complexity does not transform what farmers created into a discipline.  

Scientists created science.  Complexity does not transform science into a discipline.

Einstein did not create the ToGR using empirical evidence or the scientific method.  Einstein didn't create the ToGR by rigorous adherence to scientific discipline.  Einstein exceeded available scientific knowledge.

Einstein created the physics of general relativity.  Einstein is the physics.  They are inseparable.  

Scientists create knowledge that is not available so science cannot be knowledge; the activity of science involves the lack of knowledge.  Scientists may or may not rigorously adhere to the scientific method; not following the scientific method doesn't invalidate the knowledge that is created.  Scientists dealing with the unknown must employ imagination, intuition, and creativity which cannot be quantified and constrained by rote discipline.  Scientists are the science.  Science is what scientists say it is. 

The seed article points out that scientists are saying that science involves making moral judgements and advocating a particular course of action based on those moral judgements.  Scientists are transforming science into something other than the pursuit of knowledge.  Scientists are creating a different type of science that includes morality advocated by opinion.

Scientists created science. 

Yes, the discipline of science evolved by human beings.   You seem to be arguing that since human beings created Science that human beings are part of the discipline of Science.  I am arguing that the discipline of Science is a body of knowledge and methods (in particular the scientific method) and that the discipline itself is distinct from the scientists today who serve as the agents.  

Einstein did not create the ToGR using empirical evidence or the scientific method.  Einstein didn't create the ToGR by rigorous adherence to scientific discipline.  Einstein exceeded available scientific knowledge.

So you are trying to say that Einstein did not follow the scientific method?    You do not recognize that theoretical physics is part of Science and that it follows the scientific method??   Einstein's work was predicated on the findings of his predecessors.   His genius was to think so out-of-the-box and come up with an explanation for a broad range of empirical observations — combining and refining the work of his predecessors.  

Einstein created the physics of general relativity.  Einstein is the physics.  They are inseparable.

Einstein is a dead genius who created scientific theories that were extraordinarily encompassing and, most importantly, have shown to be correct for well over a century.   His theories exist distinct from him (thank goodness).   Einstein is not his theories;  the two are distinct.   This should be obvious.

Scientists create knowledge that is not available so science cannot be knowledge; the activity of science involves the lack of knowledge. 

What?   When I refer to the corpus of knowledge that is part of Science I am referring to things such as the speed of light, the structure of a cell, the age of the Earth, the dynamics of tectonic plates, the formation of a star, the biochemistry of a virus, etc.    You do not recognize the knowledge of Science??

Scientists may or may not rigorously adhere to the scientific method; not following the scientific method doesn't invalidate the knowledge that is created.  Scientists dealing with the unknown must employ imagination, intuition, and creativity which cannot be quantified and constrained by rote discipline. 

Yes, the end objective is to have an explanation for natural phenomena that holds up to scrutiny based on hard empirical data.

Scientists are the science.  Science is what scientists say it is.

And here you finally illustrate your little game.   You are back again to the notion that Science is based on authority.   Took you a while to finally show your cards again.

The seed article points out that scientists are saying that science involves making moral judgements and advocating a particular course of action based on those moral judgements.  Scientists are transforming science into something other than the pursuit of knowledge.  Scientists are creating a different type of science that includes morality advocated by opinion.

Science is a discipline which contains a corpus of accumulated knowledge and methods which have evolved to mitigate human error, bias and dishonesty.   Scientists, being human beings, are capable of doing good and are capable of being lying sacks of shit.   Attributing the failings of human beings to Science itself is incorrect.    By the same token, attributing the failings of bribed judges, over-ambitious prosecutors, sleazy defense counsels, etc. to the discipline of Jurisprudence (case law, procedures, etc.) is incorrect.

But if you find scientists falsifying their findings for $$$, blaming Science itself is misguided.   That would be the act of someone who has an agenda against Science (for some reason).

The seeded article is not discussing any sort of malfeasance.  What the article highlights is that scientists are changing science.

Incorporating the scientific method into the practice of science fundamentally changed science itself.  That change was not an abuse of science.

Incorporating peer review into publication of research fundamentally changed scientific communication.  That change was not an abuse of science.

Science is what scientists say it is.  Scientists are again changing science just as when the scientific method was incorporated into the practice of science and peer review was incorporated into scientific communication.  Scientists are changing science to incorporate moral judgements and advocacy for a course action based upon moral judgements.  Scientists are making a fundamental change to science but that change is not an abuse of science.

A consensus is emerging within the scientific community that science must incorporate moral judgements, moral implications, and moral advocacy.  That change is becoming apparent in scientific publications.  That change is becoming apparent in the advisory role of science.  That change is becoming apparent in the type of research conducted by scientists.

A consensus is emerging that the 'need to know' isn't sufficient justification for pursuing science.  Moral justifications are becoming more important for the pursuit of science.

Thanks

Yes, the discipline of science evolved by human beings.   You seem to be arguing that since human beings created Science that human beings are part of the discipline of Science.  I am arguing that the discipline of Science is a body of knowledge and methods (in particular the scientific method) and that the discipline itself is distinct from the scientists today who serve as the agents. 

That does not describe science as it has been practiced throughout history.  What constitutes science has changed over time.  Your description is only relevant to science at a particular time and that is practiced in a particular way.  Science hasn't always been what you describe.

What constituted science changed in the past.  And what constitutes science can change in the future.  History demonstrates that what has been considered science isn't immutable.

Scientists change what constitutes the discipline of science by how they practice science.  

So you are trying to say that Einstein did not follow the scientific method?    You do not recognize that theoretical physics is part of Science and that it follows the scientific method??   Einstein's work was predicated on the findings of his predecessors.   His genius was to think so out-of-the-box and come up with an explanation for abroad range of empirical observations— combining and refining the work of his predecessors.  

Einstein employed an Aristotelian methodology that utilized reason and logic.  Einstein did not utilize the empirical methodology of the scientific method.  When Einstein published the ToGR the theory was not testable by empirical means.  The ToGR could only be tested by reason and logic.

Einstein created the standard for what constitutes the discipline of theoretical physics.

As the term 'Aristotelian methodology' implies, Aristotle set the standard for what constituted the discipline of science.  Aristotle was science because Aristotle provided the model for how science should be conducted.  The practice of empirical alchemy was not considered science because it did not conform to the Aristotelian methodology.

And here you finally illustrate your little game.   You are back again to the notion that Science is based on authority.   Took you a while to finally show your cards again.

It's not a game; it's an observation.  Scientists are incorporating morality into the discipline of science.  By doing so, scientists are now using science as a moral authority to do more than simply advise.

While you argue that scientists are abusing science, I am observing that scientists are fundamentally changing the discipline of science.  That change isn't different than the transition from the Aristotelian methodology to the scientific method.  

Scientists change what constitutes the discipline of science by how they practice science.  

This argument continues to change.   Now you are arguing that scientists are the agents which evolve Science.   Well of course they are, I am pretty sure I have even stipulated that during the course of this discussion.   The agents are distinct from the discipline but they are of course the agents of evolution.

TiG @3.3.7 ☞ Of course not, people are required to effect Science.   Just like people are required to effect Engineering, Mathematics, Propositional Logic, try cases in court according to judicial procedures, create food dishes according to recipes, etc.

...

Where do I claim that agents are not involved in Science?   I have stated that agents effect Science.   Similarly, without human agents there would be no Mathematics.

...

Of course Science needs human agents just as jurisprudence needs judges, Medicine needs doctors, Construction needs plumbers, etc.   Science will not advance without scientists but the extent base of knowledge and methods that embody the discipline of Science does not disappear if all scientists were to cease acting.

Yes, the discipline of Science did not invent itself nor does it change by magic.

Einstein did not utilize the empirical methodology of the scientific method. 

Of course he did.  Do you think he ignored the body of knowledge available to him at the time??   We know he did not.   The fact that Einstein also thought outside-of-the-box does not mean he violated the scientific method.  (As I noted and you even quoted: "His genius was to think so out-of-the-box and come up with an explanation for abroad range of empirical observations— combining and refining the work of his predecessors. ")  Speculation and thought-experiments are part of Science too.   The scientific method does not seek to restrict imaginative thought (that would be a disaster).   The method, however, requires that said speculation eventually be formalized into an hypothesis and eventually a formal theory which explains empirical observations and is falsifiable.

Einstein's theories also had to be explanatory, falsifiable and were subjected to empirical scrutiny (and that continues to modern times).   The scientific method.

It's not a game; it's an observation. 

No, it is a game.  You have been claiming that Science is based on authority for quite a while now (prior to this seed).   I am not surprised to see this notion finally emerge in this discussion.  

While you argue that scientists are abusing science, ...

Some scientists abuse Science just like some judges abuse Jurisprudence.    Most (in both cases) do not.

I am observing that scientists are fundamentally changing the discipline of science.  That change isn't different than the transition from the Aristotelian methodology to the scientific method.  

The discipline of Science continues to evolve by proper practice.   You are arguing that liars, incompetents and cheaters are evolving the discipline.  I disagree.  They are misrepresenting Science and that misrepresentation is not going to change the discipline.

The vast majority of scientists are serious professionals who seek truth through the discipline.  They are the agents who are evolving Science, not the dishonest talking heads.

This argument continues to change.   Now you are arguing that scientists are the agents which evolve Science.   Well of course they are, I am pretty sure I have even stipulated that during the course of this discussion.   The agents are distinct from the discipline but they are of course the agents of evolution.

How is the point that "scientists change what constitutes the discipline of science by how they practice science" different than the point that "scientists are science"?  I have argued that science is what scientists say it is.  

I have also provided several examples that clearly show that science has changed over time.  Science did not change itself; scientists changed science.

Scientists are not a manifestation of science.  Scientists are not an emergent property of science.  Scientists utilize the agency of science as a means of classifying knowledge, aiding communication, and establishing a distinct social organization for scientists.  The idea that science is something separate from scientists cannot be rationally defended.

No, it is a game.  You have been claiming that Science is based on authority for quite a while now (prior to this seed).   I am not surprised to see this notion finally emerge in this discussion.  

You have argued that science is something separate from science.  In comment @3.3.1 you stated "I am saying that science is a method, discipline and body of knowledge."  Subsequent comments made by you imply that scientists are abusing science by straying from your defined characteristics of what constitutes science.

You have placed science in the role of authority over what constitutes science and the conduct of science.  You are claiming that definitions exert authority.  And you are relying upon the definitional authority of science to make points that cannot be rationally defended.

I am pointing out that scientists are changing what constitutes science.  Scientists are rewriting the definition of science in a manner that does not conform to what you have presented.  That's what the seeded article is addressing.  

Scientists are changing the authority of science, as you have described that authority, to become more expansive.  Scientists and the scientific community are combining the authority of objective knowledge with moral judgements to establish a moral authority.  

I have argued that science is what scientists say it is.  

And I have rebutted that:  Science does not conform to what media talking heads claim.   Science is a discipline that evolves over time based on the actual work of professional scientists who are seeking an approximation to truth.   Not by the minority of rogue scientists and talking heads who seek to misrepresent Science for their own purposes.

I have also provided several examples that clearly show that science has changed over time.  Science did not change itself; scientists changed science.

Here you are arguing something that has never been contested;  in fact I have explicitly noted (as if this was even necessary) that Science does not change itself and that scientists are the agents of change.   It is the ugly tactic of arguing a non-contested notion to give the appearance of making a good point.

Yeah, Nerm, the sky is blue, water is wet and Science demonstrably evolves (changes over time) and the agents of change are scientists.

Scientists are not a manifestation of science.  Scientists are not an emergent property of science.  Scientists utilize the agency of science as a means of classifying knowledge, aiding communication, and establishing a distinct social organization for scientists.  The idea that science is something separate from scientists cannot be rationally defended.

I am not arguing that Science functions without scientists.   I am arguing that Science is a discipline and that scientists are the agents of Science.  They are different things.   I reject the idea that you do not comprehend the difference between the discipline (knowledge and methods) and the agents (the scientists)?    Not sure I can be clearer on this obvious fact.   I have tried to use consistent terminology throughout:  discipline vs. agents so I am not sure it is possible to be clearer.

You have placed science in the role of authority over what constitutes science and the conduct of science. 

  No, false.   Endless attempts to ' understand ' anything but what I have written.     Science = discipline of knowledge and methods.   The discipline exists and is defined.   Its corpus of accumulated scientific knowledge exists and is accessible.   The scientific method (and supporting procedures) exist and are well known (the simplest form is taught in elementary schools).   Just as our system of Law exists and is defined, so too is Science.  Just as Law evolves over time, so does Science: both, obviously, by the acts of agents operating true to the discipline.   Just as Law is executed by its agents (attorneys, judges, etc.) so is Science evolve executed by its agents (scientists).

I am pointing out that scientists are changing what constitutes science. 

You are claiming that the discipline of Science is being corrupted by rogue scientists.   What you see are rogue scientists and other talking heads misrepresenting Science for their own purposes.  These are a tiny minority;  the vast majority of scientists are professionals working within the discipline of Science to approximate truth per the scientific method.  

The discipline is not going to change simply because a minority of dishonest people are misrepresenting Science for their own purposes.

Science does not conform to what media talking heads claim.

Media talking heads are not scientists.  Where did this come from?

Science is a discipline that evolves over time based on the actual work of professional scientists who are seeking an approximation to truth.   Not by the minority of rogue scientists and talking heads who seek to misrepresent Science for their own purposes.

What has been observed is that the scientific community is evolving.  The changes in science are not being driven by rogue scientists or talking heads.  Science is changing because main stream scientists are expanding the role of science beyond the pursuit of knowledge.

Here you are arguing something that has never been contested;  in fact I have explicitly noted (as if this was even necessary) that Science does not change itself and that scientists are the agents of change.   It is the ugly tactic of arguing a non-contested notion to give the appearance of making a good point.

So, you are now agreeing with my premise that scientists are the science?  You are agreeing that scientists change institutional science by how they practice science?  You are agreeing that the purpose of science and the role of science is determined by the scientific community?

You are claiming that the discipline of Science is being corrupted by rogue scientists.   What you see are rogue scientists and other talking heads misrepresenting Science for their own purposes.  These are a tiny minority;  the vast majority of scientists are professionals working within the discipline of Science to approximate truth per the scientific method.  

That is incorrect.  I am observing that main stream science is expanding the purpose and role of science.

Prior to the 20th century the purpose and role of science was to expand human knowledge.  Over the course of the 20th century, main stream science has gradually changed the purpose and role of science to serving mankind.

That shouldn't be surprising.  The educational emphasis has shifted toward an institutional emphasis toward, for lack of a more precise description, secular humanism.  (Yes, I agree that quibbling over the term 'secular humanism' is entirely possible.  I admit the term is inadequate.  It's only a placeholder to point out there has been a shift in societal priorities for organizing and governing societies over the span of the 20th century.)  That shift in societal priorities will also be reflected in the younger generations of scientists.  Younger scientists are not going to embrace 19th century societal priorities.

Younger generations of main stream scientists are changing science to conform to their views on societal priorities.  They are not rogue scientists or talking heads; they are the next generation of main stream scientists.  And the next generation of scientists are not abusing science by changing the purpose and role of science.

The next generation of scientists are not doing away with knowledge, the scientific method, or the discipline of science.  The next generation of scientists are expanding the purpose and role of science to include moral judgements and using knowledge, the scientific method, and the discipline of science to objectively(?) support those moral judgements.  The next generation of scientists are expanding science beyond the authority of objective knowledge to become a moral authority.  Scientific knowledge is being used to support scientific moral judgements.

Media talking heads are not scientists.  Where did this come from?

The concepts are not mutually exclusive.   If a scientist is being paid to misrepresent science to the public that is a media talking head.

What has been observed is that the scientific community is evolving.  The changes in science are not being driven by rogue scientists or talking heads.  Science is changing because main stream scientists are expanding the role of science beyond the pursuit of knowledge.

I disagree with your mere claim.

So, you are now agreeing with my premise that scientists are the science? 

No.   Science is a discipline.   Scientists are the agents. 

You are agreeing that scientists change institutional science by how they practice science? 

Again, Nerm, of course scientists are the agents of change.   You are again pretending that this is a point of disagreement when it is simply an obvious fact of reality.  

You are agreeing that the purpose of science and the role of science is determined by the scientific community?

The purpose and role of Science has not changed since its inception.   Science is the pursuit of knowledge.   How Science is conducted has evolved (improved) over time as has its body of knowledge.   So no I am absolutely not agreeing with your claim that scientists are trying to change Science into something beyond the pursuit of knowledge.

I am observing that main stream science is expanding the purpose and role of science.

By pointing to rogue scientists attempting to include such factors as morality.   That is not main stream Science.   Main stream Science is effected by scientists working to better understand natural reality via the scientific method.

Prior to the 20th century the purpose and role of science was to expand human knowledge.  Over the course of the 20th century, main stream science has gradually changed the purpose and role of science to serving mankind.

You are conflating Science with Engineering.

The next generation of scientists are expanding the purpose and role of science to include moral judgements and using knowledge, the scientific method, and the discipline of science to objectively(?) support those moral judgements. 

Again, merely repeating your claim and distorting what scientists are doing and, as a result, distorting the meaning of Science itself.   Repeating your claim is not an argument.

The concepts are not mutually exclusive.   If a scientist is being paid to misrepresent science to the public that is a media talking head.

Scientists pursuing a societal role beyond pursuit of knowledge is not a misrepresentation of science or an abuse of science.  Scientists are using the agency of science to expand their role in society.

By pointing to rogue scientists attempting to include such factors as morality.   That is not main stream Science.  Main stream Science is effected by scientists working to better understand natural reality via the scientific method.

Would you say James Hansen is a rogue scientist?  Hansen warned of climate change in 1988.  But Hansen has been advocating policy by highlighting the moral implications of failing to act.  Hansen has been using scientific knowledge to justify a moral judgement.

James Hansen is not a rarity.  Moral advocacy using scientific knowledge to justify a moral judgement is becoming commonplace among main stream scientists.  Main stream scientists are advocating policy for a wide range of issues based upon moral judgements and moral implications supported by scientific knowledge and evidence.  Advocacy of policy on moral grounds has nothing to do with pursuing knowledge.

Scientists pursuing a societal role beyond pursuit of knowledge is not a misrepresentation of science or an abuse of science.  Scientists are using the agency of science to expand their role in society.

Any individual seeking to position Science as something other than the pursuit of knowledge of the natural world misrepresents Science.

Would you say James Hansen is a rogue scientist? 

Irrelevant.   Science is not determined by authority.

Science is not determined by authority.

Since science is not determined by authority then describing science as "science is the observing and understanding of nature, by any means, for the betterment of mankind" would be just as valid as any other description of science.

Since science is not determined by authority then the scientific community can describe science however they choose.  What the seeded article (and myself) have been pointing out is that the main stream scientific community is changing the meaning of science.  

Since science is not determined by authority then describing science as "science is the observing and understanding of nature, by any means, for the betterment of mankind" would be just as valid as any other description of science.

Science (per Oxford ):

The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

Science (per Encyclopedia Britannica ):

Science , any system of knowledge that is concerned with the physical world and its phenomena and that entails unbiased observations and systematic experimentation. In general, a science involves a pursuit of knowledge covering general truths or the operations of fundamental laws.

It is what it is. The knowledge and methods evolve, but the purpose of Science remains the same. If the purpose were to change, it would be something other than Science.

Since science is not determined by authority then the scientific community can describe science however they choose. 

Non sequitur logic.

What the seeded article (and myself) have been pointing out is that the main stream scientific community is changing the meaning of science.  

I disagree and have explained why in very clear terms.   What I see is political posturing to try to redefine Science to meet one's agenda.   Nothing more than  sophistry.

It is what it is. The knowledge and methods evolve, but the purpose of Science remains the same. If the purpose were to change, it would be something other than Science.

Computer science?  Cognitive science?  Artificial intelligence?  Social science?  Medical science?  Behavioral science?

The work of scientists rewrite the dictionary quite often.  And the various and sundry scientific disciplines are rewriting the dictionary with increasing rapidity.  Scientists really are changing the meaning of science by how they practice science.

The scientific disciplines are increasingly delving into abstract concepts that are not grounded in physical reality.  Are we living in a simulation?  Are there multiverses?  Can human biology be reprogrammed?  Does the universe, itself, possess intelligence?   Scientists are liberating themselves from the muck and mud of physical reality.  Scientists are rediscovering and reviving methods and disciplines that allow study of abstract concepts and releases scientific study from the constraints of empirical reality.  The scientific method is not an adequate tool for abstract concepts.

Morality is an abstract concept.  And scientists are increasingly scrutinizing the abstract concept of morality.

Can Science Determine Our Morals?

Science and Morals: Can morality be deduced from the facts of science?

The Science of Right and Wrong

The Science of Values:   The Moral Landscape   by Sam Harris

Morality and Cognitive Science

Science of morality - Google Scholar

The work of scientists rewrite the dictionary quite often.  And the various and sundry scientific disciplines are rewriting the dictionary with increasing rapidity.  Scientists really are changing the meaning of science by how they practice science.  

If you are going to now simply argue that Science evolves, then you will be arguing a point that has never been in dispute and I have explicitly stated this already (several times).   Of course Science evolves and scientists are the agents.  But it evolves as Science,  not the socio-political distortion you claim.

The scientific disciplines are increasingly delving into abstract concepts that are not grounded in physical reality. 

Theoretical physics is trying to explain observed phenomena.   Science has grown to be very impressive and human beings have remarkably been able to determine how things work based upon the body of knowledge.   That is, a lot of theoretical science is researched through Mathematics.   But none of it is considered valid if it cannot ultimately explain reality.   String theory, for example, is not considered an actual theory of science because it is not falsifiable nor can it be tested empirically.   It remains an hypothesis.   Its main purpose is to find a solid bridge between Einstein's theories and quantum dynamics on the dimension of gravity to (ideally) create a unified theory of everything.

In short, anything that is called Science is ultimately grounded in reality.   If not, it is fiction.

Morality is an abstract concept.  And scientists are increasingly scrutinizing the abstract concept of morality.

In terms of reality.   This is neuroscience.   Science does not make moral calls, but sure it tries to understand the brain and the mind.   The following remains to be a distortion of Science:

Nerm @3.3.10 - A consensus is emerging within the scientific community that science must incorporate moral judgements, moral implications, and moral advocacy.  That change is becoming apparent in scientific publications.  That change is becoming apparent in the advisory role of science.  That change is becoming apparent in the type of research conducted by scientists.

No, Science could explain morality to some degree based on behavioral biology and neuroscience but it does not pass moral judgment.   That is outside of Science.