Guest Post by Hardscrabble Farmer
It’s easy to dismiss people who have no scientific credentials when they question scientific discoveries. The reasoning is that because they are untrained and have no formal training their input is not relevant if it counters established policy or position. To some degree this is a valid point, but we must also recall that men like Tesla, Copernicus and Edison were not degree holding scientists and their contributions to the field are beyond compare. Science is about observation, testable explanations and predictions about the mechanics of the physical world.
Anyone can perform a simple experiment, we teach the discipline to children, we use our knowledge daily in the act of living our lives, from boiling water to cleaning our homes. Many experiments require complex equipment, costly environments and extensive knowledge of mathematics and physics, and so people delegate these outcomes to those with access, trusting them to be truthful and without guile about the results. Often, due to the costs associated, scientists must rely on funding from government, academic institutions and corporate sponsors. Often there are strings attached and certain results desired.
It is a rare person who can stand up to both authority and the man who controls the financial strings that come with these arrangements. A former neighbor of mine was the CEO of one of the largest polling organizations in the country. Most people believe that polling is based on scientific sampling of populations in order to better understand opinions with narrow margins of error. During one particular discussion I asked him how he was able to determine with certainty what a given opinion was and he said, “That’s easy, it’s whatever the guy who writes the check wants it to be.”
No comments:
Post a Comment