From my perspective (history and literature on European feudalism) this censorship was expected.
The rational solution to eliminate corrupted science involving issues like health, environment, nutrition, climate etc. would be to set up independent research and as it regards "global importance" that can involve scientists from many countries, preventing (hidden) conflicts of interest.
Feudalists OTOH want ownership and absolute control IOW they are blind to the issue that competition only works well within a framework of cooperation - to find the best solution for any problem.
“Over the last 5 years, confidence that scientists act in the best interests of the public has fallen significantly.” I guess a lot of that depends on who we allow to call themselves “scientists.”
We must also keep in mind that even good science can be applied by non-scientist bureaucrats and lawmakers in ways that work against the public interest, either out of ignorance, or to advance the agenda or enrichment (or both) of some private parties. And given that a large portion of the public is nowadays either scientifically illiterate or unwilling/unable to take the time to take a serious dive into the proposed application of a typical study to form an informed opinion on its advisability, little informed pushback on the bad stuff occurs.
And then there is the increasing censorship of “concerned opposition” by those who control the public square.
It’s doubtful there is any easy way to fix all this. For starters, it would take a more informed and engaged public, a less self-interested scientific complex, and removal of the more pernicious of money’s influence from the process. I think all of that together is called “a better society.”
Hello Ugo and commentators. By now I assume you have all read about the first "gold standard " report being typical A.I. slop without any humans checking it.
I'm sorry Professor Bardi, but I would be astounded if Trump has read your (or any other) book unless it was published in a cartoon format. As far as shoddy science goes, the late, great Jane Jacobs told us long ago that one sign of a dark age ahead will be the failure of the learned professions to regulate themselves. We're seeing that everywhere.
Didn't need, he is old enough to care very little about consequences. He is looking at the "here and now" as a venture capitalist, so side effects are quite less important than fast gains and image projection!
Science is failing of old age, too structured and formalized to really go on as before, as paragon today we are in a similar condition to Middle Ages where the "scientists" were arguing on ancient texts (Aristotle and similar) and heretic unlearned people was toying around with new concepts, alchemist, astrologer (like Galileo) and similar were advancing contrasted by the official formalized academic world. You can understand it as an economic entrenchment, academic work is and was well paid because what you learned and if your knowledge is endangered so is your well paid job...
Any civilization is subject to life cycles and also are the clearly individuate subgroups, scientist/academics, lawyers/judges, law enforcement, military and so on are all subject to cycles of innovation, maturity, stagnation and decline as usual after the collapse a new version will come in as son of the fallen one keeping the more useful traits blended with the new useful ones.
The decay of science today is a very paradoxal occurence, with so many internal contradictions. For instance, we can measure and explain to a point the destruction of our environment through scientific lenses, with the obvious willingness of most scientists to tell us that science can manage its outcome. And at the same time isn't it scientific progress along with the discovery of super, incredibly dense energy sources (i.e. fossil fuels) that are bringing humanity to its end? Exerpt of "Mona." (Adam Flint Mona on Amazon)
I flushed with anger at the lies and hypocrisy; the Travis knights and Thomas Chesterfields were never to be affected themselves until the last man standing. Back to CU Boulder whence, among scientists, a split in philosophy. Was Man King and God on earth entitled to excoriate His bounty and burn it to ashes? or was he Her humble passenger, man part and parcel of the Whole? Some believed that green technology, as Progress always had, would serve us and salvage the world. Others, critical of the first, said we were digging our own grave more or less quickly, destroying by our numbers, our rage to consume and our rapacity, the Natural World in every possible way, black, orange, green or lithium-silvery-gray: By which sword man rose, also shall man fall; but she would never know who wrong or half right was. The all-out climate change deniers, who led mankind to rash extinction anyway, had never lost their power and written off all the planet-savers.
The only factor curtailing greenhouse gas emissions were millions of people dying and sprawling poverty, which scaled down the world’s consumption, but global warming was still soaring rapidly and couldn’t be stopped anymore. Facing this inevitability and my heart were in conflict, for many more people were to succumb−the Grim Reaper’s come-back, and a defter one than all.
From my perspective (history and literature on European feudalism) this censorship was expected.
The rational solution to eliminate corrupted science involving issues like health, environment, nutrition, climate etc. would be to set up independent research and as it regards "global importance" that can involve scientists from many countries, preventing (hidden) conflicts of interest.
Feudalists OTOH want ownership and absolute control IOW they are blind to the issue that competition only works well within a framework of cooperation - to find the best solution for any problem.
“Over the last 5 years, confidence that scientists act in the best interests of the public has fallen significantly.” I guess a lot of that depends on who we allow to call themselves “scientists.”
We must also keep in mind that even good science can be applied by non-scientist bureaucrats and lawmakers in ways that work against the public interest, either out of ignorance, or to advance the agenda or enrichment (or both) of some private parties. And given that a large portion of the public is nowadays either scientifically illiterate or unwilling/unable to take the time to take a serious dive into the proposed application of a typical study to form an informed opinion on its advisability, little informed pushback on the bad stuff occurs.
And then there is the increasing censorship of “concerned opposition” by those who control the public square.
It’s doubtful there is any easy way to fix all this. For starters, it would take a more informed and engaged public, a less self-interested scientific complex, and removal of the more pernicious of money’s influence from the process. I think all of that together is called “a better society.”
dear ugo bardi why is global population still not collapsing ?
We are peaking in a slow complex system... it'll take a few more years, be patient !
I am not disagreeing.
But a nasty little man who lives inside my brain keeps wondering exactly what is the difference between peer-review and censorship.
It is a bad thought. I will work on suppressing it, but so far I have been unsuccessful
Hello Ugo and commentators. By now I assume you have all read about the first "gold standard " report being typical A.I. slop without any humans checking it.
https://newrepublic.com/post/195843/surprise-new-maha-report-full-junk-science-fake-studies
Chris Hedges linked it to the corporatization of science, clearly, they are linked.
https://www.rt.com/shows/on-contact/533867-corporatization-corruption-american-science/
I'm sorry Professor Bardi, but I would be astounded if Trump has read your (or any other) book unless it was published in a cartoon format. As far as shoddy science goes, the late, great Jane Jacobs told us long ago that one sign of a dark age ahead will be the failure of the learned professions to regulate themselves. We're seeing that everywhere.
Didn't need, he is old enough to care very little about consequences. He is looking at the "here and now" as a venture capitalist, so side effects are quite less important than fast gains and image projection!
Science is failing of old age, too structured and formalized to really go on as before, as paragon today we are in a similar condition to Middle Ages where the "scientists" were arguing on ancient texts (Aristotle and similar) and heretic unlearned people was toying around with new concepts, alchemist, astrologer (like Galileo) and similar were advancing contrasted by the official formalized academic world. You can understand it as an economic entrenchment, academic work is and was well paid because what you learned and if your knowledge is endangered so is your well paid job...
Any civilization is subject to life cycles and also are the clearly individuate subgroups, scientist/academics, lawyers/judges, law enforcement, military and so on are all subject to cycles of innovation, maturity, stagnation and decline as usual after the collapse a new version will come in as son of the fallen one keeping the more useful traits blended with the new useful ones.
The decay of science today is a very paradoxal occurence, with so many internal contradictions. For instance, we can measure and explain to a point the destruction of our environment through scientific lenses, with the obvious willingness of most scientists to tell us that science can manage its outcome. And at the same time isn't it scientific progress along with the discovery of super, incredibly dense energy sources (i.e. fossil fuels) that are bringing humanity to its end? Exerpt of "Mona." (Adam Flint Mona on Amazon)
I flushed with anger at the lies and hypocrisy; the Travis knights and Thomas Chesterfields were never to be affected themselves until the last man standing. Back to CU Boulder whence, among scientists, a split in philosophy. Was Man King and God on earth entitled to excoriate His bounty and burn it to ashes? or was he Her humble passenger, man part and parcel of the Whole? Some believed that green technology, as Progress always had, would serve us and salvage the world. Others, critical of the first, said we were digging our own grave more or less quickly, destroying by our numbers, our rage to consume and our rapacity, the Natural World in every possible way, black, orange, green or lithium-silvery-gray: By which sword man rose, also shall man fall; but she would never know who wrong or half right was. The all-out climate change deniers, who led mankind to rash extinction anyway, had never lost their power and written off all the planet-savers.
The only factor curtailing greenhouse gas emissions were millions of people dying and sprawling poverty, which scaled down the world’s consumption, but global warming was still soaring rapidly and couldn’t be stopped anymore. Facing this inevitability and my heart were in conflict, for many more people were to succumb−the Grim Reaper’s come-back, and a defter one than all.