The bit from 1.40 onwards is interesting. Science is more than a body of knowledge; it's a way of thinking. We need to be sceptical.
One of the problems here is that intelligent people cannot get to ask those sceptical questions and interrogate scientists unless they find the science intelligible. "Blinded by science" doesn't mean that people lack the critical faculties to challenge what scientists are doing; it's more about being given reams of technical bullshit by vested interests who have weaponised scientific discourse.
I'm reminded that the two sacrosanct departments in the colleges where I worked were HR, and IT. The former because they knew all the guilty secrets of the managers, and the latter because they had impregnable technical expertise. "We're giving her all she's got, Captain!".
I think the only solution is closer control. "Do this for me now, in this way, or look for another job". For scientists, that means funding.
I learned yesterday, that Faraday came from a poor home, left school at 14, and acquired all his knowledge by actually reading every book which came through the book-binder's firm in London, where he got his first job!
The man turned out to be a genius, and would be the fore-runner of some of the great scientists we have today!
He probably never had a penny of government funding, where lobbying (ahem) would be a dirty word anyway!
And his observation that politicians that know nothing about science and technology are making the decisions about the directions of progress! We had an example of this last week, when with a heated debate in Parliament over why Government hadn't employed 'carbon capture' in their plans towards 'zerocarbon' - as if it was a real thing!
"Science is more than a body of knowledge; it's a way of thinking. We need to be sceptical.
One of the problems here is that intelligent people cannot get to ask those sceptical questions and interrogate scientists unless they find the science intelligible. "Blinded by science" doesn't mean that people lack the critical faculties to challenge what scientists are doing; it's more about being given reams of technical bullshit by vested interests who have weaponised scientific discourse."
Sam and James - intelligent people in positions of power could easily balance the advice they receive with some sceptical advice. They don't have to be blinded by science. For example, the climate change link you recently passed on Sam could easily be presented to the Cabinet as an alternative viewpoint and the Cabinet could value and justify it for that reason. The BBC could be required to do the same but it doesn't happen.
Scrobs - Samuel Johnson had a similar education as I recall, in that he was a voracious reader of the books in his father's bookshop.
Tammly - maybe they think Net Zero is some kind of net with very small pores designed to catch the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
5 comments:
The bit from 1.40 onwards is interesting. Science is more than a body of knowledge; it's a way of thinking. We need to be sceptical.
One of the problems here is that intelligent people cannot get to ask those sceptical questions and interrogate scientists unless they find the science intelligible. "Blinded by science" doesn't mean that people lack the critical faculties to challenge what scientists are doing; it's more about being given reams of technical bullshit by vested interests who have weaponised scientific discourse.
I'm reminded that the two sacrosanct departments in the colleges where I worked were HR, and IT. The former because they knew all the guilty secrets of the managers, and the latter because they had impregnable technical expertise. "We're giving her all she's got, Captain!".
I think the only solution is closer control. "Do this for me now, in this way, or look for another job". For scientists, that means funding.
I learned yesterday, that Faraday came from a poor home, left school at 14, and acquired all his knowledge by actually reading every book which came through the book-binder's firm in London, where he got his first job!
The man turned out to be a genius, and would be the fore-runner of some of the great scientists we have today!
He probably never had a penny of government funding, where lobbying (ahem) would be a dirty word anyway!
And his observation that politicians that know nothing about science and technology are making the decisions about the directions of progress! We had an example of this last week, when with a heated debate in Parliament over why Government hadn't employed 'carbon capture' in their plans towards 'zerocarbon' - as if it was a real thing!
"Science is more than a body of knowledge; it's a way of thinking. We need to be sceptical.
One of the problems here is that intelligent people cannot get to ask those sceptical questions and interrogate scientists unless they find the science intelligible. "Blinded by science" doesn't mean that people lack the critical faculties to challenge what scientists are doing; it's more about being given reams of technical bullshit by vested interests who have weaponised scientific discourse."
Brill. Going to steal and attribute.
Sam and James - intelligent people in positions of power could easily balance the advice they receive with some sceptical advice. They don't have to be blinded by science. For example, the climate change link you recently passed on Sam could easily be presented to the Cabinet as an alternative viewpoint and the Cabinet could value and justify it for that reason. The BBC could be required to do the same but it doesn't happen.
Scrobs - Samuel Johnson had a similar education as I recall, in that he was a voracious reader of the books in his father's bookshop.
Tammly - maybe they think Net Zero is some kind of net with very small pores designed to catch the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
Post a Comment