re: #866 calcajun

The general problem— emphasis on “general” — that (and I do not have time to cite references) is that there have been examples in my own life in litigation where I see “experts”; doctors, engineers, etc. give opinions that support a certain position. The look at the same facts, data, test results, etc. and have not just differing opinions— but diametrically opposed opinions.

It is because of situations like these that many people are jaundiced by scientists who take a position. You are right in that science should be above it all— but it is not. It is as susceptible to greed and corruption as any other human institution. So, when a scientist from a certain think-tank which has had “liberal” of left-leaning sympathies publishes a paper, the initial inclination is to suspect the paper of being some form of leftist propaganda in the guise of a scientific study.

I am not saying this is right— but it is the perception that many people that I know have of the scientific community.

You are both right and wrong. The answer lies in the words “certain think tank.”

People who work for political think tanks are political.

Actaul peer reviewd science is pretty immune from politics - untill politicians get involved with trying to push x or cut y. Even then, when the actual research gets done, it is hard to assign a political agenda to top quark interactions, measurements of gas concentrations, genetic sequences etc… Either the data is there or it isn’t and in those cases where the data was flubbed, it always comes out sooner or later. One of the main reasons I love being a physicist, is that whatever my views are on anything, at the end of the day, I am in one of the few fields where I can know I was right or wrong.