On Thu, Nov 21, 2002 at 03:13:28PM -0500, Poor, Edmund W wrote:
The chief difference between science and politics is that most of the people who publish scholarly articles on scientific subjects are on a quest for verifiable knowledge, while most people who write about politics are partisans, purely promoting their point of view for selfish or party gain.
In science, there is a gentleman's agreement to share data and to replicate one another's findings, for the express purpose of adding to human knowledge. That's why there are no edit wars about the [[Mars]] article.
I don't think so. I observed the way Scientific American magazine trashed Bjorn Lomborg. Looking for controversy in an article on Mars is like looking for controversy in an article on Moses; there may be some, but in general you aren't going to find a lot.
In politics, every sovereign nation places its "national interests" above all other considerations. Nations are perfectly willing to lie, cheat and murder. How can you jump from discussion of the partisanship of politics to the cooperation inherent in science so glibly?
Scientists often falsify (and not in the Karl Popper sense) data and use statistics in a misleading way to get the results they need to get their grant money. Science will say roughly whatever the person with the grant money wants to hear.
Jonathan