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.
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?
Ed Poor
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
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.
Sorry, but here, you are deeply wrong. If there is no edit war on this article, it is just that the right people are not there. I kinda know quite a bit about the issue of life on Mars, closely knowing people working on that very subject. Believe me, battles are homeric. Facts had been distorted for labs to get public funds. Facts have been distorted for missions not to be cancelled. It is quite a pain for european labs to get samples brought back by a non-european mission. Articles reviews can be *arranged*. Where there is money and power, there is no gentleman agreement that exists. And there's no research without money and power struggle. Don't presume to much on Human Knowledge wish.
__________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus � Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com