Quote:
Originally Posted by Nesti
Steven, I totally agree with you, I'm not saying that you are wrong, I'm saying what you are pointing out is in fact imbalanced. You've said it right here "about scientific debate ", true, and there's no external input here; there's no non-science input to governance. Science is overseeing science, and that's the whole problem. We have scientists making decisions about what should or should not be pursued, or worse yet, making decisions which affect the world on a socioeconomic level.
I personally might object to something that I'm not invited to know about, or deliberately excluded from.
At some point I might not like the idea that somebody who doesn't perhaps share the same holistic picture as I do, making decisions which may affect the world in which we all have equal rights to. Many scientist look upon the public as non-academic individual whom need guidance. Perhaps I might feel scientists are the ones whom need the guidance, as they're the ones who need to 'Unplug' once in a while. Also, I might object to 1 Tesla running through a 17km circle 5mm wide on a planet which I inhabit...so might many more people.
|
Mark,
Politicians built the LHC, scientists only lobbied the politicians.
In regards to pure science which is not subject to political, economic, technological influences etc, I have absolutely no problem in science overseeing science with regards to peer review. I would rather have experts review my work, instead of non specialists or worse still non scientists.
Steven