That’s an interesting piece … although I think the authors avoid the obvious …
I’m working for an insane syphilitic dictator bent on world conquest … on a project designed to kill every goddam commie this side of St Louis Missouri … upon failure, of course I’m claiming to have sabotaged the nuclear project … I’m looking at Wernher von Braun thinking I want the kind a deal he got … basic human nature to lie oneself out of trouble …
That somehow Heisenberg didn’t know how to make an atom bomb is udder rubbish … it’s very easy to build one once we have U-235 in hand … perhaps the article means Heisenberg didn’t know how to make a bomb with the impure Uranium he did have …
My understanding is that Hitler was told 5 to 10 years to make the bomb … and Hitler knew the war had to be completed in three or Germany was sunk … so not enough money was spent on the nuclear program … whoever guessed that heavy water reactors was the best approach was wrong …
Phaw … nuclear physicists are just like little children … given a new toy they will play with it to their hearts’ content … and again just like little children they will lie to mama about how the “kitchen floor” got flooded …
Whether Heisenberg lied to the Nazis or not we’ll never know … but it would have been an unnecessary part in Germany’s defeat …
But that’s different from a climatologist being paid $10,000 to read advertising copy for the solar panel industry … “death and destruction, buy today” … or Carl Sagan trying to get better TV ratings … (yes, I know, it’s a joke) …
I firmly believe that well-meaning liberals and health professionals DID lie throughout the 1980s about the likelihood of an AIDS explosion among heterosexuals.
Science is full of incorrect theories, bad experiments, wrong data, iffy conclusions, out-and-out fraud, and on and on. And one dude faking his experiment on memory in flatworms didn’t send us back to the stone age.
A falsified experiment can be replicated, and when people can’t reproduce the results, the false results become more and more ignored. THIS HAPPENS ALL THE TIME. Hey, there’s a new study that horny toad toenails are effective in treating dandruff in chinchillas! It’s a gamechanger! Huh, we tried to reproduce the experiment, but without results. Not sure what went wrong, but horny toad toenails are not going to be added to your shampoo any time soon. It doesn’t matter if the initial study was fraudulent, or flawed, or if the reproducers didn’t use the correct technique to make the treatment effective.
This is what science is all about. It’s not about creating unassailable bricks of knowledge that are then assembled into a bridge, and if one of those bricks fails the the bridge collapses and crushes everyone. Every fact can be called into question at any time.
You notice all the fossil fuel industry types saying that dumping CO2 into the atmosphere is no big deal? Like the doctors that said smoking doesn’t cause cancer? And how that doesn’t change the facts?
In fact a lot of the global warming denialists aren’t acting out of belief in the science, they’re acting exactly according to the belief in the “greater good”. Hey, if we follow the data, that’s gonna lead to socialism and taxes! That’s bad, real bad. So the data must be wrong because the bad effects of socialism and taxes are much much much much worse than melting Antarctic ice and changes in rainfall patterns that lead to droughts and crop failures. If we admit that increased CO2 is going to lead to changes in climate that’s going to lead to calls to do something about it, and that’s gonna be socialism, which will be a disaster. Better off lying to everyone, and even if not very many people believe us we’ll at least convince the Republicans.
There is also the possibility that they used very specific language to frame their predictions, but that the media and uninformed consumers interpreted their language incorrectly. Which is a common issue with reporting on science.
This. A researcher could say “We’ve located Enzyme XYZ which could potentially aid in defeating the replication of certain cancer cells in the pancreas” is immediately reported by the media as “CURE FOR CANCER HAS BEEN FOUND”.
And then when the media’s sensational headline turns out to be exaggerated, the cancer-research industry’s credibility goes with it.
As Eburacum45 noted, “none of the heterosexuals I know in my part of the world got AIDS” isn’t the same thing as “there wasn’t a wildfire of heterosexual AIDS in some parts of the world”.
“OUR RESEARCH shows that this enzyme produces A STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT improvement over placebos. But MORE RESEARCH IS NEEDED TO VERIFY THE RESULTS.”
Which gets reported as “CURE FOR CANCER FOUND”. Which in atroian, will form a firm belief that scientists lied if it turns out to not be repeatable research.
If I knew of a really effective lie that would greatly undermine confidence in homeopathy, I’d be inclined to spread it.
Spread it real thin for maximum effectiveness!
True. Papers often have a section on future direction of investigation or possible areas of usefulness.
Then, THAT end up being the focus of the press - the one section in the entire paper based on speculation and did NOT involve scientific method or testing of any kind.
That makes no sense. The implication is that there are things which are sufficiently morally objectionable in wartime as to justify scientific falsification, but the same things are less morally objectionable outside of wartime. That’s not an intuitively appealing position.
Well, not quite; we have seen examples of scientific falsification in the past, and yet the whole edifice of scientific endeavour has not collapsed. But, yes, the edifice, and people’s confidence in the edifice, is damaged.
Still, there’s no a priori reason why this is a consequence we should refuse to accept in any circumstance (or in any circumstance but wartime). This may be a bad thing - a very bad thing, even - and yet it may be morally permissible, or even morally obligatory - to accept it rather than to accept something worse.
It’s been a long time since I read The Demon Under the Microscope, but I seem to recall that German scientists doing antibiotic research also falsified some data to keep it from the Nazis.
Well, I don’t know what you’re saying here, but I have always been suspicious of an EARLIER stage of the AIDS crisis. At some point early on, before they had a candidate virus, they figured out it was transmitted through blood, and publicly announced that the donated blood supply was safe and there was NO WAY that AIDS could be transmitted through blood products.
I distinctly recall being shocked by that. I mean, it defies logic: we know it comes through blood, we don’t know the mechanism, but don’t worry, THIS magic blood is safe!
I’m pretty sure they were trying to head off people misunderstanding and refusing to DONATE blood, thus the blood supply drying up. But they clearly said the blood supply couldn’t transmit AIDS. And they acted like they believed that – hemophiliacs paid the price.
COULD the AIDS community have been simply mistaken about the likelihood of a heterosexual pandemic? Sure. I just don’t buy it.
I think there was a widespread belief that heterosexuals would never cough up the tax dollars to find a cure unless they were frightened into believing they were at risk, too. Ergo, there was a lot of incentive to exaggerate the risks among straights.
This is true, but I don’t think it was from the scientists. More the media establishment who decided on the spin.
Hence all the “AIDS is now a disease of US!” and so forth.
You know the drill - if there are ten heterosexual AIDS cases last year and fifteen this year, and fifty thousand homosexually transmitted cases last year and sixty thousand this year, the headline is going to read “Heterosexual AIDS cases are increasing five times faster among heterosexuals than in any other group. Scientists say that if current trends continue, everyone in America will be infected by the year 2000.”
It wasn’t all political correctness, although there was some of that. More that it is easier to sell ad space if the story says “You are going to die” rather than “Half the cast of the touring company for Rent is going to die”.