Selling the truth for an image and a lifestyle

In a recent turn towards the disturbing, a number of jurisdictions including Rhode Island have enacted laws that exclude working papers correspondence and other work product from freedom of information act requests.

Supporters of these measures allege that climate skeptics harass and intimidate climate researchers by requesting extensive documentation of their research and, that the only thing that should be publicly available is the end product of such research efforts.

This is explained in detail by University of Rhode Island professor Aaron Ley, in this video:

This modification of the current legal system allows any type of publicly funded research to be subjected to sunshine laws and FOIA requests is necessary for climate scientists to continue to go about their research.

However, even watching this brief video of Ley explaining this, it becomes obvious that there is an ulterior motive.

Namely, the goal is not to stop harassment, but it is too obscure individuals from revealing the disingenuous nature of such research as they did with the Climate-gate papers.

As a general affair, science is often intricate and detailed and considers many factors. Although some scientific facts are unambiguously clear, the amount of effort that goes into validating and substantiating them is often extensive and requires large amounts of effort.

Most who pursue scientific endeavors do this willingly as a method of validating their work and demonstrating the efficacy of their ideas, but this intricacy can also lead to certain forms of opportunism.

By manipulating details ever so subtly studies can be represented to conclude things that are the exact opposite of what the facts or an unbiased observer would conclude. This is one of the reasons for the peer review process, that is giving a piece of research along with supporting information to a similarly qualified individual to review and to evaluate its validity.

As with all investigations, entire conclusions will often hinge on one or two facts or subtle manipulations of facts. This is why it is necessary for full disclosure of all details of research. This is also the reason why historically peer-reviewed research has been held in such high esteem.

However, as Ley demonstrates, that is obviously no longer the case since entire communities of individuals have staked their academic and intellectual careers along with vested financial interests, i.e. careers, on concluding a certain thing regardless of what the facts and circumstances might suggest.

Although experts obviously have technical skills and the ability to be diligent about implementing them, when those experts are no longer trustworthy it is up to the public to thoroughly investigate and validate the claims of those experts.

Despite there being many opportunities for cranks, quacks, and charlatans to warp otherwise rigorous and valid research to fit their own agendas the inverse is also true. History has taught us innumerable times that experts can be wrong, entire scientific communities can be corrupted by political or social motivations, or other personal motivations can interfere with the objective of the of the scientific pursuit.

To see this in operation one need look no further than the pseudoscience of eugenics proffered notoriously by the Nazis but also many psychologists including American ones during the first part of the 20th century and the later part of the 19th century.

Despite there being very little validity to their research the esteem of their social position and the authority it carried promoted their otherwise corrupt ideas in many instances to disastrous ads such as the Holocaust.

Eugenics - HISTORY

Of course, that every scientist who pursues an invalid idea is fully aware of it or malicious in intent.

However, the integrity of the process depends upon perpetual vigilance and scrutiny. Even if many times that scrutiny is unwarranted it is the only way for the system to maintain rigor and accuracy. Without it the consequences can be disastrous.

What is most alarming about these laws is not their ultimate harm, but it is the relatively obvious conclusion that the individuals who are promoting them know better and are doing it to serve their own selfish interests.

As Ley represents, there is an alarming trend in academics away from integrity and towards a self-serving

if not malicious agenda that views the academic as a member of the priestly and privileged lifestyle.

In the video it appears Ley basks in the attention his activism is bringing. Obviously, for a young and up-and-coming professor, who upon further investigation, is also a member of the town Council and a veteran this would be seemingly fitting to the greater context of his self-aggrandizing existence.

However, as with all distant storms on the horizon the shadow of doubt still looms over the entire exercise. As much as we may be inclined to trust authority figures is also wise to be skeptical of them.

Archival photo from Milgram experiment - All In The Mind ...

As Milgram’s notorious obedience experiments demonstrated when people blindly accept the dictates of any authority figure without questioning them that authority figure can often motivate individuals to do increasingly malicious things.

This is obviously contrary to the scientific process, but it is also something that should evoke much concern in individuals of an honest disposition. Even if people suffer for the truth it still remains, and it is better to be on the side of the truth than to enjoy the comforts of prestige and a comfortable lifestyle.

Francis Arouet is a retired practitioner and social critic who lives in Up State New York.


PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX. 

Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method.

Trackback from your site.

Comments (1)

  • Avatar

    Christopher Marcil

    |

    A large part of the idea to restrict freedom to a few is the fact that Rhode Island is a very democrat state. I hate to bring politics in but the truth is the truth.

    Reply

Leave a comment

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.
Share via