Separation of Science and State

[John 6IX Breezy]

The question: Should there be any separation between science and government (synonymous to church and state)? What should the relationship between science and government be? Are there any dangers in that relationship?

Reasonably one would want a close relationship. But two points make me question this:

1. Similar to the Inquisition (the poster boy of the evils that church and state can create), you also have the evils that science and state can create (The Tuskegee syphilis experiment; water-boarding and interrogation tactics; and whatever experiments the Nazis did). 

2. Their influence on each other is less than ideal: When politicians use science for political purposes, they tend to butcher it. For example, California passed a law requiring officers to be screened using the Implicit Bias test (IAT), despite the inventors of the test being clear it is not diagnostic. And on the flip side, when science is influenced by politics, it shapes the kinds of questions scientists ask and the types of answers that emerge. The field of behavioral genetics has struggled because it is not politically correct.

[Sal]

To the OP: No.

[Brian37]

The question: Should there be any separation between science and government (synonymous to church and state)? What should the relationship between science and government be? Are there any dangers in that relationship?

Reasonably one would want a close relationship. But two points make me question this:

1. Similar to the Inquisition (the poster boy of the evils that church and state can create), you also have the evils that science and state can create (The Tuskegee syphilis experiment; water-boarding and interrogation tactics; and whatever experiments the Nazis did). 

2. Their influence on each other is less than ideal: When politicians use science for political purposes, they tend to butcher it. For example, California passed a law requiring officers to be screened using the Implicit Bias test (IAT), despite the inventors of the test being clear it is not diagnostic. And on the flip side, when science is influenced by politics, it shapes the kinds of questions scientists ask and the types of answers that emerge. The field of behavioral genetics has struggled because it is not politically correct.

 NASA is government funded. JFK started the moon race, and because of the Apollo missions, that gave rise to NASA. And even today, because of NASA, a government entity, we have vast knowledge of the universe, and we can see galaxies almost on the other side of the universe.

What you are talking about when government corrupts it, that would be Hitler, the Nazis and sick fucks like Joseph Mengele.

But even in the west, Trump's dangerous denial of science has given us 240,000 deaths so far because his followers hang on his lies and sale of denial while Trump attacks an honest doctor in Fauci.

It isn't a matter of keep science out of politics, but good leadership in using it. It is a matter of ethics, even in the private sector, you are dealing with private businesses that bastardize science and sell lies to sell a bad product that hurts people. IE, tobacco. For a long time the industry sold it as healthy and lobbied government to expand sales. Oil is the same. Scientists have known, as far back as the late 1890s burning fossil fuels would hurt our atmosphere. But forever since, big oil had sold itself as an economic boom for the world and constantly vilifies scientists whom are telling the truth that their products are making our weather more extreme as well as melting the ice caps.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Science and state are already separated in the same manner as church and state. Science gets grants, churches get tax breaks. The government can’t compel you to believe a particular theory. There are no scientific tests for office.

As for the evil uses science has been put to by governments, this is the exception rather than the rule - agronomy, medicine, and proper sanitation have improved the human condition much more than all the bombs and guns in history have damaged it. Religion, on the other hand, is automatically and intrinsically damaging to the human condition when forced on people who don’t want it.

Boru

[Belacqua]

The question: Should there be any separation between science and government (synonymous to church and state)? What should the relationship between science and government be? Are there any dangers in that relationship?

People on this forum think of science the same way that evangelicals think of God: when it does a good thing, it gets the credit, but when it does a bad thing, something else must be to blame.

In fact science is a loose set of practices, always enacted by fallible biased human beings. These days it is funded mostly by for-profit companies and the Pentagon. Scientists are very likely to discover the things that their funders want them to find. 

Putting our trust in some abstract noun called "science" is a faith-based abdication of responsibility. People in government should act with scientists as advisors, but make their decisions along ethical lines.

[Deesse23]

People on this forum think ...

Mindreading again, Madame Bel?

These days it is funded mostly by for-profit companies and the Pentagon.

Bolding mine.

Breaking news: There is more in the world (of science) than just the US. A german company who invented a vaccine for SARS_CoV2, for example. Maybe we should have asked US evangelicals instead? Just pray the SARS away.....

Or, in your case: just masturbate it away, in your armchair, in your basement.

Scientists are very likely to discover the things that their funders want them to find. 

Nope
Question: Are you pretending or really that dense?

Many research labs are publicly funded, many, really, no $hit, imagine this. NASA for example. They didnt send a probe to Pluto to find lakes of frozen nitrogen, they happened to find them.

And quite often, as you *forgot* to mention, in public funded labs or sponsored ones, scientists make groundbreaking accidental discoveries, like the big bang afterglow.

Putting our trust in some abstract noun called "science" is a faith-based abdication of responsibility

Bullshit alert!

Dont know about you, but i put my trust in a proven method, not in a *noun*.
You of course, you dont abdict any responsibility when you are mentally masturbating, in your armchair, in your basement, doing word games, right?.

People in government should act with scientists as advisors, but make their decisions along ethical lines.

Good luck in deciding, along ethical lines of ocurse, how nuclear fusion will work in the first fusion power plant.
Oh, you never claimed that scientific facts whould be declared along ethical lines? The stop fucking strawmanning others, by insinuating, that *people on this forum* (see above) like to ignore ethics.

Stop being a pompous and condescending ass, so full of himself that one doenst know what you are more full of: shit or yourself.
Makes you look like a monumental Jerk ya know....as if we had needed further demonstration of this scientific fact, and i certainly dont mean that in an *abstract noun* kinda way. Im talking about you being a colossal jerk, a.real.fucking.thing.

[Brian37]

The question: Should there be any separation between science and government (synonymous to church and state)? What should the relationship between science and government be? Are there any dangers in that relationship?

People on this forum think of science the same way that evangelicals think of God: when it does a good thing, it gets the credit, but when it does a bad thing, something else must be to blame.

In fact science is a loose set of practices, always enacted by fallible biased human beings. These days it is funded mostly by for-profit companies and the Pentagon. Scientists are very likely to discover the things that their funders want them to find. 

Putting our trust in some abstract noun called "science" is a faith-based abdication of responsibility. People in government should act with scientists as advisors, but make their decisions along ethical lines.

"People on this forum think of science the same way evangelicals think of God" No we don't, don't lump all of us in together. Even on issues of science if you have been here a long time, even we don't always agree.

What I say is that science certainly can be used for both good and bad. The Japanese and Nazis used science to make weapons. Science is also used by the North Koreans, to develop their missile program. And go back and read my post. That abuse also exists in the private sector. Tobacco use to put doctors on TV selling the idea that smoking was healthy. Big oil spends tons of money on unethical "scientists" to keep their dangerous product in production. 

BUT both government and private sector, friend or foe, that is a separate issue from scientists, and they do exist, who have no horse in the race other than to seek facts and advocate for valuing those facts independent on agenda or bias. 

No, scientific method IS NOT "a loose set of practices", it is a tool, that every field uses. Don't confuse scientists, with the tool. Scientists are human beings, the hammer is scientific method. If you are unethical as a scientist, you are highly likely to abuse the tool. If you are ethical, you will never be afraid of being wrong when your peers point out your errors. Those types are far more likely to end up with more accurate data.

[The Grand Nudger]

They already appear to be separated, as another poster mentioned. Science tells us that all men are not created equal, and science tells us that we -can- immolate some portion of the earth with this or that new toy.

We assert that we are and run our state accordingly (allegedly) - we insist that we shouldn't...and..at least so far, havent.

Let's compare that to your silly god John. If your god told you that all men weren't created equal, would you argue with it? If your god told you that you could immolate half the earth...would you light the match?

The ideal relationship between science and governance is the one that we (sometimes) get to have, when your lot isn't busy fighting it tooth and nail to their own detriment. Where fact based evidence informs practical solutions. The ideal relationship between religion and governance, is none.

[Brian37]

They already appear to be separated, as another poster mentioned.  Science tells us that all men are not created equal, and science tells us that we -can- immolate some portion of the earth with this or that new toy.

We assert that we are and run our state accordingly (allegedly) - we insist that we shouldn't...and..at least so far, havent.

Let's compare that to your silly god John.  If your god told you that all men weren't created equal, would you argue with it?  If your god told you that you could immolate half the earth...would you light the match?

The ideal relationship between science and governance is the one that we (sometimes) get to have, when your lot isn't busy fighting it tooth and nail to their own detriment.  Where fact based evidence informs practical solutions.  The ideal relationship between religion and governance, is none.

Grand, to dispel John's myth that we worship science like a God, I have to disagree with you when you say science tells us men are not all created equal. Humans most certainly are all equal, we are all finite. Poor, rich, healthy, unhealthy, tall short, female or male, we all die. 

Science only says from individual to individual we have different attributes, some have more ability to adapt than others, but no matter, in the end everyone is finite.

[The Grand Nudger]

There's the trouble John was referring to with things like behavioral genetics, though he imagines that it's a problem with governance rather than the culture war he's fighting.

Behavioral genetics challenges societal belief - but, since there are no laws against it and plenty of money to be made from it, the work goes on.

So.... in context again... - I can acknowledge that it's certainly not true that all men are created equal, but that it certainly is true that we govern as though it were, and there is no scientific fact of the matter of genetic inequality that would change my mind about the futility and evil of governing according to that fact. Can John, or the rest of the faithful, do the same? Can they believe in their silly god and it's barbaric ethical system...and still recognize that it would be an exceedingly poor way to govern, by gods wishes - and in doing so, completely prevent their religious beliefs from entering into their civic duties?

Looking around, the answer appears to be a resounding no.