I like most of what John Gray writes and discussions such as this around the philosophy of science. Informed commentary from people with a public platform and expertise is too scrarce. Some excellent topics were raised e.g. on problematic consultants, bureaucratization and the imbalance between post graduate production contrasted with insufficient opportunities to maintain hard won skills bearing in mind basic individual Maslowvian needs. However, the evolution and current state of science presented did not match my 50 years in the hard sciences and its social interfaces (e.g. risk assesment environmental planning, engineering). Thiel suggests science has stalled. But this ignores how science works cyclically via long periods of 'normal' science punctuated by revolutions which inform the next elaboration of the latter's implications. A related blind spot is that revolutions, while obvious in hindsight, are seldom so at the time. Eric Hobsbawm in Age of Extremes illustrates one such 'how could I have been so stupid' moment. He recounts a cocktail party in Cambridge where one Francis Crick was also in attendance and marvels at being oblivious to history/revolution before his eyes. I would suggest our 2 thought leaders may be suffering similarly e.g. Thiel recognized Trump 2016 as reflecting social evolution inflection point but not his dark side (a sine qua non for anyone appalled by his 'grab em be the pussy' comment) but now has reservations about unbridled libertarian capitalism. One plausible revolution is the emergence of Cosmology as a distinct science with its enormous implications for metaphysics. Despite the latter and Gray's and Theil's interest in metaphysics, it doesnt figure. A final issue poorly explored is this question of human potential. Thiel seems to see no limit in contrast to believers in the Limits to Growth paradigm. Currently Thiel's viewpoint dominates government and economic thinking, and natural resource exploitation policies, whereas in most hard biological sciences infinite exponential growth is dismissed as nonsense for unassailable physical and mathematical reasons rather than ideological ones which Thiel focuses on selectively. Unfortunately John Gray failed to discuss the 'devil in the detail' of where limits exist versus otherwise e.g. the constraints of on continuous exploitation of natural resource versus evolution where limits do not arguably apply.
As one who had willingly taken three COVID-vaccine injections, I basically believe the mainstream science behind the vaccines’ safety and reliability. Still, I feel the term 'science' generally gets used a bit too readily/frequently, especially for political purposes. Also, I'm cautious of blindly buying into (what I call) speculative science, in general.
Due to increasingly common privatized research for corporate profit aims, even ‘scientific fact’ can be for sale. Research results, however flawed, can and are known to be publicly amplified if they favor the corporate product, and accurate research results can be suppressed or ignored if they are unfavorable to business interests, even when involving human health.
________
“How can a researchers publish a scientific study every 37 hours?” writes Eva Mendez, a professor at Carlos III University of Madrid. “… How can … universities and governments pay huge sums of money to get a researcher to change their affiliation? These are just some of the many questions I’ve been asked since EL PAIS reported on cases involving a lack of scientific integrity, in which Saudi Arabian universities paid large stipends to European academics to get them to swap their affiliations. ...
“The issues of integrity and commercialization in the field of science – which we’re seeing today at an accelerated pace – are reflective of an outdated, ineffective and underfunded scientific system. … ‘Publish or perish’ has given rise to unethical conduct. … To prevent the current system from sinking even further … researchers, institutions and other parties have to break the deadly cliques and commercialization within science.”
It is obvious that what science and politics is about has reached an impasse over the past decade or so. Even Blair and Brown at their height were only trying to make society work better. Better jobs, education, living conditions, health outcomes, housing. It all seemed so possible in 1997, yet they failed even to agree on the renewable of our aging nuclear power stations, and no progress was made on electoral reform which enables the Tories to be in office for 75% of the time. We reached the bottom of the pit when Cameron and Osborne introduced austerity and won the 2015 election despite 170,000 deaths being caused by austerity. Another ten years of wasteful debate while the population decides to leave the EU and politicians cannot face the consequences of the reduction in GDP and all the deficits that are the consequences of Brexit.
I like most of what John Gray writes and discussions such as this around the philosophy of science. Informed commentary from people with a public platform and expertise is too scrarce. Some excellent topics were raised e.g. on problematic consultants, bureaucratization and the imbalance between post graduate production contrasted with insufficient opportunities to maintain hard won skills bearing in mind basic individual Maslowvian needs. However, the evolution and current state of science presented did not match my 50 years in the hard sciences and its social interfaces (e.g. risk assesment environmental planning, engineering). Thiel suggests science has stalled. But this ignores how science works cyclically via long periods of 'normal' science punctuated by revolutions which inform the next elaboration of the latter's implications. A related blind spot is that revolutions, while obvious in hindsight, are seldom so at the time. Eric Hobsbawm in Age of Extremes illustrates one such 'how could I have been so stupid' moment. He recounts a cocktail party in Cambridge where one Francis Crick was also in attendance and marvels at being oblivious to history/revolution before his eyes. I would suggest our 2 thought leaders may be suffering similarly e.g. Thiel recognized Trump 2016 as reflecting social evolution inflection point but not his dark side (a sine qua non for anyone appalled by his 'grab em be the pussy' comment) but now has reservations about unbridled libertarian capitalism. One plausible revolution is the emergence of Cosmology as a distinct science with its enormous implications for metaphysics. Despite the latter and Gray's and Theil's interest in metaphysics, it doesnt figure. A final issue poorly explored is this question of human potential. Thiel seems to see no limit in contrast to believers in the Limits to Growth paradigm. Currently Thiel's viewpoint dominates government and economic thinking, and natural resource exploitation policies, whereas in most hard biological sciences infinite exponential growth is dismissed as nonsense for unassailable physical and mathematical reasons rather than ideological ones which Thiel focuses on selectively. Unfortunately John Gray failed to discuss the 'devil in the detail' of where limits exist versus otherwise e.g. the constraints of on continuous exploitation of natural resource versus evolution where limits do not arguably apply.
As one who had willingly taken three COVID-vaccine injections, I basically believe the mainstream science behind the vaccines’ safety and reliability. Still, I feel the term 'science' generally gets used a bit too readily/frequently, especially for political purposes. Also, I'm cautious of blindly buying into (what I call) speculative science, in general.
Due to increasingly common privatized research for corporate profit aims, even ‘scientific fact’ can be for sale. Research results, however flawed, can and are known to be publicly amplified if they favor the corporate product, and accurate research results can be suppressed or ignored if they are unfavorable to business interests, even when involving human health.
________
“How can a researchers publish a scientific study every 37 hours?” writes Eva Mendez, a professor at Carlos III University of Madrid. “… How can … universities and governments pay huge sums of money to get a researcher to change their affiliation? These are just some of the many questions I’ve been asked since EL PAIS reported on cases involving a lack of scientific integrity, in which Saudi Arabian universities paid large stipends to European academics to get them to swap their affiliations. ...
“The issues of integrity and commercialization in the field of science – which we’re seeing today at an accelerated pace – are reflective of an outdated, ineffective and underfunded scientific system. … ‘Publish or perish’ has given rise to unethical conduct. … To prevent the current system from sinking even further … researchers, institutions and other parties have to break the deadly cliques and commercialization within science.”
It is obvious that what science and politics is about has reached an impasse over the past decade or so. Even Blair and Brown at their height were only trying to make society work better. Better jobs, education, living conditions, health outcomes, housing. It all seemed so possible in 1997, yet they failed even to agree on the renewable of our aging nuclear power stations, and no progress was made on electoral reform which enables the Tories to be in office for 75% of the time. We reached the bottom of the pit when Cameron and Osborne introduced austerity and won the 2015 election despite 170,000 deaths being caused by austerity. Another ten years of wasteful debate while the population decides to leave the EU and politicians cannot face the consequences of the reduction in GDP and all the deficits that are the consequences of Brexit.