• Ephera@lemmy.mlEnglish
      4·
      2 hours ago

      Capital has certain interests. If your research doesn’t produce the results that capital is looking for, you’re unlikely to get more funding. As such, it leaves a bias on what we have research for, which can already skew our perception of reality, and sometimes researchers will even fake their results or select certain data to reach a conclusion that’s in the interest of the capital.

      There are mechanisms in place to try to prevent that, namely peer reviews and reproduction of previous studies, so we’ll hopefully get to the truth eventually, but the bias still has a big impact.

  • LibertyLizard@slrpnk.netEnglish
    71·
    7 hours ago

    True but people also use this as an excuse to dismiss any research they disagree with which is idiotic.

    Most research is legit. It just might not be interpreted correctly, or it might not be the whole picture. But it shouldn’t be ignored because you don’t like it.

    People are especially prone to this with Econ research in my experience.

    • FundMECFSResearchOPEnglish
      28·
      7 hours ago

      For sure, but it’s important to keep in mind in fields with large financial interests.

      Medicine especially. Most studies claiming Cealiac disease (gluten allergy) was not real before it was conclusively proven to be legitimate were funded by bread companies. You won’t believe the number of studies funded by insurance companies trying to show that certain diseases aren’t really disabling, (even though they really are).

      • OpenStars@discuss.onlineEnglish
        9·
        7 hours ago

        And sugar probably kills as many people as smoking, but… yup.

        Then again, we all are okay with killing children too, so long as it is with a gun and unwillingly rather than safely in a doctor’s office and medically necessary or at least expedient.

    • socsa@piefed.socialEnglish
      6·
      6 hours ago

      The entire thing is an edgy strawman. Honest practitioners obviously take seriously the need to understand and articulate the limits of empiricism, and are hostile towards those who abuse the public trust placed in scientific authority. It would honestlt be great if we could do the same with our critiques of capitalism.

  • niktemadur@lemmy.worldEnglish
    7·
    5 hours ago

    And under socialism in the 20th century, science was an institution that only funds research that advances whatever narrative the hermetic powers-that-be decided to push and strengthen their grip on power, their obsession with secretiveness and projecting an image of infallibility.

    Take the Soviet Union.
    T.D. Lysenko and his crackpot food engineering ideas is one such glaring example. But boy oh boy could he talk a “toe the party line” game and suck up to Stalin.
    Or how about how the kremlin rendered nearly one quarter of Kazakhstan uninhabitable due to their relentless nuclear testing. And they nearly did that for all of western Europe with Chernobyl.

    In the name of workers and science, we shall poison your land. Science for the workers’ paradise, rejoice, comrades!

  • socsa@piefed.socialEnglish
    7·
    6 hours ago

    Nihilism is fun! Science as a framework for truth seeking, and big S Science are functionally different things. Nobody is making the argument that Science is free from political or economic bias, or even that empiricism is the sole arbiter of truth. Literally just finish reading Kant, I’ll wait.

    On the other hand, you can look at the world and very plainly see that science… does things. It discovers truth with a far better track record than every other imperfect epistemology. But sure, capitalism bad. Twitter man cringe. And the internet is just like, an opinion, or something.

  • HexesofVexes@lemmy.worldEnglish
    2·
    4 hours ago

    I dunno about science, but truth is proof. That just infers that science is various forms of proof, and I’m ok with that as it lets our notion of proof evolve as we do _

  • crawancon@lemm.eeEnglish
    8·
    7 hours ago

    science is science. it can be (sometimes necessarily) prioritized via societal influence, culture and monetary means.

    socialist countries have different types scientific spend but I don’t see femboys taking things in the ass for them I guess.

    • socsa@piefed.social
      5·
      5 hours ago

      Look, the only thing in the world which hasn’t been corrupted by capitalism is OP’s brain, which happens to be in a jar, on a shelf, owned by an evil demon, who lives in a hole at the bottom of the sea. Just be thankful that the capitalists have not figured out how to harness this phenomenological power yet.

    • FundMECFSResearchOPEnglish
      19·
      7 hours ago

      If you’d like to read into this I recommend these books.

      1. “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions” by Thomas S. Kuhn

      2. “Science as Social Knowledge” by Helen Longino

      3. “The Politics of Science” by David Politzer

      4. “The Science Industry” by Philip Mirowski

      5. “The Commodification of Science: A Critical Perspective” by various authors

      An example of why this matters would be that research claiming ME was psychological was heavily funded, by both governments and insurance companies because it meant that they didn’t have to spend money on people disabled with ME. No effort was made to look at possible biological causes. Only a couple decades later, we now know it is a neuroimmune disease. But since insurers and government don’t benefit from that fact, it took decades to show and disprove the mountain of research claiming it is psychological. This meant thousands of people died from the disease or were in severe poverty.