4

During the Renaissance and Industrial eras science was a way to remove superstition, religious misconception, and irrational fears. The scientific method was proved to be valid and available to anybody who had access to education anywhere in the world no matter what their personal beliefs were. This ultimately lead to a situation in which people trusted the scientists, peer reviewed scientific articles, and scientific magazines even if written by people who had no scientific backgrounds.

In capitalism, credibility is a valuable commodity and science and universities (mostly privately founded ones in the USA) have been targeted by it. Advertising agencies have been using slogans backed up by questionable scientific studies which claim that "if you drink orange juice you won't get a cold" or "a glass of wine everyday is good for digestion" or "eating or drinking specific foods will help prevent cancer." Some magazines claim that some scientists will try to make their studies look more promising or even fabricate data in order to get more funding. Ref here here here and in some cases cure to diseases won't be investigated because the whole business is based on exploiting the disease.

Jeremy Corbyn's brother Piers Corbyn is a MsC weather forecaster who claims that the very idea of human activity being the cause of global warming is a hoax and the scientific community has been corrupted. ref here He also states that some forecasts that predict sea levels rising dramatically are either fraudulent or exaggerated and a carbon tax is a sham.

Richard Gage is an experienced architect and founder of Architects for 9/11 truth which is a group of 3000+ architects and engineers (all with university degrees ref.here ) who demand a new investigation. This organisation also uses 9/11 family member victims ref here and here. They claim that WTC building 7 could not collapse in free-fall for nearly 4 seconds by gravity alone which is a physical impossibility (3rd law of motion), one of many anomalies found.

Psychology and methods of manipulation have been used in advertising blatantly to sell products, ideas, and even wars or shape leaders people vote for. Then again there seem to be no boundaries on how unethical you can be. Distrust in science and mass-media have turn out in cases in which parents decided not to vaccinate their children because of irrational fears. ref here

Are there any relevant authors who claim that penal responsibilities should be demanded or even the lost of academic credentials for those people who engage in such practices? Are there any relevant figures who talk about the credibility crisis the western world is going through?

"They who have put out the people's eyes reproach them of their blindness." John Milton

  • People may avoid creating the tools to silence people because they wouldn't want the wrong ones silenced? – christo183 Aug 13 at 11:54
  • @christo183 Interesting point. Why not take those to a grand jury to dissipate doubts and give them the attention they demand? – PbxMan Aug 13 at 13:05
  • 3
    On your claim that science is losing credibility: I think there's an argument to be made (perhaps not on SE) that this is because those who write about science (in advertising, the press, etc) are not very good at it, and tend to misrepresent the accurate scientific findings. – John Hughes Aug 13 at 16:52
  • There was plenty of misrepresentation during Renaissance and Industrial age, it is nothing new. And criminalization is not always the best way to achieve the desired result. Given the vague boundary between embellishment and misrepresentation, and free speech concerns, false advertising laws are typically civil, not criminal, and aimed at deterrence. It would be even better if the public learned not to take advertising and pop-science at face value instead of relying on the government to police it. – Conifold Aug 13 at 21:57
  • 1
    "Human achievements" - like thousands of dams and septic tanks, sprawling suburbs and shopping malls, extinct species, dying forests and coral reefs, air and water pollution, acid rain (which is not the product of gullible believers) and so forth? Oops, I forgot genetically modified food and the fast food joints that serve it to people who are too stupid to care because they attended public schools - another example of human achievement. – David Blomstrom 21 hours ago
1

You might like to check out this website https://retractionwatch.com

It's fascinating the scams that scientist get up up to. They are, after all, just people.

You say - "Distrust in science and mass-media have turn out in cases in which parents decided not to vaccine their children because of irrational fears."

I would rather say that parents do this because of perfectly rational fears to do with the topic of your question.

I'm unsure why you mention Corbyn's brother or Richard Gage. I don't know the former, but the latter seems to be a fine example of someone employing science to counter propaganda and guesswork.

  • It's a good point. Many newspapers lead with misleading scare stories (the Daily Mail in the UK is particularly infamous). If those are your "evidence" then the fears are perfectly rational, in the same way as medieval peasants were perfectly rational in killing old women they thought were witches. The problem is the information sources (tabloids today, the Church back then) providing dodgy information. The problem is rarely scientists themselves, and when it is, their careers in science tend to be over as soon as they're found out. – Graham Aug 13 at 21:56
  • 3
    You didn't answer the question, called anti-vaxxers "perfectly rational", and claimed that the 9/11 Commission report, FEMA's study, and the general consensus about what happened is "propaganda and guesswork" with no evidence or citation whatsoever. Yet somehow you are being upvoted. Philosophy's greatest weakness is its inability to reject nonsense and it shows here. – Carl Leth Aug 13 at 22:11
  • @CarlLeth The answer is only 10 hours old you should give it more time. – Cell Aug 13 at 22:56
  • @Graham People often do not realize how long it can take to read an article, hence if you know that the author has a fraudulent past you will not waste the potential hours upon days to understand it regardless of its truthfulness. Most articles are also very poorly written to be understood but rather a correct (formal) representation of the result. So it takes a certain amount of trust to become a highly-cited researcher, rather than being correct or not. – Panda Aug 14 at 5:56
  • 2
    Some anti-vaxxers are perfectly rational. After all, the medical industry is just that - an industry run by corrupt corporations. And who in their right mind would like to be vaccinated by Bill Gates? The 9/11 Commission report is indeed a joke. Citations are tricky. It's obviously good to back up your ideas with evidence or logic, but citations nowadays often lead to papers written by pseudo-scientists and propagandists. Peer reviewed papers aren't what they used to be. – David Blomstrom 21 hours ago
1

I've been doing a lot of research on this very question and will be publishing some of my findings in a series of books on political science.

Are there any relevant figures who talk about the credibility crisis the western world is going through?

The corruption of science (and philosophy) is more extensive than most people probably realize. Sadly, I'm not aware of any trustworthy figures who are speaking out against it. There are lots of propagandists (e.g. "controlled opposition") who may claim to be concerned, but they generally just tap dance around the issue.

Are there any relevant authors who claim that penal responsibilities should be demanded or even the lost of academic credentials for those people who engage in such practices?

LOL - I know of just one person on the planet who has made those kinds of suggestions; me. ;)

Though they may not address your specific questions directly, let me add a few notes that you may find interesting.

I'm concerned by the false advertising and promotion of foods, particularly genetically modified food, the merger of medicine with people who are known primarily for designing crappy software (e.g. Bill Gates), etc.

Another area of special interest for me is conspiratology (aka conspiracy science), which overlaps with historical science and criminal investigations. I've uncovered a clique of propagandists (some masquerading as philosophers) who write bogus scientific papers (claiming people who believe in conspiracy must have mental problems, for example), referenced with papers written by other members of this clique and published in bogus scientific journals. To my surprise, the founding father of this clique may be none other than the late Karl Popper.

I've also noticed a lot of pseudo-scientists/philosophers recklessly using both Occam's razor and falsification to discredit conspiracy theories they don't like. In fact, I've identified a series of techniques they use that fly in the face of both science and philosophy.

It's quite a racket.

0

An extensive List on wikipedia List_of_scientific_misconduct_incidents (nothing on global warming nor 9/11 considered by capitalistic mainstream media as mere "conspiracy theories")

Joachim Boldt (Germany), an anesthesiologist formerly based at the Justus Liebig University Giessen, was stripped of his professorship and criminally investigated for forgery in his research studies.Boldt has had 96 of his publications retracted...

Alfredo Fusco (Italy), a cancer researcher at the University of Naples, has since 2012 been under criminal investigation for fraud, including manipulation of images in his published studies.Fusco has had 21 of his publications retracted...

Supachai Lorlowhakarn (Thailand), an official at Thailand’s National Innovation Agency (NIA), plagiarized 80% of his PhD thesis concerning asparagus cultivation.[262] Lorlowhakarn was in 2012 found guilty of criminal forgery, had his PhD degree retracted, was fined, and received a six-month suspended jail sentence, but was not dismissed from NIA...

Added link to the question which has over 60 references below. here. Among those the most remarkable seem to be:

What can we learn from the Korean cloning fraud? Journal of Medical Ethics

Krimsky S (2007) When conflict-of-interest is a factor in scientific misconduct. Medicine and Law 26

According to an article by globalresearch

Private corporations have full and complete control over the proprietary research and trial data in their possession. This means they have the discretion to decide what data to release or not ref here

“The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue.” Dr. Richard Horton

Books on the subject:

Russell, Bertrand. “Icarus or the Future of Science,”

9/11 as USA False Flag

Italian Nobel Prize winner (literature) Dario Fo in his last years defended that 9/11 was a false flag operation orchestrated by some mafia-style corrupt elements in the US government ref here There are no records of the Swedish Academy warning or threatening any awarded winner for doing such claims or misconduct.

In the case of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth there are no records of any agency private or governmental trying to sue them for ethical misconduct. On the contrary they are working together with similar non-profit organization called Lawyers' Committee for 9/11 Inquiry to take their case to the grand jury. ref here whose requests seem to have been continuously delayed or ignored.

Global Warming

There are no examples of scientists being retracted of their academic skills for their claims. Also there are no disclaimers in coastal real state sellers warning of the consequences of sea levels rising because of it nor in the bank mortgages loans.

  • Another aspect to consider would be the level of interconectedness of a particular claim. It would be easier to discredit/punish a scientist whose work is self-contained as opposed to one having based his research on the work of hundreds of others. I.e. it wouldn't work to dis-acclaim a quarter of the country's scientists all at once. As soon as non-scientific motivations enter the decision to make scientific claims the door is wide open for non-scientific reasons to pursue, or not, the truth of the matter. – christo183 Aug 14 at 7:27
  • @christo183 in other words, you just don't want to accept the level of corruption of in the world nowadays in terms of "fake news, corruption in science and politics" – PbxMan Aug 14 at 7:38
  • Play around with commas in that quote and see how many combinations make sense... :) - But in fairness, "corruption in science" may be a bit strong, and "compromise" a somewhat weak alternative. Truth is less important than funding, hence even the good guys are playing a dirty game... Point is your main question is extremely valid, but exploring it on a high level entails some very high stakes. – christo183 Aug 14 at 8:14
  • Truth is less important than funding??? I mean, everyone has to pay the rent, but I wonder how many scientists would like to be associated with that motto? – David Blomstrom 21 hours ago

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.