agendas in science

http://youtu.be/T69TOuqaqXI

A boat was docked in a tiny Mexican fishing village.

A tourist complimented the local fishermen on the quality of their fish and... asked how long it took to catch them.

"Not very long" they answered in unison.

"Why didn't you stay out longer and catch more?"

The fishermen explained that their small catches were sufficient to meet their needs and those of their families.

"But what do you do with the rest of your time?"

"We sleep late, fish a little, play with our children, and take siestas with our wives. In the evenings, we go into the village to see our friends, have a few drinks, play the guitar, and sing a few songs.
We have a full life."

The tourist interrupted, "I have an MBA from Harvard and I can help you! You should start by fishing longer every day. You can then sell the extra fish you catch. With the extra revenue, you can buy a bigger boat."

"And after that?"

"With the extra money the larger boat will bring, you can buy a second one and a third one and so on until you have an entire fleet of trawlers.
Instead of selling your fish to a middle man, you can then negotiate directly with the processing plants and maybe even open your own plant. You can then leave this little village and move to Mexico City, Los Angeles, or even New York City!!! From there you can direct your huge new enterprise."

"How long would that take?"

"Twenty, perhaps twenty-five years." replied the tourist.

"And after that?"

"Afterwards? Well my friend, that's when it gets really interesting," answered the tourist, laughing. "When your business gets really big, you can start buying and selling stocks and make millions!"

"Millions? Really? And after that?" asked the fishermen.

"After that you'll be able to retire, live in a tiny village near the coast, sleep late, play with your children, catch a few fish, take a siesta with your wife and spend your evenings drinking and enjoying your friends."

"With all due respect sir, but that's exactly what we are doing now. So what's the point wasting twenty-five years?" asked the Mexicans.

And the moral of this story is:

Know where you're going in life, you may already be there! Many times in life, money is not everything.

“Live your life before life becomes lifeless” :evil:

http://youtu.be/dtBkkY7txhY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZklRSn92ek4

Unfortunately the scientific community is prone to the same failings as the religious community is, namely the tendency to develop tunnel vision for pet theories. It serves to illustrate the importance of cultivating the naive mind, or beginners' mind as it's referred to in Zen practice. These ideas are not trained in the communities they are most crucial in and meaningless squabbles ensue.

Lone Starr wrote: Unfortunately the scientific community is prone to the same failings as the religious community is, namely the tendency to develop tunnel vision for pet theories. It serves to illustrate the importance of cultivating the naive mind, or beginners' mind as it's referred to in Zen practice. These ideas are not trained in the communities they are most crucial in and meaningless squabbles ensue.

No...

https://youtu.be/EV1SqGINnP8

Aren't we all by now mildly amused at hearing how science is unreliable because it changes its mind all the time but then in the same breath how science is unreliable because it is dogmatic and stubborn as if it were but another religion?

Lone Starr wrote: Unfortunately the scientific community is prone to the same failings as the religious community is, namely the tendency to develop tunnel vision for pet theories. It serves to illustrate the importance of cultivating the naive mind, or beginners' mind as it's referred to in Zen practice. These ideas are not trained in the communities they are most crucial in and meaningless squabbles ensue.

In the spirit of science, let us put this idea to the test (anyone else thinking of this one ?), shall we:

Could you, please, name one falsifiable 'pet theory' that has by the scientific community been in the past or is currently widely held and defended despite an utter lack of evidence in its favour or indeed despite considerable evidence to the contrary? Can you conversely name a falsifiable hypothesis that is being ignored or discarded by said community despite considerable evidence in its favour?
Can you think of a marginally recognizable religion that hasn't been doing just that for about as long as it's been around?

I think the main agenda in science is to achieve funding, probably represented in two main ways:
1. to achieve some measure of fame to increase personal wealth
2. to acquire research funding to ensure employment and scientific application and progress

.... but these can unfortunately lead to;
1 -> falsifying, manipulation and stealing to achieve some competitive advantage to 'stand out'
2 -> narrow application of funding proposals along established lines of entrenched belief and effort.

Ideally I guess if a discovery leads to a revenue stream, then they can have their own business model founded upon science -which can then relieve the burden of the 2nd agenda from dictating the scientists efforts/interests. Otherwise the main agenda would probably be to increase the breadth (amount) and depth (accuracy) of the body of scientific knowledge.

The fasted way to achieve fame and funding in science is to prove someone else wrong. This is how science self regulates and why it is so different than other systems. If you try to publish something that is wrong you will be eaten alive and your career is over and that is beauty of the system, there is no room for agendas or personnel views because you will be criticized and laughed out of the room and this system is the scientific method.

What Vesha said.

Individual people, scientists included, may have quite a number of agendas of thei own and most of us are fundamentally biased in some way or another. This is the reason for the falsificationism principle and the peer review process. Science is an effort to acquire knowledge of the reality we find ourselves and each other, and as such, it would be doing its job wrong if it didn't take measures to counteract biases and bad intent. You don't get your words to be gospel truth in science even if they accurately represent observable reality. You will conversely not be expelled for being wrong either. You will however be laughed out of the room for being dishonest in your methods. For bad conduct, so to speak. Even if your conclusions may turn out correct. So it is in one's own interest to look past one's biases, and there is an entire world of scientists helping one out in the few places one will inevitably fail.