Science is Blind to Money But it Can Smell it
Explanation
The idea of prizes for new or novel ideas might seem like an incentive. However, their luster fades when they become politically motivated, serving to propagate a specific ideology rather than genuine scientific advancement.
It’s crucial to acknowledge that science, like any human endeavor, is susceptible to biases and motivations, including the desire for fame, prestige, and financial gain. These factors can cloud the pursuit of objective knowledge. The allure of funding and financial interests can compromise intellectual honesty and integrity. The pursuit of the “unknowable” can become a perpetual exploration of the infinitesimally small and the infinitely large, justifying ever-increasing expenditures and maintaining the roles of scientists who primarily engage with their peers. As Scott Adams observes, “If you think money cannot convince 98% of people to do anything, have you met money?”
Between ego, financial exclusivity, job dependency, and the self-belief of some scientists, it becomes difficult for truth to emerge from the artificial worlds they create. “The history of humankind is one hoax after another to explain things they did not understand,” Adams states. “There has never been a time in history when multiple people espoused multiple observations with theories that turned out to be hoaxes.” He draws a parallel: “How different is the giant bone story from the curvature of space-time to explain something we didn’t understand?” Just as the collective belief in giant skeletons proved false, we must question prevailing scientific theories and acknowledge the potential limitations of established knowledge. The importance of skepticism and critical thinking in science cannot be overstated.
The educated class, as Adams notes, “is the most easily manipulated.” This vulnerability, he suggests, “stems from their deep intellectual investment in their theories, akin to holding a stock for emotional reasons.” When a scientist becomes deeply committed to a particular idea, it can be challenging to remain open to alternative perspectives. They may become trapped by their discipline, making it harder to see potential flaws or biases.
The notion that mathematical models represent absolute truth is simplistic. Many models are designed for persuasion, not pure prediction. The persistence of flawed models for over a century, patched with countless ad-hoc explanations, suggests that academics may profit from these flawed models. “Why would a scientist lie to you?” Adams asks rhetorically, and answers, “For money.” Each new endeavor leads to ever-increasing expenditures on progressively smaller aspects of science, potentially reaching a point where vast sums are spent on negligible findings.
Science is a search for reality, but when influenced by external interests, it may be biased. This can manifest as data selection bias, the omission of unfavorable findings, or even the falsification of results. As Rod Mack states, “If there is a lot of money involved the results are probably fake, like the search for the Higgs boson!” Peer review plays a crucial role in preserving objectivity, but science supported by external parties or conducted to win awards is not necessarily impartial. Scientists must be transparent about funding sources and potential conflicts of interest. The potential benefits of open science and public funding are desirable goals, provided they are not limited to a select group of academics. It is essential to support scientists who challenge the status quo and speak truth to power. Science is corrupted when it is bought and sold.
Think of the billions spent on academia teaching convoluted subjects to those who want to believe they are smarter than others by possessing esoteric knowledge, and the billions spent on the machines, studies, and experiments that support these ideas. Money attracts those who commit fraud, leading to corruption.