Thread: Political advantage held by quack science over real science.

I don't want to discuss what is quack science, or real science. I just want to look at how effective quack scientists are at mobilizing public support for themselves, as opposed to real science.

If NASA went around making inflated claims about what they hoped they might find,... say on Titan..."if only they would fund us", I bet people would empty their wallets into the program real quick. And then when we got there and didn't find anything they'd be all disappointed, but they'd turn right around and do it again for the next insane project. It's just a matter of staying one preposterous claim ahead of the last failure. If the magical unicorns aren't running around on Titan, then maybe they'll be on Callisto, or Io.

Quack science does a better job of capturing peoples' imaginations because..... um.... that's where quack science comes from and what it's made of. Real science is always impeded by its need to stay in the real world. Is it possible for real science to do anything to make up the difference?

1. How much money is invested in real science as compared with quack science?
2. Now consider why this means that your question may not be all that important.

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

1. How much money is invested in real science as compared with quack science?
2. Now consider why this means that your question may not be all that important.

I understand what you are saying, but is it really that simple? There is a vast amount of money invested in quack science when the real science threatens to diminish profits.

Originally Posted by Bunbury

There is a vast amount of money invested in quack science when the real science threatens to diminish profits.

... or dogma.

Originally Posted by Bunbury

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

1. How much money is invested in real science as compared with quack science?
2. Now consider why this means that your question may not be all that important.

I understand what you are saying, but is it really that simple? There is a vast amount of money invested in quack science when the real science threatens to diminish profits.

Edit: I should say in promoting quack science, not necessarily doing it.

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

1. How much money is invested in real science as compared with quack science?
2. Now consider why this means that your question may not be all that important.

Good point. Quack science has its political disadvantages. It's easy to focus in on things like some creationist court battle with the public school system, or stem cell research, and then forget about the LHC project costing 7.5 billion Euros. (I had to look up the cost before commenting.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_Hadron_Collider#Cost

I'm not sure if that's a fair way to look at it, though, because we're not talking seriously about investing large amounts of money in technology to confirm a quack proposal. Even the quacks don't want that! It's when they form political action committees aimed and stopping that LHC from being turned on for fear it will form a black hole and annihilate the Earth that I see money and resources getting spent to appease them.