Robert Bannister wrote:
Quadibloc wrote:

It is precisely the ability to confirm science by experiment that
distinguishes truth from dogma, the expert from the charlatan, and
progress from ignorance.

How then are we constantly bombarded with "scientific" studies that
"prove" that butter, red wine, meat, eggs, bread, you-name-it, is bad
for you, good for you, bad for you, etc.? Or that the world is warming,
cooling, changing? Could it not be a question of "he who pays the piper"

There is some element of opinion for sale available in science, but most
researchers are simply trying to find out and explain how things work.

Almost all foods are bad for you in excess. And in the USA it is
considered normal for a sizeable chunk of the population to eat a
massive excess and take no exercise. It is no surprise that the
milk/egg/beef marketing boards pay for research to prove their product
is safe (in moderation). It is harder to see why unfit couch potatoes
cannot understand that being morbidly obese is not good for them.

You do have to be a bit suspicious of tobacco companies research proving
that smoking does not cause cancer (a claim they can still just about
swear on oath with a very carefully crafted legal form of words).

And the US car makers vicious campaign against wearing of seatbelts is
still costing lives there even today.

Or the various sceptics in the pockets of big oil and the fossil fuel
lobby groups who spend an inordinate amount of effort persuading the
public that there is no risk to the climate from increased CO2 levels.

and that qualified scientists are playing the tune requested in many
cases without reporting on the rest of the symphony?

Typically what happens is the popular press mangle the research press
release to make a startling headline that bears little or no relation to
the actual research being reported. Scientific claims are generally very
cautious and supported by experimental evidence that others can verify.

I might trust the scientist, but I don't trust the person who is paying
him or her, and even university research is not above suspicion.

University research is generally pure and blue sky and mostly relatively
cheap. Large scale collaborative experiments like CERN are exceptions.
OTOH we would not have the WWW without them and Tim Berners-Lee.

It is the various industrial research complexes and their lobby groups
that you have to keep an eye on. How much money has been wasted on the
son of Star Wars programme now with hardly anything to show for it?

Regards,
Martin Brown