Developing future science as secret, proprietary information

[Boojatta]

If you believe that religion is anti-scientific and that religion influences the political process, affecting how science is applied in society, then what remedy do you propose?

I don't recall any advocacy for the solution proposed in the title of this thread. However, doesn't it stand to reason that business-as-usual for scientific research is likely to be counter-productive from the point of view of people who desire scientific progress, but who also oppose religion and the influence of religion? Progress in pure science will allow for applied science to have increasing power to influence the world. However, that power is under the control of people who either are themselves religious or must answer to religious voters and religious donors of money.

A message board is a place to discuss potential remedies. It's unlikely to be a place where you can influence a significant number of people. If you believe that religion is anti-scientific and that it shouldn't influence the political process, then what should be done? What's your solution, other than waiting for most people to join DU and then personally defeating them in debate so that they abandon religion?

[truedelphi]

1. Please do not overlook the fact that the notion of "pure science"

Applies in probably only one percent of all cases.

Big Industry has bought out science so much so that the New England Journal of Medicine had an editorial over a decade ago about how they could no longer avoid publishing science papers just because the authors of the studies had received funding from a Big Corporation.

[saras]

2. Science, like civilization, would be a great improvement over the present situation.

Much corporate technology is already secret and proprietary. That's why it's so bad - because it's protected from being reviewed by people who don't profit from it. This is, ultimately, the purpose of peer review. Research that a reasonable person would consider obvious and necessary isn't done because it isn't seen to be profitable - i.e. it will find either nothing or negative results.

If you "believe" anything about religion, then you're countering it with a different religion, and reason is irrelevant.

If you think that "defeating them in debate" is going to have the slightest effect on anyone's religion, then you don't know enough about religion to be able to argue with them, even fundamentalists.

Personally I think that the suppression of corporate technology would do a hell of a lot more to forward scientific progress than the suppression of religion.