scott_harpell Posted January 18, 2004 Share Posted January 18, 2004 A scientometric study estimating the percentage of fabricated experimental data in biomedical scientific literature somewhere at 5-10 % food for thought Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jon Posted January 18, 2004 Share Posted January 18, 2004 Another study showed that 50% of investment specialist cheated their clients out of money. What's your point? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott_harpell Posted January 18, 2004 Share Posted January 18, 2004 For a discipline priding itself on empiricism, I would think that the tolerance would have a slightly lower threshold. Also, just because someone else's transgressions are worse, does not make them any less succeptable to scrutiny. Also, inverstors are not charged with the seeking of truth in an attempt to understand the world and to also enhance/save lives. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
max Posted January 18, 2004 Share Posted January 18, 2004 Calling this clone guy a scientist is also a stretch. so what makes a scientist a scientist? A PH.D? he's got one. Just because it looks badly upon scientists, doesn't mean he is not a scientist. Ever heard of a vita ? I'm not trying to convince anyone of your dumbassery, but I can say for sure that anyone that is involved in real research who happens to read your rant will immediately be able to tell you don't know shit about how research works. It's just obvious. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cracked Posted January 18, 2004 Share Posted January 18, 2004 Calling this clone guy a scientist is also a stretch. so what makes a scientist a scientist? A PH.D? he's got one. Just because it looks badly upon scientists, doesn't mean he is not a scientist. Ever heard of a vita ? I'm not trying to convince anyone of your dumbassery, but I can say for sure that anyone that is involved in real research who happens to read your rant will immediately be able to tell you don't know shit about how research works. It's just obvious. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott_harpell Posted January 18, 2004 Share Posted January 18, 2004 Calling this clone guy a scientist is also a stretch. so what makes a scientist a scientist? A PH.D? he's got one. Just because it looks badly upon scientists, doesn't mean he is not a scientist. Ever heard of a vita ? I'm not trying to convince anyone of your dumbassery, but I can say for sure that anyone that is involved in real research who happens to read your rant will immediately be able to tell you don't know shit about how research works. It's just obvious. regardless, 5-10% are producing faslified results. granted some are like this but some are like Sir Cyril Burt's story... a noted PH.D scientist who purposefully falsified his findings to suport his theories about IQ. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cracked Posted January 18, 2004 Share Posted January 18, 2004 But you fail to show how: Science has gone the way everyother industry has (some might argue moreso) by selling out completely to companies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott_harpell Posted January 18, 2004 Share Posted January 18, 2004 But you fail to show how: Science has gone the way everyother industry has (some might argue moreso) by selling out completely to companies. here here exactly what i wanna see... here Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cracked Posted January 18, 2004 Share Posted January 18, 2004 But you fail to show how: Science has gone the way everyother industry has (some might argue moreso) by selling out completely to companies. here This is financial fraud, doesn't have much to do with research. here Yes, a case of fraud, but how do you get 10% of all scientists are fraudulent? Plus, this mouse guy could be like the 'doctor' who is doing the 'cloning', ie, nobody in their right mind would believe him. exactly what i wanna see... An article on anti-fraud spending. How is this related? here An editorial. Give it up Scott. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott_harpell Posted January 18, 2004 Share Posted January 18, 2004 This is financial fraud, doesn't have much to do with research. sure it does. Yes, a case of fraud, but how do you get 10% of all scientists are fraudulent? Plus, this mouse guy could be like the 'doctor' who is doing the 'cloning', ie, nobody in their right mind would believe him. here An article on anti-fraud spending. How is this related? because it is a step in the right direction. a pro-active measure to limit the amount of fraudulent research going on... though $270,000 is shit comared to the budgets of these multi-national pharmaceutical companies. Plus, this mouse guy could be like the 'doctor' who is doing the 'cloning', ie, nobody in their right mind would believe him. and those two german brothers that created a fraudulent physics system and that other guy that... on and on... that is the point paul. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whirlwind Posted January 18, 2004 Share Posted January 18, 2004 (edited) my question is that if theroies are right in science till proven wrong, why the hell do text books still teach evolution i whached a documentary and at least 70-80% or the material that was supose to be evedence for evolution (macro not micro) is wrong, missrepresentaed or just plain made up, now they haven't proved it wrong but they have dissbarred the evidence for evolution, and come up with alternative therories but teachers are not allowed to teach anything that contradicts evolution in class Edited January 18, 2004 by wirlwind Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stonehead Posted January 18, 2004 Share Posted January 18, 2004 Evolution is complex and can be difficult to explain but it is the true underpinning of all biological science. It has enormous explanatory power. It is misunderstood since it is popularized in the media to the point of being dumbed down for the uneducated masses. This results in the gross distortion of its mechanisms of operation. Naturally, it was given a bad rap from being associated with one particular mechanism, natural selection, which acts as a filter rather than an engine of evolutionary creativity as does genetic mutation or the alteration of developmental timing. Minor criticisms do not invalidate evolution, these are ongoing attempts to fine tune our understanding. Evolution is a steam roller compared to creation science. Creation science has absolutely no credibility unless one has no understanding of science and its practice. Creation science is only propagated by political zealots and is given creedence by weakening the science education of this country. Creationists attacked the late paleontogist, Stephen Jay Gould because he proposed that the fossil record shows that evolution proceeded by quick bursts followed by long periods of stasis. Gould's modification is not an indictment of the error of evolution rather it is the vindification of its veracity. Teach creation science in the churches or at the carnival. Science education in the US is going down the tubes as it is. I'm exaggerating but we'll probably eventually outsource all scientific research to other countries where the wages are lower. We're producing fewer engineers and scientists. Our collective science literacy is decreasing. More and more people in this country believe in pseudoscience or have lost faith in the belief that "the rationality of science, expanded properly, is the sole and all-embracing source of cognition for mankind, the only religion of an enlightened future." There I said it. Science is a belief system but a damned good one for explanatory power. I'd put it up against any other religion any time in its power to explain the workings of the world. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott_harpell Posted January 18, 2004 Share Posted January 18, 2004 there's the problem. you cannot think of science as religion. it is empirical. religion is based on faith. as soon as you make science a religion, you are going to distort it and i think that is what whirlwind was saying. you are a scientific heretic is you say something against evolution. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doctorb Posted January 18, 2004 Share Posted January 18, 2004 Science creates theories to explain facts. Religion is belief in dogma. Science gathers all available data, and adjusts or rejects and re-develops theories, as required by observed phenomena. Religon only accepts facts that support underlying dogma. All other facts are rejected. Science disdains ignorance. Religion depends upon ignorance. Using reason to examine facts is scientific research. Using reason to examine faith in dogma is heresay. And Christians are the worst. They just suck. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doctorb Posted January 18, 2004 Share Posted January 18, 2004 You are a scientific heretic is you say something against evolution. Not the case. Scientists have a responsibilty to not only challenge accepted theories, but to consider new theories as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott_harpell Posted January 18, 2004 Share Posted January 18, 2004 Does science have its own dogma? Is Christianity about dogma? Is scienca ABOUT dogma? neither are about dogma, but bastardizations of both have led to protocol. Christianity's started during the creeds (calcedon etc). Science's started when the Church started persecuting those who had the gall to say that the earth was round. As much as you would like to distinguish the two DoctorB, they have a lot in common. Pure Christianity is something beautiful: helping the poor, being self-less etc. Pure science is also beautiful: learning about our environment in an attempt to better understand it and increase the quality of life. Both are noble pursuits. The evil deeds of some does not diminish the good though. I will not say all scientists are bad nor all Christians are bad. In fact, most are trying their best to fullfil their way of life to the best of their ability. The two are not incompatible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott_harpell Posted January 18, 2004 Share Posted January 18, 2004 You are a scientific heretic is you say something against evolution. Not the case. Scientists have a responsibilty to not only challenge accepted theories, but to consider new theories as well. Indeed they do, but do they do it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thinker Posted January 18, 2004 Share Posted January 18, 2004 Creationists attacked the late paleontogist, Stephen Jay Gould because he proposed that the fossil record shows that evolution proceeded by quick bursts followed by long periods of stasis. Gould's modification is not an indictment of the error of evolution rather it is the vindification of its veracity. The theory Gould helped develop is called 'punctuated equilibrium', in the event anyone wants to do further reading. His widely available essays are delightful if you have any science/geeky tendencies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thinker Posted January 18, 2004 Share Posted January 18, 2004 Does science have its own dogma? Is Christianity about dogma? Is scienca ABOUT dogma? neither are about dogma, but bastardizations of both have led to protocol. Christianity's started during the creeds (calcedon etc). Science's started when the Church started persecuting those who had the gall to say that the earth was round. As much as you would like to distinguish the two DoctorB, they have a lot in common. Pure Christianity is something beautiful: helping the poor, being self-less etc. Pure science is also beautiful: learning about our environment in an attempt to better understand it and increase the quality of life. Both are noble pursuits. The evil deeds of some does not diminish the good though. I will not say all scientists are bad nor all Christians are bad. In fact, most are trying their best to fullfil their way of life to the best of their ability. The two are not incompatible. Why limit it to Christianity? Religion (in general) and science are not incompatible....but what's that worth? Scientific theories can usually be tested and eventually proven, revised, or discarded. I'm not aware of any way to 'test' religious ideas. Why even compare the two? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stonehead Posted January 18, 2004 Share Posted January 18, 2004 I think you hit on some good points in expressing your disillusionment with science. The reason I categorized science as also religion (in its meaning as belief system) is that science has become an institution that has an engrained culture. To advance one's ideas one must convince his scientific peers. If you propose something that goes against the prevailing 'dogma' then you could have your research papers rejected and lose your funding. To be a scientist nowdays one must also be a consummate politician with a nose for showmanship and public relations. In an university research setting one must publish or perish. Publish, publish, publish and bring in grant monies. Bring in graduate students. Often controversial ideas are not accepted until the old guard dies off. A paradigm shift has to occur for revolutionary changes in thought, such as happened with the acceptance of plate tectonics, the idea of a dynamic earth with an understandable history. Today, also, as you mentioned science has been hijacked for advancing particular viewpoints. Oftentimes, you read or hear a news story that supports a particular viewpoint supported by scientific study but is biased in coverage. These 'news stories' are sold or given to the networks as filler and are financed by industry groups, thus the stories of wine as good medicine, etc. The practice of science has become so specialized today also, that one cannot grasp its entirely as was possible during earlier times, in people commonly known as Renaissance men. I believe the public is far removed from the working of science, no more Benjamin Franklin's experimenting with electricity, it's all research institutions. It is as if science is a religion with scientists as its priests. I do not have to know the workings of nature only accept the gifts bestown by scientific endeavor. The progress of science has proceeded so rapidly in the last 20-50 years that's it's beyond my comprehension. The application of science is not necessarily egalitarian. It's like health and medicine, if you have the money then you'll most likely benefit. The rest of us poor shlums will get by the best we can. Science as religion reveals the secret workings of the universe and imparts a sense of awe, just look at the pictures obtained by the Hubble telescope. Science allows us to discover the world beyond our five senses and makes us more than human. We sense the world on the micro- and macroscopic level, through time back millions of years and forward, to environments inhospitable to life, ... in other words, like God. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
murraysovereign Posted January 18, 2004 Share Posted January 18, 2004 Hmmm... Hubble, ... Awe, ... God, ... you mean like this? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott_harpell Posted January 18, 2004 Share Posted January 18, 2004 Damn man! Nice! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stonehead Posted January 18, 2004 Share Posted January 18, 2004 Hmmm... Hubble, ... Awe, ... God, ... you mean like this? Ya, the cauldron of creation, the crucible, the pleroma, cosmos. Gnosticism (Gk. gnosis: to know), through and through Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott_harpell Posted January 18, 2004 Share Posted January 18, 2004 It is as if science is a religion with scientists as its priests. doesn't this sound an afwul lot like the catholic church before they instituted the vernacular? Give the church your money and we will progress the faith. You know nothing, but trust us... we'll save you. Weird correlation. If science is taken to a 'religion' level. It does cease to be science no? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stonehead Posted January 18, 2004 Share Posted January 18, 2004 the idea of a kingdom in heaven was corrupted by the pursuit of power producing 'hell on earth' for the nonbelievers, the unconverted, the heretics, etc. A man of God, Pope Alexander VI father of Cesare Borgia, bloodied hands, what a perversion, meddling in politics, in the destinies of countries and regions (read history of Florence, Italy circa late 1400's, Machiavelli's time, see also the schemes of Pope Boniface VIII in the power stuggle between the Whites and Blacks in Florence) Was it any wonder that a group of people discounted the idea of a reward in an imaginery afterlife for present servitude to authority and in its place proposed the establishment of improved conditions in the here and now? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.