Its funny what some of the folks on this site do. They have this kneejerk need to rush to defend all instead of just allowing that SOME doesnt equal all. It happened with medicare fraud...uh UH! There may be a few but not THOUSANDS!!! OK...really? Mental Health Fraud...NO WAY! People wouldnt DO that! Uh...OK. Corrupt scientists...BULL****!!! NEVER!!! Really? Why...the field of science has some sort of purity test that ensures no one of questionable integrity can ever be a scientist? Dood...its...PEOPLE. People are flawed. NOT ALL...not even most...but some? Sure...you bet.
Your position is that some scientists lie. I wouldn't doubt it. Everybody lies. But what I will doubt is that those lies go undiscovered. And there is certainly no concentrated effort to suppress the truth. You keep implying that such an effort exists. And you suggest that scientists are immoral people who lie in order to get paid. But what you keep refusing to say aloud is that you think enough scientists do this to affect the results that the scientific community puts forth. Until you actually say that, without equivocating, and show some evidence to back that claim up, you're just blowing hot air.
And based on your comment about "moving goalposts", I can only conclude that you either don't understand why what you're saying is complete and utter nonsense, or that you know it's bunk just as much as I do. You keep trying to implant the idea that scientists are all liars or incompetent without actually saying it. Either put up or shut up.
Liberté. Égalité. Fraternité.
Me-Willful deception is commonly practiced. Even by those science minded folks. People frequently research things not to find the 'truth' but with the specific intent to prove a hypothesis. Mans gotta publish...right?
You-Are you suggesting that scientists fabricate results? The only way to prove a hypothesis is to find supporting evidence. Unless the evidence is false, then your premise is faulty. Go ahead, accuse the scientific community of just being a bunch of liars.
See what you did? You went from..."some scientists arent above creating a theory and then working to support it", to "go ahead accuse the scientific community of being a bunch of liars." Did I accuse "the scientific communtiy"? No. Did I state some research and even (gasp) researchers can be flawed, sometimes intentionally? Yes. I even gave you an example. Have I said all or even most evolutionary theory is corrupt? No. But off you go in your typical idiotic fashion creating a pretend argument then crowing in accomplishment when you have finally succeeded in biting your own tail. Good boy!!!
Just something to chew on...
"On average, across the surveys, around 2% of scientists admitted they had "fabricated" (made up), "falsified" or "altered" data to "improve the outcome" at least once, and up to 34% admitted to other questionable research practices including "failing to present data that contradict one's own previous research" and "dropping observations or data points from analyses based on a gut feeling that they were inaccurate."
In surveys that asked about the behavior of colleagues, 14% knew someone who had fabricated, falsified or altered data and up to 72% knew someone who had committed other questionable research practices.
In both kinds of surveys, misconduct was reported most frequently by medical and pharmacological researchers. This suggests that either the latter are more open and honest in their answers or that frauds and bias are more frequent in their fields. If you choose the latter interpretation, it may be due to fears that only government sponsored scientists have a motivation to be ethical and industry is distorting scientific evidence to promote commercial treatments and drugs.
A meta analysis of how honestly scientists think scientists in other disciplines or in the private sector behave in regard to ethical conduct would be interesting."
Science 2.0 - ® The world's best scientists, the Internet's smartest readers.
The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
its incredibly amusing when people such as yourself spend so much time in a vain effort to discredit evolution by criticising science yet have so much confidence that your computer, car, airplanes, cell phones, and vaccines work as intended. and when you get ill or injured you no doubt seek medical help at a hospital. all of which are products of the exact same science you so vehemently criticize.
its obvious that your criticism of evolution is not about any honest doubt in the veracity of science but merely a psychological coping mechanism used to deal with your religious beliefs that are in conflict with certain aspects of science.
If you believe in the Supernatural then you can become a millionaire!
Questioning or criticizing another's core beliefs is inadvertently perceived as offensive and rude.
What are you doing in this string?
You say you're not accusing the scientific community- but you ARE doing just that by continually insinuating members of it...
and thereby attempting to, if even in a minor way, Cast doubt on Evolution.
If your only point is 2% of every profession stinks, you have no germaine point to this string.
It's premise is NOT "all scientists are perfect".
It's about the Fact of evolution and 150 years of evolution Science.
(Disclaimer, I haven't read much of the middle of this string)
Last edited by mbig; 08-29-11 at 03:14 PM.
I'm personally sick of not being able to dunk a basketball because of racism.
I think that the majority of scientists strive to produce valid and reliable information.
The world would be in a hell of a mess if the blueprint, so-to-speak, used for research and discovery was constantly corrupted and scientist were self-will-run-riot. The same fundamental process in scientific research is pretty much the same regardless of the discipline. If that wasn't so...and clearly evident, we'd see very little progress in so many areas of our lives.
(1) Science consists of posting testable, falsifiable hypotheses;
(2) Making predictions about what is not yet known;
(3) Performing critical experiments or observations that can disprove certain alternative hypotheses and lend credence to others;
(4) Seeking explanations in natural rather than supernatural causes;
(5) Trying to falsify hypotheses rather than to prove them;
(6) Remaining skeptical until independent investigators are able to corroborate new claims;
(7) And subjecting one's ideas and data to the merciless criticism of other scientists.
Nothing is set in concrete in science. The closest thing to unchanging laws are mostly all mathematical. But it's possible that one day there might be new discoveries that will lead to mathematic laws.
What in knowledge or life is perfect? There's bad seeds in all walks of life. We would still be living in the dark ages if it weren't for science.