Is science corrupt?

Blackdog said:

cor⋅rupt  /kəˈrʌpt/ [kuh-ruhpt]

1. guilty of dishonest practices, as bribery; lacking integrity; crooked: a corrupt judge.
2. debased in character; depraved; perverted; wicked; evil: a corrupt society.
3. made inferior by errors or alterations, as a text.
4. infected; tainted.
5. decayed; putrid.

Corrupt.

Going to argue with the dictionary now?

Click to expand...

I didn't say it was incorrect, just not the most suitable. One co-opts items to fit an agenda or a scheme or plan usually only the "good bits" are used. That does not mean that the item itself is incorrect lacking in integrity or all of the above. Just the method in which its used is.

American said:

Get a grip on yourself. We're talking about the poll. Why are you derailing discussion with your emotionalism?

Click to expand...

I would have given you more than 5 if it was possible.

reefedjib said:

Science wouldn't be useful if theories didn't predict nature, but it is still flawed. This is why you can't calculate a complex flow network for chemical engineering, for instance. You have to have feedback networks to measure performance.

Click to expand...

It's not flawed. It's incomplete.

Alvin T. Grey said:

It's not flawed. It's incomplete.

Click to expand...

semantics...

reefedjib said:

semantics...

Click to expand...

No.
Flawed means that there is something wrong with already understood science. Since we are talking about "Sience" as a field "flawed" is a bad description. Incomplete means that there is a lack of understanding as yet in many areas but doesn't ignore the areas of understanding we already have, nor does it throw out the methods of getting there.

Like so many others have said, science is not, and cannot be corrupt. It is just a methodology. Scientists on the other hand, are human, and subject to the same flaws the rest of us are.

jr602az said:

Real Scientist is not corrupt but the Scientist is corrupt by the Government.

Click to expand...

This statement is nonsense.
The scientist as a man can be corrupted by fear and ignorance.

reefedjib said:

All science is flawed. Science cannot build accurate models of reality as it requires too many assumptions.

Click to expand...

The existence of fallible models does not brand science as flawed. There are restrictions to models, but models are by definition a representation of the actual.

We should only conclude that there is no credible dogmatic principle in science, and that all science should be vigorously tested and retested, as per definition science can be the subject of the only flawed in this equation... humaness.

If science is corrupt then you might as well get rid of everything you own. It's all the result of science. From the clothes you own to the computer your use and the contact lenses you wear. Science is everywhere. Calling it "corrupt" suggests most of us support this corruption without little issue.

Alvin T. Grey said:

No.
Flawed means that there is something wrong with already understood science. Since we are talking about "Sience" as a field "flawed" is a bad description. Incomplete means that there is a lack of understanding as yet in many areas but doesn't ignore the areas of understanding we already have, nor does it throw out the methods of getting there.

Click to expand...

An incomplete picture of reality is flawed.

Hatuey said:

If science is corrupt then you might as well get rid of everything you own. It's all the result of science. From the clothes you own to the computer your use and the contact lenses you wear. Science is everywhere. Calling it "corrupt" suggests most of us support this corruption without little issue.

Click to expand...

Over the top.

Saying science can be corrupted is not saying it all is, or it should be thrown out.

We are saying the data or findings can be corrupt. This in essence makes the science involved corrupt as well.

Anything else is just semantics.

Alvin T. Grey said:

I didn't say it was incorrect, just not the most suitable. One co-opts items to fit an agenda or a scheme or plan usually only the "good bits" are used. That does not mean that the item itself is incorrect lacking in integrity or all of the above. Just the method in which its used is.

Click to expand...

In your opinion, which in the grand scheme counts for little. Mine is just as valid and no less suitable.

reefedjib said:

An incomplete picture of reality is flawed.

Click to expand...

Not flawed, limited.

Not corrupt, nor bias or even biased. Biased biased biased.

" Bias is a term used to describe a tendency or preference towards a particular perspective, ideology or result, when the tendency interferes with the ability to be impartial, unprejudiced, or objective.[1]. In other words, bias is generally seen as a 'one-sided' perspective. The term biased refers to a person or group who is judged to exhibit bias.

Blackdog said:

Over the top.

Click to expand...

Not at all. If I say religion is corrupt, I am talking about all religion. Not just Christianity or Islam. Do you agree? Or do you not? If you call "science" corrupt. Then you are calling out the "corruption" of science itself. Not of a particular scientist. You can't pick an choose when you use such wording.

Saying science can be corrupted is not saying it all is, or it should be thrown out.

Click to expand...

But that is not what the OP is asking :

OP said:

Is science corrupt?

Click to expand...

We are saying the data or findings can be corrupt. This in essence makes the science involved corrupt as well.

Anything else is just semantics.

Click to expand...

Creationism and the people who promote it are corrupt. Science itself isn't.

reefedjib said:

An incomplete picture of reality is flawed.

Click to expand...

No, an incomplete picture of reality is merely incomplete.

An inaccurate picture of reality is flawed.

And that would be anything that claims to have more than an incomplete picture of reality.

Hatuey said:

Not at all. If I say religion is corrupt, I am talking about all religion. Not just Christianity or Islam. Do you agree? Or do you not? If you call "science" corrupt.

Click to expand...

Hmmm... I think you missed some of what I said...

Saying science can be corrupted is not saying it all is, or it should be thrown out. - Blackdog

So no, I don't except blanket generalizations. I call them out for what they are.

Hatuey said:

Then you are calling out the "corruption" of science itself.

Click to expand...

No I am not. I have pointed it out above.

Hatuey said:

Not of a particular scientist. You can't pick an choose when you use such wording.

Click to expand...

Yes I can, and I did. Even used the dictionary to back up my statement.

Hatuey said:

Creationism and the people who promote it are corrupt.

Click to expand...

Depends on which ones you are talking about. Again blanket statements are more often then not, untrue.

Since creationism also includes abiogenesis, the science is still out on that one. Old earth Christians (like myself) also believe in evolution, just not on such a large scale as some scientist say. I am no scientist, but I have not seen any real proof of an anphibian becoming a mammle etc. Since the jury is also still out on that one as well, it is again nothing but an untrue blanket statement on your part.

Hatuey said:

Science itself isn't.

Click to expand...

I most certainly can be.

Blackdog said:

Hmmm... I think you missed some of what I said...

Saying science can be corrupted is not saying it all is, or it should be thrown out. - Blackdog

So no, I don't except blanket generalizations. I call them out for what they are.

Click to expand...

No I am not. I have pointed it out above.

Yes I can, and I did. Even used the dictionary to back up my statement.[/quote]

There is no middle ground on this what so ever. Either you think science is corrupt. Or you do not.

Depends on which ones you are talking about. Again blanket statements are more often then not, untrue.

Click to expand...

Show me a single piece of evidence to contradict it?

Since creationism also includes abiogenesis, the science is still out on that one.

Click to expand...

Creationism can not possibly include abiogenesis because it does not understand what abiogenesis is to begin with. Creationists have tried to calculate the possibility of abiogenesis happening as a way of discrediting it and inserting a belief in a "creator". That in and of itself proves they can not possibly understand what it is.

It is like saying that because you can spend an eternity playing the lotery and only once in that eternity you win, then it is impossible to win the lottery without being told what the numbers are by somebody else. That is a fallacy because the chances of people picking out lottery winning numbers are in the billions. Yet every month we have people randomly pick out lottery numbers and winning. Not only that but we have the same occurrence time, after time, after time.

Old earth Christians (like myself) also believe in evolution, just not on such a large scale as some scientist say. I am no scientist, but I have not seen any real proof of an anphibian becoming a mammle etc. Since the jury is also still out on that one as well, it is again nothing but an untrue blanket statement on your part.

Click to expand...

Because that is not how evolution works. You do not go from an amphibian to a mammal through evolution. You go through various stages and these stages are minuscule. And even then it does not guarantee that you will get B from A. Example. It is indisputable that birds and extinct dinosaurs are related. This is in part because certain traits are directly recognizable from one extinct group to the next. The same goes for pretty much every species of animal. You can see where these groups split from each other and the further up the chain you go there more distant relationships you see with other animals.

I most certainly can be.

Click to expand...

Not really. You either think science is corrupt or you do not.

Hatuey said:

There is no middle ground on this what so ever. Either you think science is corrupt. Or you do not.

Click to expand...

Right, because you say so? Excuse me while I laugh.

Hatuey said:

Show me a single piece of evidence to contradict it?

Click to expand...

Look at your post, nothing but blanket statements.

Hatuey said:

Creationism can not possibly include abiogenesis because it does not understand what abiogenesis is to begin with.

Click to expand...

This is absolutely not true. Just because they think good created the "big bang" for example has little to do with understanding it.

Another bad blanket statement.

Hatuey said:

Creationists have tried to calculate the possibility of abiogenesis happening as a way of discrediting it and inserting a belief in a "creator".

Click to expand...

Some have, and some have not. More blanket statements. :roll:

Hatuey said:

That in and of itself proves they can not possibly understand what it is.

Click to expand...

:roll:

Hatuey said:

It is like saying that because you can spend an eternity playing the lotery and only once in that eternity you win, then it is impossible to win the lottery without being told what the numbers are by somebody else. That is a fallacy because the chances of people picking out lottery winning numbers are in the billions. Yet every month we have people randomly pick out lottery numbers and winning. Not only that but we have the same occurrence time, after time, after time.

Click to expand...

So what? Has nothing to do with my argument.

Hatuey said:

Because that is not how evolution works. You do not go from an amphibian to a mammal through evolution. You go through various stages and these stages are minuscule. And even then it does not guarantee that you will get B from A. Example. It is indisputable that birds and extinct dinosaurs are related.

Click to expand...

They are related, so what again? We have similar relations in the animal kingdom. I mean we are all animals in the end.

Again you are trying to argue against my example rather than the point of my post.

Hatuey said:

This is in part because certain traits are directly recognizable from one extinct group to the next. The same goes for pretty much every species of animal. You can see where these groups split from each other and the further up the chain you go there more distant relationships you see with other animals.

Click to expand...

Has nothing to do with my post. It is an example, nothing more.

Hatuey said:

Not really. You either think science is corrupt or you do not.

Click to expand...

OK I guess you can read my mind. Tell me what I am thinking now?

Hatuey said:

Creationism and the people who promote it are corrupt. Science itself isn't.

Click to expand...

I dont disagree with much of what you wrote...but i do disagree with the last line.

Agree or disagree that creationism is real...those that promote the concept are dedicated to their belief as are the global warming crowd. The difference would be that at least some if not many are deliberately manufacturing evidence for global warming and presenting that as 'proof' of AGW, and THAT is corrupt.

Science is something you do a "thing".

reefedjib said:

All science is flawed. Science cannot build accurate models of reality as it requires too many assumptions.

Click to expand...

:lol: its strange that for such an inaccurate methodology you nonetheless use and rely on the fruits of its accomplishments daily.