Are Scientists Believable

[UBERDOINK]

I'm re-posting some of this info in a new topic because it's pretty interesting think.

Below is just a small sample of studies that prove Science is not the arbiter of truth.

If that's true, then is it just another belief system? with new basis, and faith? Many people that hang their hat on what they hear (rarely do they do the research themselves) scientists say, act as if it is holy writ, without blemish. Which it is not the case.

Please no posts about, "But wait, Science gave us Airplanes and microwave burritos that proves it's right."

Not really, as we still don't fully understand microwaves for example. Just because we can learn to harness natural forces, doesn't mean we can explain those forces origins.

Suppressing Research Data: Methods, Context, Accountability, and Responses
http://www.uow.edu.au/arts/sts/bmartin/pubs/99air/
sample of article quoted below:

Abstract

Research data can be suppressed in various ways, including organizational secrecy, defamation law and refusal to reply to queries. In a broader sense, methods of suppression include pressures not to do research in the first place and attacks on scientists who produce unwelcome data. The context of this sort of suppression includes individual self-interest, vested interests, and paradigms. Suppressing research data can be either compatible with or contrary to accountability, depending on the constituencies involved. Ways to challenge suppression of research data include individual requests, exposés, refusal to suppress, publicity, creating new data, and social movements.

Also I'll add this cool article, it's is also amazing how belief creates myth. Like the myth that science knows best.

Peer Review and Scientific Consensus
http://blogs.nature.com/peer-to-peer/2007/09/peer_review_and_scientific_con.html
sample of article quoted below:

mini-abstract

The peer-review process is not, contrary to popular belief, a nearly flawless system of Olympian scrutiny. Any editor of a peer-reviewed journal who desires to reject or accept a submission can easily do so by choosing appropriate referees.
Unfortunately, personal vendettas, ideological conflicts, professional jealousies, methodological disagreements, sheer self-promotion and irresponsibility are as much part of the scientific world as any other. Peer review cannot ensure that research is correct in its procedures and conclusions.

finally a case study

"A Habit of Lies: How Scientists Cheat",
http://freespace.virgin.net/john.hewitt1/

 

[Terjarv]

I'm re-posting some of this info in a new topic because it's pretty interesting think.

Below is just a small sample of studies that prove Science is not the arbiter of truth.

If that's true, then is it just another belief system? with new basis, and faith? Many people that hang their hat on what they hear (rarely do they do the research themselves) scientists say, act as if it is holy writ, without blemish. Which it is not the case.

Please no posts about, "But wait, Science gave us Airplanes and microwave burritos that proves it's right."

Not really, as we still don't fully understand microwaves for example. Just because we can learn to harness natural forces, doesn't mean we can explain those forces origins.

Suppressing Research Data: Methods, Context, Accountability, and Responses
404 - Page Not Found - Directory Services @ UOW
sample of article quoted below:


Also I'll add this cool article, it's is also amazing how belief creates myth. Like the myth that science knows best.

Peer Review and Scientific Consensus
Peer-to-Peer: Peer Review and Scientific Consensus
sample of article quoted below:


finally a case study

"A Habit of Lies: How Scientists Cheat",
A Habit of Lies

Seriously? Science has human perversions just like anything else but to generalize science as a faith is rather absurd. There are certainly people in science how hold on to assumed paradigms but as an actual scientist I feel you are just a tad off base here...

 

[Angel of Ioren]

A belief system normally does not learn from mistakes. Science continuously revises as new discoveries are made. If not, we would still be drilling holes into a person's head to relieve headaches.
That does not mean that there are no problems, it just that it isn't based on faith. Good science is based on observed evidence. That's why most scientists don't think ghost exist - no falsifiable evidence is available. If someone were to produce falsifiable evidence to the existence of ghosts, I would not be able to deny it.

 

[Terjarv]

A belief system normally does not learn from mistakes. Science continuously revises as new discoveries are made. If not, we would still be drilling holes into a person's head to relieve headaches.
That does not mean that there are no problems, it just that it isn't based on faith. Good science is based on observed evidence. That's why most scientists don't think ghost exist - no falsifiable evidence is available. If someone were to produce falsifiable evidence to the existence of ghosts, I would not be able to deny it.

Well put. Anyone who argues that most scientists lie is just as bad as a scientist who thinks all people that experience paranormal events are crazy and/or liars...

How come it took so long to respond to this post...this got my blood boiling a bit...

 

[pixelsmith]

Well put. Anyone who argues that most scientists lie is just as bad as a scientist who thinks all people that experience paranormal events are crazy and/or liars...

Well... it has been shown that most scientists involved with the IPCC lied about Anthropogenic Global Warming.

 

[tyder001]

this got my blood boiling a bit...

Dang that global warming!

But it does give me an excuse to use the following "kool" pic in a second thread today.

 

[pixelsmith]

Dang that global warming!

But it does give me an excuse to use the following "kool" pic in a second thread today.

damned man-bear-pig gets my blood boiling! i am super cereal about it too.

 

[tyder001]

Wanna see a magic trick? 8)

 

[pixelsmith]

do i have to pull your finger?

 

[tyder001]

do i have to pull your finger?

Back off man...I'm a scientist!

 

[Terjarv]

Well... it has been shown that most scientists involved with the IPCC lied about Anthropogenic Global Warming.

The scientists involved were careless using data that had not been peer reviewed and made a terrible mistake. Much of their data is still legit...but yes an example of poor leadership (what do u expect from the UN).

A better example would be the researchers who smudged and falsified data for publication on vaccination-induced autism...

 

[pixelsmith]

The scientists involved were careless using data that had not been peer reviewed and made a terrible mistake. Much of their data is still legit...but yes an example of poor leadership (what do u expect from the UN).

A better example would be the researchers who smudged and falsified data for publication on vaccination-induced autism...

the IPCC "scientists" controlled the peer review process.

 

[Terjarv]

Yep BUT lets be fair here, who wouldn't rush out preliminary data to please a new species of whale...I mean Al Gore.

the IPCC "scientists" controlled the peer review process.

 

[Angel of Ioren]

The scientists involved were careless using data that had not been peer reviewed and made a terrible mistake. Much of their data is still legit...but yes an example of poor leadership (what do u expect from the UN).

A better example would be the researchers who smudged and falsified data for publication on vaccination-induced autism...

The vaccine stuff really drives me crazy and in my opinion is extremely dangerous. People are listening to non-experts such as Jenny McCarthy instead of the doctors. Due to the anti-vaxxers children have actually died. So sad.

 

[Angel of Ioren]

In case people don't know what Lance is talking about:

<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="640" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/_-agl0pOQfs" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[tyder001]

Now y'all have done it! He's baaackkk!

 

[Ron Collins]

Though there is little chance I can be as eloquent as recent posts, I do have to echo the sentiment. Science is based in repeatability and observation enveloped in an aura of honest intellectual curiosity. The vast majority of scientists have an ethical umbrella surrounding their actions and their research methodologies. But, lets be honest, you put 10 random people in a room and at least one of them will definitely dishonest, immoral, and unethical. So, you cant rule it out that some have skewed results to meet an agenda. But to blanket them all with that sentiment would be wrong. Collectively, I think that scientists are trustworthy.

 

[tyder001]

With all due respect it's kind of a nonesense question. All people in all walks of life are mostly honest in their jobs. My profession places the utmost importance to ethics and accountabilty. We are reviewed at the county, state and federal level and eveything we write or say is broken down and documented. A police officer or a soilder or a teacher. So, when you say scientist you can be talking about my particular profession (so called soft science) You could be talking about a medical doctor or a chemist or a computer programmer. The problem with this forum is some folks want to make science (or at least it seems to me they do) a Thing instead of a plethora of human diciplines and explorations. A bioligist would be no more reliable than a police officer in talking about a persons inner life. A doctor might specialize in heart issues and be very out of touch on a woman's biological needs. I am no anti intellutual or anti science type. But, at the same time I cringe at the arrogence displayed by some who belittle everything they can't put in a test tube. Also, the ones who love the "right" kind of science but disrespect the people who dare to step out of the box. Again, science is not one thing. So, do scientist lie to get grants? Do they go in with a preconcieved need to find a certain answer? Are some in bed with big pharm? You betcha! But, are most scientist honest? Of course. So are most clergy and most police and most butchers.

---------- Post added at 09:25 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:12 PM ----------

I still remember and I'll try to find it since I have it somewhere. A book published by Scientific American (no woo woo are they) The editor was comparing a paper presented by Brian Joeshpson who was a Nobel Prize winner. With much respect I might add. The editor then made a remark about a certain magician (James Randi) who scoffed at the brilliant scientist. Something along the lines of the esteemed Nobel winner "possibly" knowing more about science than the cranky magician who stood to the side and belittled those who were (the editors emphasis not mine) their betters in the field of science. But, don't let me interupt the love fest. After all I'm just in the "soft" sciences.

 

[pixelsmith]

The vaccine stuff really drives me crazy and in my opinion is extremely dangerous. People are listening to non-experts such as Jenny McCarthy instead of the doctors. Due to the anti-vaxxers children have actually died. So sad.

You are right Angel, the vaccine stuff IS extremely dangerous. I would NEVER get a vaccine.

 

[Angel of Ioren]

You are right Angel, the vaccine stuff IS extremely dangerous. I would NEVER get a vaccine.

So you're cool with infants dying of whooping cough? Don't tell me you're one of those people that think Andrew Wakefield is a hero. Vaccines eradicated polio and small pox. How is that a bad thing? The science is there that shows that vaccines are extremely helpful in preventing disease.