Is science infallible or is science for sale - Page 2 | Scienc…
Is science infallible or is science for sale
    • PopadaPill [900338]
    • Role: Civilian
    • Level: 91
    • Posts: 6,071
    • Karma: 3,820
    • Last Action: 3 years
      • 0
    • Reason:
      Are you sure you want to report this post to staff?
      Cancel
    Posted on 14:03:46 - 05/02/18 (6 years ago)
    Post link copied to clipboard Copy post link

    LawOfOne [266775]

    I choose science is for sale to the highest bidder to say whatever the purchaser wants as opposed to science is the new God everyone worships. Anyone can say anything is true because science is never wrong and the studies used science.

    Quickdraw [915500]

    Well that is true to people who dont understand how the process works. We are in a difficult situation currently because scientific advances have become so complex that the average person doesnt understand them. This puts us in a situation where people feel like their only choice is to pick which "authority" to trust. But that is not the only choice, it is just the easy choice. The beautiful thing about science is that it is inherently anti-authoritarian. We dont depend on an authority to tell us what the answer is, we can go out and measure it ourselves. So if you think scientists are corrupt and lying to you, prove it! Go look at the data yourself. Most data nowadays is posted online. Analyze their data and if you come to a different conclusion figure out WHY. Are you processing the data correctly? Are you making an invalid assumption? All of this might take a couple of years to truly understand, but once you do you will no longer have to think of science as "god" or some magical process, because it is rooted in what we physically observe and anybody can go observe the same thing.

    LawOfOne [266775]

    Im sure! I have no idea how a laser works or CERN. I do know that people understand that money can buy you what ever you'd like and you can slap the word Science on it and people will worship it as if it were a Deity.

    Quickdraw [915500]

    Well I would encourage you to look those things up then. There are plenty of free courses online to help people understand the basic principles. Can you provide some examples of slapping the word science on something that is not supported by the evidence? I am not totally sure what you are referring to. Maybe it seems to you like people are worshipping it like a diety because you dont understand the evidence that went in to supporting that position?

    I can think of many examples of people abusing science to sell stuff (think of infomertials), but I think most people recognize that those are bullshit. People do try to misrepresent science to advance their own agendas so it is very important that we strive to understand science as part of our civic duty.

    Worshipping a scientific finding like a diety is certainly wrong and would show a deep misunderstanding of the scientific process. Some of that exists and I strongly urge people to look into the evidence and think like a scientist themselves.

    LawOfOne [266775]

    I promise you how CERN works or lasers work will never enrich my life in anyway.

    Peer reviewed studies with conflicting results or scientists are pissed off and coming out on record saying most studies findings can't be replicated, cherry picked data that your client. How can one vaccine study say vaccines are perfectly safe and another says they are deadly? This type of thing is all over Google and the news, however you choose to get it. Studies that said tobacco was safe for decades.

    You see it all the time of facebook, people will quote some study that says peanut butter is great for your liver and you go look at the study it was funded by the peanut growers association of america and most people will just not even look into it because science says its true, it must be true. If a Company contracts a study and says they want a positive outcome the study will be positive one way or another.

    Quickdraw [915500]

    I think your life would be deeply enriched by understanding how science works and what the scientific process is. Without the scientific process you have no way of determining what is true or not, so you are totally dependant on somebody else dictating to you what is true or not. This makes it awfully easy to manipulate you (I am using "you" in a general sense, not trying to make you feel bad), which I am sure you do not want.

    Most of the problems that you brought up are a result of poor scientific reporting by journalists. Very few journalists have any scientific training at all so their coverage of it is naturally poor. They often misrepresent results to get catchier headlines. One study is not definitive either, but articles like you bring up often talk as if it were. Lets use your peanut example. I am going to make up all the following results to provide an illustration. Say one study measures the amount of toxins in peoples urine and finds that eating peanuts lowers the amount of toxins in urine. They then suggest that this evidence might support the idea of improved liver performance. The study found some evidence and made a suggestion to the larger scientific community to investigate further. Somebody who doesnt understand the process then writes an article claiming "science says peanuts are good for your liver" even though the first study never said that, they suggested it m8ght be true. Then another study looks at liver activity and finds that peanuts cause your liver to work super hard. This removes more toxins from y9ur body, but stresses your liver out. So another article is written now claiming "peanuts are bad for your liver". If you just read the reporting you would think that tue 2 studies contradicted each other, but in reality they are entirely consistent. This type of thing happens in almost all science reporting I have seen. This is why it is so important for the gemeral population to understand the scientific process.

    The reproducability problem is different. This comes from a variety of sources and is hard to explain in a forum, but I will try. First, scientists are incentivized to always do something new. So a scientist might publish a paper with a new finding that was true in the very specific place and conditions that they studied. But when other people go to try to confirm this finding, they cannot. The finding would then be deemed un reproducable. That sounds bad, but ultimately whatever that finding was did not have a lot of evidence to support it so the idea does not persist. It is corrected by the subsequebt studies that could not reproduce the results. That is how science works, it is an interative process where ideas are proposed and rejected until we find an emergent truth. The problem comes when people dont understand the process and try to cherry pick results. Say 10 years after this un reproduceable study was published, some journalist or politician goes back and quotes it as evidence to support their position. That would be wrong because the larger body of evidence shows it is not true. This is what happened with that vaccine autism study. After that study was completed, other scientists found out that the author was wrong and showed how. That first author who was wrong got fired, but year later peole still quote his work even though it has been showed incorrect.
    Like giving Yuge keys of Ket to your ga...friends





    >.
    Last edited by PopadaPill on 14:07:51 - 05/02/18
    • Quickdraw [915500]
    • Role: Civilian
    • Level: 89
    • Posts: 1,111
    • Karma: 526
    • Last Action: 3 years
      • 0
    • Reason:
      Are you sure you want to report this post to staff?
      Cancel
    Posted on 18:46:59 - 06/02/18 (6 years ago)
    Post link copied to clipboard Copy post link

    Quickdraw [915500]

    Well that is true to people who dont understand how the process works. We are in a difficult situation currently because scientific advances have become so complex that the average person doesnt understand them. This puts us in a situation where people feel like their only choice is to pick which "authority" to trust. But that is not the only choice, it is just the easy choice. The beautiful thing about science is that it is inherently anti-authoritarian. We dont depend on an authority to tell us what the answer is, we can go out and measure it ourselves. So if you think scientists are corrupt and lying to you, prove it! Go look at the data yourself. Most data nowadays is posted online. Analyze their data and if you come to a different conclusion figure out WHY. Are you processing the data correctly? Are you making an invalid assumption? All of this might take a couple of years to truly understand, but once you do you will no longer have to think of science as "god" or some magical process, because it is rooted in what we physically observe and anybody can go observe the same thing.

    LawOfOne [266775]

    Im sure! I have no idea how a laser works or CERN. I do know that people understand that money can buy you what ever you'd like and you can slap the word Science on it and people will worship it as if it were a Deity.

    Quickdraw [915500]

    Well I would encourage you to look those things up then. There are plenty of free courses online to help people understand the basic principles. Can you provide some examples of slapping the word science on something that is not supported by the evidence? I am not totally sure what you are referring to. Maybe it seems to you like people are worshipping it like a diety because you dont understand the evidence that went in to supporting that position?

    I can think of many examples of people abusing science to sell stuff (think of infomertials), but I think most people recognize that those are bullshit. People do try to misrepresent science to advance their own agendas so it is very important that we strive to understand science as part of our civic duty.

    Worshipping a scientific finding like a diety is certainly wrong and would show a deep misunderstanding of the scientific process. Some of that exists and I strongly urge people to look into the evidence and think like a scientist themselves.

    LawOfOne [266775]

    I promise you how CERN works or lasers work will never enrich my life in anyway.

    Peer reviewed studies with conflicting results or scientists are pissed off and coming out on record saying most studies findings can't be replicated, cherry picked data that your client. How can one vaccine study say vaccines are perfectly safe and another says they are deadly? This type of thing is all over Google and the news, however you choose to get it. Studies that said tobacco was safe for decades.

    You see it all the time of facebook, people will quote some study that says peanut butter is great for your liver and you go look at the study it was funded by the peanut growers association of america and most people will just not even look into it because science says its true, it must be true. If a Company contracts a study and says they want a positive outcome the study will be positive one way or another.

    Quickdraw [915500]

    I think your life would be deeply enriched by understanding how science works and what the scientific process is. Without the scientific process you have no way of determining what is true or not, so you are totally dependant on somebody else dictating to you what is true or not. This makes it awfully easy to manipulate you (I am using "you" in a general sense, not trying to make you feel bad), which I am sure you do not want.

    Most of the problems that you brought up are a result of poor scientific reporting by journalists. Very few journalists have any scientific training at all so their coverage of it is naturally poor. They often misrepresent results to get catchier headlines. One study is not definitive either, but articles like you bring up often talk as if it were. Lets use your peanut example. I am going to make up all the following results to provide an illustration. Say one study measures the amount of toxins in peoples urine and finds that eating peanuts lowers the amount of toxins in urine. They then suggest that this evidence might support the idea of improved liver performance. The study found some evidence and made a suggestion to the larger scientific community to investigate further. Somebody who doesnt understand the process then writes an article claiming "science says peanuts are good for your liver" even though the first study never said that, they suggested it m8ght be true. Then another study looks at liver activity and finds that peanuts cause your liver to work super hard. This removes more toxins from y9ur body, but stresses your liver out. So another article is written now claiming "peanuts are bad for your liver". If you just read the reporting you would think that tue 2 studies contradicted each other, but in reality they are entirely consistent. This type of thing happens in almost all science reporting I have seen. This is why it is so important for the gemeral population to understand the scientific process.

    The reproducability problem is different. This comes from a variety of sources and is hard to explain in a forum, but I will try. First, scientists are incentivized to always do something new. So a scientist might publish a paper with a new finding that was true in the very specific place and conditions that they studied. But when other people go to try to confirm this finding, they cannot. The finding would then be deemed un reproducable. That sounds bad, but ultimately whatever that finding was did not have a lot of evidence to support it so the idea does not persist. It is corrected by the subsequebt studies that could not reproduce the results. That is how science works, it is an interative process where ideas are proposed and rejected until we find an emergent truth. The problem comes when people dont understand the process and try to cherry pick results. Say 10 years after this un reproduceable study was published, some journalist or politician goes back and quotes it as evidence to support their position. That would be wrong because the larger body of evidence shows it is not true. This is what happened with that vaccine autism study. After that study was completed, other scientists found out that the author was wrong and showed how. That first author who was wrong got fired, but year later peole still quote his work even though it has been showed incorrect.

    LawOfOne [266775]

    I don't need science to not be naive. What kind of point is that? Finding out what subatomic particles come from smashing gold atoms together will have absolutely zero impact on my life ever. If and when they find a Wimp they might research it and find some way to change the world after I am dead but that would happen with or without my study of the subject.

    So you are saying you have never read 2 studies that contradict each other? Ok...

    If a research firm does not find the conclusions that the company wants do you honestly think that company will get repeat business from that holding company or the more likely scenario, they will find someone that finds the conclusion they want after investing millions into a product?

    The problem that I am referring to is people, like the media, use sciences "infallibility" to push their ideas of the truth, a product or worse. Like I said which is more true...there are many studies that have been completely proven as cherry picked data or out right bunk studies. Like I said the Tobacco and vaccine have been caught red handed pushing bunk science. The idea that science cant be bought is absurd, if that is what you are trying to represent.
    Well, when you are talking about policy regarding science, yes you do need to understand science, otherwise you seem naive and probably are not voting how you would like to if you truly understood what you were voting about. Understanding the ways in which understanding atoms improves your life, would help you understand the point of funding large atomic colliders at least. For example, we are building much faster and smaller computers using knowledge about sub-atomic particles. 

    What you are talking about is not science. Science is the process of having a question and looking at the evidence available to come to a conclusion about the answer to that question. What you are talking about is having an answer and trying to find the evidence that supports that answer. That is not science. Companies may try to dress it up to look like science, but private sector "science" is very rarely real science.

    I understand the point that your are trying to make, but it is not a valid point. Science can NOT be bought because the very nature of the scientific method is non-partisan and un-biased. There are plenty of people who try to pretend that what they do is science (tobacco companies and the anti-vaccine groups are great examples), but it is not actually science because if you start out with two possible answers to a question and you know the answer that you want to support, you are not starting from an un-biased position and looking at what the evidence shows. This is why it is so important for the general populace to have a better understanding of the scientific process so that they are able to discern these differences and understand what is actually science vs. what is propoganda. I would argue that understanding the scientific process is part of your civic duty, how can you make an informed vote if you are not informed?
    • PopadaPill [900338]
    • Role: Civilian
    • Level: 91
    • Posts: 6,071
    • Karma: 3,820
    • Last Action: 3 years
      • 0
    • Reason:
      Are you sure you want to report this post to staff?
      Cancel
    Posted on 15:55:19 - 23/02/18 (6 years ago)
    Post link copied to clipboard Copy post link
    Horse shit^....Its a joke.





    Another shit stirring Op of shite.
    • LawOfOne [266775]
    • Role: Civilian
    • Level: 100
    • Posts: 1,172
    • Karma: 272
    • Last Action: 4 years
      • 0
    • Reason:
      Are you sure you want to report this post to staff?
      Cancel
    Posted on 06:40:27 - 24/02/18 (6 years ago)
    Post link copied to clipboard Copy post link

    LawOfOne [266775]

    Im sure! I have no idea how a laser works or CERN. I do know that people understand that money can buy you what ever you'd like and you can slap the word Science on it and people will worship it as if it were a Deity.

    Quickdraw [915500]

    Well I would encourage you to look those things up then. There are plenty of free courses online to help people understand the basic principles. Can you provide some examples of slapping the word science on something that is not supported by the evidence? I am not totally sure what you are referring to. Maybe it seems to you like people are worshipping it like a diety because you dont understand the evidence that went in to supporting that position?

    I can think of many examples of people abusing science to sell stuff (think of infomertials), but I think most people recognize that those are bullshit. People do try to misrepresent science to advance their own agendas so it is very important that we strive to understand science as part of our civic duty.

    Worshipping a scientific finding like a diety is certainly wrong and would show a deep misunderstanding of the scientific process. Some of that exists and I strongly urge people to look into the evidence and think like a scientist themselves.

    LawOfOne [266775]

    I promise you how CERN works or lasers work will never enrich my life in anyway.

    Peer reviewed studies with conflicting results or scientists are pissed off and coming out on record saying most studies findings can't be replicated, cherry picked data that your client. How can one vaccine study say vaccines are perfectly safe and another says they are deadly? This type of thing is all over Google and the news, however you choose to get it. Studies that said tobacco was safe for decades.

    You see it all the time of facebook, people will quote some study that says peanut butter is great for your liver and you go look at the study it was funded by the peanut growers association of america and most people will just not even look into it because science says its true, it must be true. If a Company contracts a study and says they want a positive outcome the study will be positive one way or another.

    Quickdraw [915500]

    I think your life would be deeply enriched by understanding how science works and what the scientific process is. Without the scientific process you have no way of determining what is true or not, so you are totally dependant on somebody else dictating to you what is true or not. This makes it awfully easy to manipulate you (I am using "you" in a general sense, not trying to make you feel bad), which I am sure you do not want.

    Most of the problems that you brought up are a result of poor scientific reporting by journalists. Very few journalists have any scientific training at all so their coverage of it is naturally poor. They often misrepresent results to get catchier headlines. One study is not definitive either, but articles like you bring up often talk as if it were. Lets use your peanut example. I am going to make up all the following results to provide an illustration. Say one study measures the amount of toxins in peoples urine and finds that eating peanuts lowers the amount of toxins in urine. They then suggest that this evidence might support the idea of improved liver performance. The study found some evidence and made a suggestion to the larger scientific community to investigate further. Somebody who doesnt understand the process then writes an article claiming "science says peanuts are good for your liver" even though the first study never said that, they suggested it m8ght be true. Then another study looks at liver activity and finds that peanuts cause your liver to work super hard. This removes more toxins from y9ur body, but stresses your liver out. So another article is written now claiming "peanuts are bad for your liver". If you just read the reporting you would think that tue 2 studies contradicted each other, but in reality they are entirely consistent. This type of thing happens in almost all science reporting I have seen. This is why it is so important for the gemeral population to understand the scientific process.

    The reproducability problem is different. This comes from a variety of sources and is hard to explain in a forum, but I will try. First, scientists are incentivized to always do something new. So a scientist might publish a paper with a new finding that was true in the very specific place and conditions that they studied. But when other people go to try to confirm this finding, they cannot. The finding would then be deemed un reproducable. That sounds bad, but ultimately whatever that finding was did not have a lot of evidence to support it so the idea does not persist. It is corrected by the subsequebt studies that could not reproduce the results. That is how science works, it is an interative process where ideas are proposed and rejected until we find an emergent truth. The problem comes when people dont understand the process and try to cherry pick results. Say 10 years after this un reproduceable study was published, some journalist or politician goes back and quotes it as evidence to support their position. That would be wrong because the larger body of evidence shows it is not true. This is what happened with that vaccine autism study. After that study was completed, other scientists found out that the author was wrong and showed how. That first author who was wrong got fired, but year later peole still quote his work even though it has been showed incorrect.

    LawOfOne [266775]

    I don't need science to not be naive. What kind of point is that? Finding out what subatomic particles come from smashing gold atoms together will have absolutely zero impact on my life ever. If and when they find a Wimp they might research it and find some way to change the world after I am dead but that would happen with or without my study of the subject.

    So you are saying you have never read 2 studies that contradict each other? Ok...

    If a research firm does not find the conclusions that the company wants do you honestly think that company will get repeat business from that holding company or the more likely scenario, they will find someone that finds the conclusion they want after investing millions into a product?

    The problem that I am referring to is people, like the media, use sciences "infallibility" to push their ideas of the truth, a product or worse. Like I said which is more true...there are many studies that have been completely proven as cherry picked data or out right bunk studies. Like I said the Tobacco and vaccine have been caught red handed pushing bunk science. The idea that science cant be bought is absurd, if that is what you are trying to represent.

    Quickdraw [915500]

    Well, when you are talking about policy regarding science, yes you do need to understand science, otherwise you seem naive and probably are not voting how you would like to if you truly understood what you were voting about. Understanding the ways in which understanding atoms improves your life, would help you understand the point of funding large atomic colliders at least. For example, we are building much faster and smaller computers using knowledge about sub-atomic particles.

    What you are talking about is not science. Science is the process of having a question and looking at the evidence available to come to a conclusion about the answer to that question. What you are talking about is having an answer and trying to find the evidence that supports that answer. That is not science. Companies may try to dress it up to look like science, but private sector "science" is very rarely real science.

    I understand the point that your are trying to make, but it is not a valid point. Science can NOT be bought because the very nature of the scientific method is non-partisan and un-biased. There are plenty of people who try to pretend that what they do is science (tobacco companies and the anti-vaccine groups are great examples), but it is not actually science because if you start out with two possible answers to a question and you know the answer that you want to support, you are not starting from an un-biased position and looking at what the evidence shows. This is why it is so important for the general populace to have a better understanding of the scientific process so that they are able to discern these differences and understand what is actually science vs. what is propoganda. I would argue that understanding the scientific process is part of your civic duty, how can you make an informed vote if you are not informed?
    I don't really care who thinks I am naive, thats not a factual statement. Me knowing about atoms will never help my life. I really don't give 2 shits how they fund CERN. Virtually all people when asked won't care. 

    I know what I am talking about isn't science, I said that multiple times, you seem to be the only one that doesn't understand that I am not. My problem is the exact thing you describe but people have been brainwashed to believe everything associated with science and believe it and the corruption.

    Science can be bought, everything is for sale for the right price. Just because the wrong conclusion was made doesn't mean science did not happen. Just because it is not to your standards or your opinion doesn't mean it didn't happen. You can start from a stance that it is legit and when you go to analyze the data more cash comes your way and you did some science but your answer to why what happened came to the wrong conclusion. The average person doesn't have the will or the time to get science on a basic level but I assure you bunk studies and conclusions will be found eventually without the everyday man having a grasp on it

     

    • Lewri [1762864]
    • Role: Civilian
    • Level: 72
    • Posts: 895
    • Karma: 394
    • Last Action: 1 hour
      • 0
    • Reason:
      Are you sure you want to report this post to staff?
      Cancel
    Posted on 20:05:29 - 24/02/18 (6 years ago)
    Post link copied to clipboard Copy post link

    Quickdraw [915500]

    Well I would encourage you to look those things up then. There are plenty of free courses online to help people understand the basic principles. Can you provide some examples of slapping the word science on something that is not supported by the evidence? I am not totally sure what you are referring to. Maybe it seems to you like people are worshipping it like a diety because you dont understand the evidence that went in to supporting that position?

    I can think of many examples of people abusing science to sell stuff (think of infomertials), but I think most people recognize that those are bullshit. People do try to misrepresent science to advance their own agendas so it is very important that we strive to understand science as part of our civic duty.

    Worshipping a scientific finding like a diety is certainly wrong and would show a deep misunderstanding of the scientific process. Some of that exists and I strongly urge people to look into the evidence and think like a scientist themselves.

    LawOfOne [266775]

    I promise you how CERN works or lasers work will never enrich my life in anyway.

    Peer reviewed studies with conflicting results or scientists are pissed off and coming out on record saying most studies findings can't be replicated, cherry picked data that your client. How can one vaccine study say vaccines are perfectly safe and another says they are deadly? This type of thing is all over Google and the news, however you choose to get it. Studies that said tobacco was safe for decades.

    You see it all the time of facebook, people will quote some study that says peanut butter is great for your liver and you go look at the study it was funded by the peanut growers association of america and most people will just not even look into it because science says its true, it must be true. If a Company contracts a study and says they want a positive outcome the study will be positive one way or another.

    Quickdraw [915500]

    I think your life would be deeply enriched by understanding how science works and what the scientific process is. Without the scientific process you have no way of determining what is true or not, so you are totally dependant on somebody else dictating to you what is true or not. This makes it awfully easy to manipulate you (I am using "you" in a general sense, not trying to make you feel bad), which I am sure you do not want.

    Most of the problems that you brought up are a result of poor scientific reporting by journalists. Very few journalists have any scientific training at all so their coverage of it is naturally poor. They often misrepresent results to get catchier headlines. One study is not definitive either, but articles like you bring up often talk as if it were. Lets use your peanut example. I am going to make up all the following results to provide an illustration. Say one study measures the amount of toxins in peoples urine and finds that eating peanuts lowers the amount of toxins in urine. They then suggest that this evidence might support the idea of improved liver performance. The study found some evidence and made a suggestion to the larger scientific community to investigate further. Somebody who doesnt understand the process then writes an article claiming "science says peanuts are good for your liver" even though the first study never said that, they suggested it m8ght be true. Then another study looks at liver activity and finds that peanuts cause your liver to work super hard. This removes more toxins from y9ur body, but stresses your liver out. So another article is written now claiming "peanuts are bad for your liver". If you just read the reporting you would think that tue 2 studies contradicted each other, but in reality they are entirely consistent. This type of thing happens in almost all science reporting I have seen. This is why it is so important for the gemeral population to understand the scientific process.

    The reproducability problem is different. This comes from a variety of sources and is hard to explain in a forum, but I will try. First, scientists are incentivized to always do something new. So a scientist might publish a paper with a new finding that was true in the very specific place and conditions that they studied. But when other people go to try to confirm this finding, they cannot. The finding would then be deemed un reproducable. That sounds bad, but ultimately whatever that finding was did not have a lot of evidence to support it so the idea does not persist. It is corrected by the subsequebt studies that could not reproduce the results. That is how science works, it is an interative process where ideas are proposed and rejected until we find an emergent truth. The problem comes when people dont understand the process and try to cherry pick results. Say 10 years after this un reproduceable study was published, some journalist or politician goes back and quotes it as evidence to support their position. That would be wrong because the larger body of evidence shows it is not true. This is what happened with that vaccine autism study. After that study was completed, other scientists found out that the author was wrong and showed how. That first author who was wrong got fired, but year later peole still quote his work even though it has been showed incorrect.

    LawOfOne [266775]

    I don't need science to not be naive. What kind of point is that? Finding out what subatomic particles come from smashing gold atoms together will have absolutely zero impact on my life ever. If and when they find a Wimp they might research it and find some way to change the world after I am dead but that would happen with or without my study of the subject.

    So you are saying you have never read 2 studies that contradict each other? Ok...

    If a research firm does not find the conclusions that the company wants do you honestly think that company will get repeat business from that holding company or the more likely scenario, they will find someone that finds the conclusion they want after investing millions into a product?

    The problem that I am referring to is people, like the media, use sciences "infallibility" to push their ideas of the truth, a product or worse. Like I said which is more true...there are many studies that have been completely proven as cherry picked data or out right bunk studies. Like I said the Tobacco and vaccine have been caught red handed pushing bunk science. The idea that science cant be bought is absurd, if that is what you are trying to represent.

    Quickdraw [915500]

    Well, when you are talking about policy regarding science, yes you do need to understand science, otherwise you seem naive and probably are not voting how you would like to if you truly understood what you were voting about. Understanding the ways in which understanding atoms improves your life, would help you understand the point of funding large atomic colliders at least. For example, we are building much faster and smaller computers using knowledge about sub-atomic particles.

    What you are talking about is not science. Science is the process of having a question and looking at the evidence available to come to a conclusion about the answer to that question. What you are talking about is having an answer and trying to find the evidence that supports that answer. That is not science. Companies may try to dress it up to look like science, but private sector "science" is very rarely real science.

    I understand the point that your are trying to make, but it is not a valid point. Science can NOT be bought because the very nature of the scientific method is non-partisan and un-biased. There are plenty of people who try to pretend that what they do is science (tobacco companies and the anti-vaccine groups are great examples), but it is not actually science because if you start out with two possible answers to a question and you know the answer that you want to support, you are not starting from an un-biased position and looking at what the evidence shows. This is why it is so important for the general populace to have a better understanding of the scientific process so that they are able to discern these differences and understand what is actually science vs. what is propoganda. I would argue that understanding the scientific process is part of your civic duty, how can you make an informed vote if you are not informed?

    LawOfOne [266775]

    I don't really care who thinks I am naive, thats not a factual statement. Me knowing about atoms will never help my life. I really don't give 2 shits how they fund CERN. Virtually all people when asked won't care.

    I know what I am talking about isn't science, I said that multiple times, you seem to be the only one that doesn't understand that I am not. My problem is the exact thing you describe but people have been brainwashed to believe everything associated with science and believe it and the corruption.

    Science can be bought, everything is for sale for the right price. Just because the wrong conclusion was made doesn't mean science did not happen. Just because it is not to your standards or your opinion doesn't mean it didn't happen. You can start from a stance that it is legit and when you go to analyze the data more cash comes your way and you did some science but your answer to why what happened came to the wrong conclusion. The average person doesn't have the will or the time to get science on a basic level but I assure you bunk studies and conclusions will be found eventually without the everyday man having a grasp on it
    If you believe everything that is associated with science then that just shows how little you know about science, hence why education is so important. Probably the majority of published research is wrong, as explained here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=42QuXLucH3Q , by veritasium, whether it be due to mistakes made or intentional p-hacking or just straight out lies.

    It is important that you understand science so you can look into the topic, see what other studies say, whether or not theres any meta-analysis etc.
    Last edited by Lewri on 00:04:18 - 25/02/18

    • Quickdraw [915500]
    • Role: Civilian
    • Level: 89
    • Posts: 1,111
    • Karma: 526
    • Last Action: 3 years
      • 0
    • Reason:
      Are you sure you want to report this post to staff?
      Cancel
    Posted on 23:07:45 - 24/02/18 (6 years ago)
    Post link copied to clipboard Copy post link

    Quickdraw [915500]

    Well I would encourage you to look those things up then. There are plenty of free courses online to help people understand the basic principles. Can you provide some examples of slapping the word science on something that is not supported by the evidence? I am not totally sure what you are referring to. Maybe it seems to you like people are worshipping it like a diety because you dont understand the evidence that went in to supporting that position?

    I can think of many examples of people abusing science to sell stuff (think of infomertials), but I think most people recognize that those are bullshit. People do try to misrepresent science to advance their own agendas so it is very important that we strive to understand science as part of our civic duty.

    Worshipping a scientific finding like a diety is certainly wrong and would show a deep misunderstanding of the scientific process. Some of that exists and I strongly urge people to look into the evidence and think like a scientist themselves.

    LawOfOne [266775]

    I promise you how CERN works or lasers work will never enrich my life in anyway.

    Peer reviewed studies with conflicting results or scientists are pissed off and coming out on record saying most studies findings can't be replicated, cherry picked data that your client. How can one vaccine study say vaccines are perfectly safe and another says they are deadly? This type of thing is all over Google and the news, however you choose to get it. Studies that said tobacco was safe for decades.

    You see it all the time of facebook, people will quote some study that says peanut butter is great for your liver and you go look at the study it was funded by the peanut growers association of america and most people will just not even look into it because science says its true, it must be true. If a Company contracts a study and says they want a positive outcome the study will be positive one way or another.

    Quickdraw [915500]

    I think your life would be deeply enriched by understanding how science works and what the scientific process is. Without the scientific process you have no way of determining what is true or not, so you are totally dependant on somebody else dictating to you what is true or not. This makes it awfully easy to manipulate you (I am using "you" in a general sense, not trying to make you feel bad), which I am sure you do not want.

    Most of the problems that you brought up are a result of poor scientific reporting by journalists. Very few journalists have any scientific training at all so their coverage of it is naturally poor. They often misrepresent results to get catchier headlines. One study is not definitive either, but articles like you bring up often talk as if it were. Lets use your peanut example. I am going to make up all the following results to provide an illustration. Say one study measures the amount of toxins in peoples urine and finds that eating peanuts lowers the amount of toxins in urine. They then suggest that this evidence might support the idea of improved liver performance. The study found some evidence and made a suggestion to the larger scientific community to investigate further. Somebody who doesnt understand the process then writes an article claiming "science says peanuts are good for your liver" even though the first study never said that, they suggested it m8ght be true. Then another study looks at liver activity and finds that peanuts cause your liver to work super hard. This removes more toxins from y9ur body, but stresses your liver out. So another article is written now claiming "peanuts are bad for your liver". If you just read the reporting you would think that tue 2 studies contradicted each other, but in reality they are entirely consistent. This type of thing happens in almost all science reporting I have seen. This is why it is so important for the gemeral population to understand the scientific process.

    The reproducability problem is different. This comes from a variety of sources and is hard to explain in a forum, but I will try. First, scientists are incentivized to always do something new. So a scientist might publish a paper with a new finding that was true in the very specific place and conditions that they studied. But when other people go to try to confirm this finding, they cannot. The finding would then be deemed un reproducable. That sounds bad, but ultimately whatever that finding was did not have a lot of evidence to support it so the idea does not persist. It is corrected by the subsequebt studies that could not reproduce the results. That is how science works, it is an interative process where ideas are proposed and rejected until we find an emergent truth. The problem comes when people dont understand the process and try to cherry pick results. Say 10 years after this un reproduceable study was published, some journalist or politician goes back and quotes it as evidence to support their position. That would be wrong because the larger body of evidence shows it is not true. This is what happened with that vaccine autism study. After that study was completed, other scientists found out that the author was wrong and showed how. That first author who was wrong got fired, but year later peole still quote his work even though it has been showed incorrect.

    LawOfOne [266775]

    I don't need science to not be naive. What kind of point is that? Finding out what subatomic particles come from smashing gold atoms together will have absolutely zero impact on my life ever. If and when they find a Wimp they might research it and find some way to change the world after I am dead but that would happen with or without my study of the subject.

    So you are saying you have never read 2 studies that contradict each other? Ok...

    If a research firm does not find the conclusions that the company wants do you honestly think that company will get repeat business from that holding company or the more likely scenario, they will find someone that finds the conclusion they want after investing millions into a product?

    The problem that I am referring to is people, like the media, use sciences "infallibility" to push their ideas of the truth, a product or worse. Like I said which is more true...there are many studies that have been completely proven as cherry picked data or out right bunk studies. Like I said the Tobacco and vaccine have been caught red handed pushing bunk science. The idea that science cant be bought is absurd, if that is what you are trying to represent.

    Quickdraw [915500]

    Well, when you are talking about policy regarding science, yes you do need to understand science, otherwise you seem naive and probably are not voting how you would like to if you truly understood what you were voting about. Understanding the ways in which understanding atoms improves your life, would help you understand the point of funding large atomic colliders at least. For example, we are building much faster and smaller computers using knowledge about sub-atomic particles.

    What you are talking about is not science. Science is the process of having a question and looking at the evidence available to come to a conclusion about the answer to that question. What you are talking about is having an answer and trying to find the evidence that supports that answer. That is not science. Companies may try to dress it up to look like science, but private sector "science" is very rarely real science.

    I understand the point that your are trying to make, but it is not a valid point. Science can NOT be bought because the very nature of the scientific method is non-partisan and un-biased. There are plenty of people who try to pretend that what they do is science (tobacco companies and the anti-vaccine groups are great examples), but it is not actually science because if you start out with two possible answers to a question and you know the answer that you want to support, you are not starting from an un-biased position and looking at what the evidence shows. This is why it is so important for the general populace to have a better understanding of the scientific process so that they are able to discern these differences and understand what is actually science vs. what is propoganda. I would argue that understanding the scientific process is part of your civic duty, how can you make an informed vote if you are not informed?

    LawOfOne [266775]

    I don't really care who thinks I am naive, thats not a factual statement. Me knowing about atoms will never help my life. I really don't give 2 shits how they fund CERN. Virtually all people when asked won't care.

    I know what I am talking about isn't science, I said that multiple times, you seem to be the only one that doesn't understand that I am not. My problem is the exact thing you describe but people have been brainwashed to believe everything associated with science and believe it and the corruption.

    Science can be bought, everything is for sale for the right price. Just because the wrong conclusion was made doesn't mean science did not happen. Just because it is not to your standards or your opinion doesn't mean it didn't happen. You can start from a stance that it is legit and when you go to analyze the data more cash comes your way and you did some science but your answer to why what happened came to the wrong conclusion. The average person doesn't have the will or the time to get science on a basic level but I assure you bunk studies and conclusions will be found eventually without the everyday man having a grasp on it
    "I know what I am talking about isn't science" - Then why did you call it science in the thread title and continue referring to it as science?

    Maybe a specific scientist can be bought and convinced to stop performing work based on the scientific method, but down the road other scientists who are still doing good work based on evidence will find the falsehoods. Oil companies have bankrolled "scientists" to try to prove that global warming doesn't exist, but the larger scientific community has found that based on the evidence humans are warming the planet. The only reason that there is any "debate" about global warming is because the general populace is either too lazy to understand the process that led us to know that we are causing global warming or they are too arrogant to admit that their preconcieved idea might be wrong. Either way, the solution is for the general populace to get off their asses and learn. The scientific method cannot be bought and it is the best thing we have to find the truths of our universe.

    Honestly, I do not understand your argument. You are saying that people should be skeptical of scientific results, which is true, but you are then saying that there is no point in putting in the effort to understand the results. How can you critically examine something you don't understand? It seems to me like you are upset that people have found evidence that contradicts your ideas and you just want people to believe the same things that you do.
    • Tolshortte [648554]
    • Role: Civilian
    • Level: 96
    • Posts: 6,454
    • Karma: 6,978
    • Last Action: 1 month
      • 1
    • Reason:
      Are you sure you want to report this post to staff?
      Cancel
    Posted on 05:33:11 - 25/02/18 (6 years ago)
    Post link copied to clipboard Copy post link

    LawOfOne [266775]

    I promise you how CERN works or lasers work will never enrich my life in anyway.

    Peer reviewed studies with conflicting results or scientists are pissed off and coming out on record saying most studies findings can't be replicated, cherry picked data that your client. How can one vaccine study say vaccines are perfectly safe and another says they are deadly? This type of thing is all over Google and the news, however you choose to get it. Studies that said tobacco was safe for decades.

    You see it all the time of facebook, people will quote some study that says peanut butter is great for your liver and you go look at the study it was funded by the peanut growers association of america and most people will just not even look into it because science says its true, it must be true. If a Company contracts a study and says they want a positive outcome the study will be positive one way or another.

    Quickdraw [915500]

    I think your life would be deeply enriched by understanding how science works and what the scientific process is. Without the scientific process you have no way of determining what is true or not, so you are totally dependant on somebody else dictating to you what is true or not. This makes it awfully easy to manipulate you (I am using "you" in a general sense, not trying to make you feel bad), which I am sure you do not want.

    Most of the problems that you brought up are a result of poor scientific reporting by journalists. Very few journalists have any scientific training at all so their coverage of it is naturally poor. They often misrepresent results to get catchier headlines. One study is not definitive either, but articles like you bring up often talk as if it were. Lets use your peanut example. I am going to make up all the following results to provide an illustration. Say one study measures the amount of toxins in peoples urine and finds that eating peanuts lowers the amount of toxins in urine. They then suggest that this evidence might support the idea of improved liver performance. The study found some evidence and made a suggestion to the larger scientific community to investigate further. Somebody who doesnt understand the process then writes an article claiming "science says peanuts are good for your liver" even though the first study never said that, they suggested it m8ght be true. Then another study looks at liver activity and finds that peanuts cause your liver to work super hard. This removes more toxins from y9ur body, but stresses your liver out. So another article is written now claiming "peanuts are bad for your liver". If you just read the reporting you would think that tue 2 studies contradicted each other, but in reality they are entirely consistent. This type of thing happens in almost all science reporting I have seen. This is why it is so important for the gemeral population to understand the scientific process.

    The reproducability problem is different. This comes from a variety of sources and is hard to explain in a forum, but I will try. First, scientists are incentivized to always do something new. So a scientist might publish a paper with a new finding that was true in the very specific place and conditions that they studied. But when other people go to try to confirm this finding, they cannot. The finding would then be deemed un reproducable. That sounds bad, but ultimately whatever that finding was did not have a lot of evidence to support it so the idea does not persist. It is corrected by the subsequebt studies that could not reproduce the results. That is how science works, it is an interative process where ideas are proposed and rejected until we find an emergent truth. The problem comes when people dont understand the process and try to cherry pick results. Say 10 years after this un reproduceable study was published, some journalist or politician goes back and quotes it as evidence to support their position. That would be wrong because the larger body of evidence shows it is not true. This is what happened with that vaccine autism study. After that study was completed, other scientists found out that the author was wrong and showed how. That first author who was wrong got fired, but year later peole still quote his work even though it has been showed incorrect.

    LawOfOne [266775]

    I don't need science to not be naive. What kind of point is that? Finding out what subatomic particles come from smashing gold atoms together will have absolutely zero impact on my life ever. If and when they find a Wimp they might research it and find some way to change the world after I am dead but that would happen with or without my study of the subject.

    So you are saying you have never read 2 studies that contradict each other? Ok...

    If a research firm does not find the conclusions that the company wants do you honestly think that company will get repeat business from that holding company or the more likely scenario, they will find someone that finds the conclusion they want after investing millions into a product?

    The problem that I am referring to is people, like the media, use sciences "infallibility" to push their ideas of the truth, a product or worse. Like I said which is more true...there are many studies that have been completely proven as cherry picked data or out right bunk studies. Like I said the Tobacco and vaccine have been caught red handed pushing bunk science. The idea that science cant be bought is absurd, if that is what you are trying to represent.

    Quickdraw [915500]

    Well, when you are talking about policy regarding science, yes you do need to understand science, otherwise you seem naive and probably are not voting how you would like to if you truly understood what you were voting about. Understanding the ways in which understanding atoms improves your life, would help you understand the point of funding large atomic colliders at least. For example, we are building much faster and smaller computers using knowledge about sub-atomic particles.

    What you are talking about is not science. Science is the process of having a question and looking at the evidence available to come to a conclusion about the answer to that question. What you are talking about is having an answer and trying to find the evidence that supports that answer. That is not science. Companies may try to dress it up to look like science, but private sector "science" is very rarely real science.

    I understand the point that your are trying to make, but it is not a valid point. Science can NOT be bought because the very nature of the scientific method is non-partisan and un-biased. There are plenty of people who try to pretend that what they do is science (tobacco companies and the anti-vaccine groups are great examples), but it is not actually science because if you start out with two possible answers to a question and you know the answer that you want to support, you are not starting from an un-biased position and looking at what the evidence shows. This is why it is so important for the general populace to have a better understanding of the scientific process so that they are able to discern these differences and understand what is actually science vs. what is propoganda. I would argue that understanding the scientific process is part of your civic duty, how can you make an informed vote if you are not informed?

    LawOfOne [266775]

    I don't really care who thinks I am naive, thats not a factual statement. Me knowing about atoms will never help my life. I really don't give 2 shits how they fund CERN. Virtually all people when asked won't care.

    I know what I am talking about isn't science, I said that multiple times, you seem to be the only one that doesn't understand that I am not. My problem is the exact thing you describe but people have been brainwashed to believe everything associated with science and believe it and the corruption.

    Science can be bought, everything is for sale for the right price. Just because the wrong conclusion was made doesn't mean science did not happen. Just because it is not to your standards or your opinion doesn't mean it didn't happen. You can start from a stance that it is legit and when you go to analyze the data more cash comes your way and you did some science but your answer to why what happened came to the wrong conclusion. The average person doesn't have the will or the time to get science on a basic level but I assure you bunk studies and conclusions will be found eventually without the everyday man having a grasp on it

    Quickdraw [915500]

    "I know what I am talking about isn't science" - Then why did you call it science in the thread title and continue referring to it as science?

    Maybe a specific scientist can be bought and convinced to stop performing work based on the scientific method, but down the road other scientists who are still doing good work based on evidence will find the falsehoods. Oil companies have bankrolled "scientists" to try to prove that global warming doesn't exist, but the larger scientific community has found that based on the evidence humans are warming the planet. The only reason that there is any "debate" about global warming is because the general populace is either too lazy to understand the process that led us to know that we are causing global warming or they are too arrogant to admit that their preconcieved idea might be wrong. Either way, the solution is for the general populace to get off their asses and learn. The scientific method cannot be bought and it is the best thing we have to find the truths of our universe.

    Honestly, I do not understand your argument. You are saying that people should be skeptical of scientific results, which is true, but you are then saying that there is no point in putting in the effort to understand the results. How can you critically examine something you don't understand? It seems to me like you are upset that people have found evidence that contradicts your ideas and you just want people to believe the same things that you do.
    the scientific method may not be able to be bought.  scientists can be, have been and will be.  with enough power, money, and influence you can get the scientific community to saw what ever the **** you want or discredit those who say otherwise.  if you think this isn't the case then you haven't been paying attention.

    you can blame it on anything you want from journalists to the general public. the reality is that science has been bought and paid for many times and continues to be so to this day. perhaps eventually truth will emerge, that doesn't change the fact that its revelation is being impaired and impeded on the regular.

    Vin Jay  - The Youngest Prophet 

    i wont take advice from humans with bad habits, who have given up on their passion and never surpassed average

    Doubt yourself, don't doubt me

    • Quickdraw [915500]
    • Role: Civilian
    • Level: 89
    • Posts: 1,111
    • Karma: 526
    • Last Action: 3 years
      • 0
    • Reason:
      Are you sure you want to report this post to staff?
      Cancel
    Posted on 17:47:13 - 25/02/18 (6 years ago)
    Post link copied to clipboard Copy post link

    Quickdraw [915500]

    I think your life would be deeply enriched by understanding how science works and what the scientific process is. Without the scientific process you have no way of determining what is true or not, so you are totally dependant on somebody else dictating to you what is true or not. This makes it awfully easy to manipulate you (I am using "you" in a general sense, not trying to make you feel bad), which I am sure you do not want.

    Most of the problems that you brought up are a result of poor scientific reporting by journalists. Very few journalists have any scientific training at all so their coverage of it is naturally poor. They often misrepresent results to get catchier headlines. One study is not definitive either, but articles like you bring up often talk as if it were. Lets use your peanut example. I am going to make up all the following results to provide an illustration. Say one study measures the amount of toxins in peoples urine and finds that eating peanuts lowers the amount of toxins in urine. They then suggest that this evidence might support the idea of improved liver performance. The study found some evidence and made a suggestion to the larger scientific community to investigate further. Somebody who doesnt understand the process then writes an article claiming "science says peanuts are good for your liver" even though the first study never said that, they suggested it m8ght be true. Then another study looks at liver activity and finds that peanuts cause your liver to work super hard. This removes more toxins from y9ur body, but stresses your liver out. So another article is written now claiming "peanuts are bad for your liver". If you just read the reporting you would think that tue 2 studies contradicted each other, but in reality they are entirely consistent. This type of thing happens in almost all science reporting I have seen. This is why it is so important for the gemeral population to understand the scientific process.

    The reproducability problem is different. This comes from a variety of sources and is hard to explain in a forum, but I will try. First, scientists are incentivized to always do something new. So a scientist might publish a paper with a new finding that was true in the very specific place and conditions that they studied. But when other people go to try to confirm this finding, they cannot. The finding would then be deemed un reproducable. That sounds bad, but ultimately whatever that finding was did not have a lot of evidence to support it so the idea does not persist. It is corrected by the subsequebt studies that could not reproduce the results. That is how science works, it is an interative process where ideas are proposed and rejected until we find an emergent truth. The problem comes when people dont understand the process and try to cherry pick results. Say 10 years after this un reproduceable study was published, some journalist or politician goes back and quotes it as evidence to support their position. That would be wrong because the larger body of evidence shows it is not true. This is what happened with that vaccine autism study. After that study was completed, other scientists found out that the author was wrong and showed how. That first author who was wrong got fired, but year later peole still quote his work even though it has been showed incorrect.

    LawOfOne [266775]

    I don't need science to not be naive. What kind of point is that? Finding out what subatomic particles come from smashing gold atoms together will have absolutely zero impact on my life ever. If and when they find a Wimp they might research it and find some way to change the world after I am dead but that would happen with or without my study of the subject.

    So you are saying you have never read 2 studies that contradict each other? Ok...

    If a research firm does not find the conclusions that the company wants do you honestly think that company will get repeat business from that holding company or the more likely scenario, they will find someone that finds the conclusion they want after investing millions into a product?

    The problem that I am referring to is people, like the media, use sciences "infallibility" to push their ideas of the truth, a product or worse. Like I said which is more true...there are many studies that have been completely proven as cherry picked data or out right bunk studies. Like I said the Tobacco and vaccine have been caught red handed pushing bunk science. The idea that science cant be bought is absurd, if that is what you are trying to represent.

    Quickdraw [915500]

    Well, when you are talking about policy regarding science, yes you do need to understand science, otherwise you seem naive and probably are not voting how you would like to if you truly understood what you were voting about. Understanding the ways in which understanding atoms improves your life, would help you understand the point of funding large atomic colliders at least. For example, we are building much faster and smaller computers using knowledge about sub-atomic particles.

    What you are talking about is not science. Science is the process of having a question and looking at the evidence available to come to a conclusion about the answer to that question. What you are talking about is having an answer and trying to find the evidence that supports that answer. That is not science. Companies may try to dress it up to look like science, but private sector "science" is very rarely real science.

    I understand the point that your are trying to make, but it is not a valid point. Science can NOT be bought because the very nature of the scientific method is non-partisan and un-biased. There are plenty of people who try to pretend that what they do is science (tobacco companies and the anti-vaccine groups are great examples), but it is not actually science because if you start out with two possible answers to a question and you know the answer that you want to support, you are not starting from an un-biased position and looking at what the evidence shows. This is why it is so important for the general populace to have a better understanding of the scientific process so that they are able to discern these differences and understand what is actually science vs. what is propoganda. I would argue that understanding the scientific process is part of your civic duty, how can you make an informed vote if you are not informed?

    LawOfOne [266775]

    I don't really care who thinks I am naive, thats not a factual statement. Me knowing about atoms will never help my life. I really don't give 2 shits how they fund CERN. Virtually all people when asked won't care.

    I know what I am talking about isn't science, I said that multiple times, you seem to be the only one that doesn't understand that I am not. My problem is the exact thing you describe but people have been brainwashed to believe everything associated with science and believe it and the corruption.

    Science can be bought, everything is for sale for the right price. Just because the wrong conclusion was made doesn't mean science did not happen. Just because it is not to your standards or your opinion doesn't mean it didn't happen. You can start from a stance that it is legit and when you go to analyze the data more cash comes your way and you did some science but your answer to why what happened came to the wrong conclusion. The average person doesn't have the will or the time to get science on a basic level but I assure you bunk studies and conclusions will be found eventually without the everyday man having a grasp on it

    Quickdraw [915500]

    "I know what I am talking about isn't science" - Then why did you call it science in the thread title and continue referring to it as science?

    Maybe a specific scientist can be bought and convinced to stop performing work based on the scientific method, but down the road other scientists who are still doing good work based on evidence will find the falsehoods. Oil companies have bankrolled "scientists" to try to prove that global warming doesn't exist, but the larger scientific community has found that based on the evidence humans are warming the planet. The only reason that there is any "debate" about global warming is because the general populace is either too lazy to understand the process that led us to know that we are causing global warming or they are too arrogant to admit that their preconcieved idea might be wrong. Either way, the solution is for the general populace to get off their asses and learn. The scientific method cannot be bought and it is the best thing we have to find the truths of our universe.

    Honestly, I do not understand your argument. You are saying that people should be skeptical of scientific results, which is true, but you are then saying that there is no point in putting in the effort to understand the results. How can you critically examine something you don't understand? It seems to me like you are upset that people have found evidence that contradicts your ideas and you just want people to believe the same things that you do.

    Tolshortte [648554]

    the scientific method may not be able to be bought. scientists can be, have been and will be. with enough power, money, and influence you can get the scientific community to saw what ever the **** you want or discredit those who say otherwise. if you think this isn't the case then you haven't been paying attention.

    you can blame it on anything you want from journalists to the general public. the reality is that science has been bought and paid for many times and continues to be so to this day. perhaps eventually truth will emerge, that doesn't change the fact that its revelation is being impaired and impeded on the regular.
    Well now you are just making things up. Stop trolling.

    Edit: the beauty about science is if you think the scientific community has been corrupted or is not telling the truth for any reason,you are just as qualified as anyone to collect data and build an argument showing how they are wrong. This comes with a responsibility, however, to actually find evidence and make sure that you are analyzing it correctly. You could even submit your work for peer review to be published, the only requirement for that is that you write a paper based on the scientific method. So that is why I say you are trolling, you just make an extraordinary claim without presenting any evidence at all.
    Last edited by Quickdraw on 18:04:15 - 25/02/18
    • PopadaPill [900338]
    • Role: Civilian
    • Level: 91
    • Posts: 6,071
    • Karma: 3,820
    • Last Action: 3 years
      • 1
    • Reason:
      Are you sure you want to report this post to staff?
      Cancel
    Posted on 13:34:27 - 26/02/18 (6 years ago)
    Post link copied to clipboard Copy post link
    i do it all the time,just like you...and everyone else
    • BlnkSugarSocket [2018522]
    • Role: Civilian
    • Level: 77
    • Posts: 1,798
    • Karma: 2,266
    • Last Action: 2 years
      • 0
    • Reason:
      Are you sure you want to report this post to staff?
      Cancel
    Posted on 21:18:51 - 26/02/18 (6 years ago)
    Post link copied to clipboard Copy post link

    Quickdraw [915500]

    Well now you are just making things up. Stop trolling.

    Edit: the beauty about science is if you think the scientific community has been corrupted or is not telling the truth for any reason,you are just as qualified as anyone to collect data and build an argument showing how they are wrong. This comes with a responsibility, however, to actually find evidence and make sure that you are analyzing it correctly. You could even submit your work for peer review to be published, the only requirement for that is that you write a paper based on the scientific method. So that is why I say you are trolling, you just make an extraordinary claim without presenting any evidence at all.
    The evidence is so blatent, so overwhelming, that only a madman would argue otherwise.

    1. Throughout all of recorded history, it can be shown that the purpose of every endeavor mankind has engaged in (politics, commerce, religion, etc.) has been to control his fellow man, either by power, prestige, or accumulation of wealth.

    2. Science itself has always been driven by practical application. Case-in-point: Albert Einstein. His atomic theory was funded not for the advancement of knowledge, but for military application. What about Thomas Edison? The Wizard of Menlo Park, too, was in it for the profit motive. He knew to patent things. Ask Nikola Tesla about Edison.

    3. I propose that your argument here is a backhanded justification of social darwinism. Can you prove otherwise?
    Last edited by BlnkSugarSocket on 23:00:05 - 26/02/18
    • Tadd [595049]
    • Role: Civilian
    • Level: 29
    • Posts: 2,688
    • Karma: 991
    • Last Action: 1 year
      • 0
    • Reason:
      Are you sure you want to report this post to staff?
      Cancel
    Posted on 22:20:50 - 26/02/18 (6 years ago)
    Post link copied to clipboard Copy post link

    LawOfOne [266775]

    I choose science is for sale to the highest bidder to say whatever the purchaser wants as opposed to science is the new God everyone worships. Anyone can say anything is true because science is never wrong and the studies used science.

    Quickdraw [915500]

    Well that is true to people who dont understand how the process works. We are in a difficult situation currently because scientific advances have become so complex that the average person doesnt understand them. This puts us in a situation where people feel like their only choice is to pick which "authority" to trust. But that is not the only choice, it is just the easy choice. The beautiful thing about science is that it is inherently anti-authoritarian. We dont depend on an authority to tell us what the answer is, we can go out and measure it ourselves. So if you think scientists are corrupt and lying to you, prove it! Go look at the data yourself. Most data nowadays is posted online. Analyze their data and if you come to a different conclusion figure out WHY. Are you processing the data correctly? Are you making an invalid assumption? All of this might take a couple of years to truly understand, but once you do you will no longer have to think of science as "god" or some magical process, because it is rooted in what we physically observe and anybody can go observe the same thing.
    Agreed. The scientists, physicians, and researchers at the Mayo clinic can never manipulate data or tell lies. Thanks Obama! ^o^
    • Tadd [595049]
    • Role: Civilian
    • Level: 29
    • Posts: 2,688
    • Karma: 991
    • Last Action: 1 year
      • 0
    • Reason:
      Are you sure you want to report this post to staff?
      Cancel
    Posted on 22:34:46 - 26/02/18 (6 years ago)
    Post link copied to clipboard Copy post link

    LawOfOne [266775]

    Im sure! I have no idea how a laser works or CERN. I do know that people understand that money can buy you what ever you'd like and you can slap the word Science on it and people will worship it as if it were a Deity.

    Quickdraw [915500]

    Well I would encourage you to look those things up then. There are plenty of free courses online to help people understand the basic principles. Can you provide some examples of slapping the word science on something that is not supported by the evidence? I am not totally sure what you are referring to. Maybe it seems to you like people are worshipping it like a diety because you dont understand the evidence that went in to supporting that position?

    I can think of many examples of people abusing science to sell stuff (think of infomertials), but I think most people recognize that those are bullshit. People do try to misrepresent science to advance their own agendas so it is very important that we strive to understand science as part of our civic duty.

    Worshipping a scientific finding like a diety is certainly wrong and would show a deep misunderstanding of the scientific process. Some of that exists and I strongly urge people to look into the evidence and think like a scientist themselves.

    LawOfOne [266775]

    I promise you how CERN works or lasers work will never enrich my life in anyway.

    Peer reviewed studies with conflicting results or scientists are pissed off and coming out on record saying most studies findings can't be replicated, cherry picked data that your client. How can one vaccine study say vaccines are perfectly safe and another says they are deadly? This type of thing is all over Google and the news, however you choose to get it. Studies that said tobacco was safe for decades.

    You see it all the time of facebook, people will quote some study that says peanut butter is great for your liver and you go look at the study it was funded by the peanut growers association of america and most people will just not even look into it because science says its true, it must be true. If a Company contracts a study and says they want a positive outcome the study will be positive one way or another.

    Quickdraw [915500]

    I think your life would be deeply enriched by understanding how science works and what the scientific process is. Without the scientific process you have no way of determining what is true or not, so you are totally dependant on somebody else dictating to you what is true or not. This makes it awfully easy to manipulate you (I am using "you" in a general sense, not trying to make you feel bad), which I am sure you do not want.

    Most of the problems that you brought up are a result of poor scientific reporting by journalists. Very few journalists have any scientific training at all so their coverage of it is naturally poor. They often misrepresent results to get catchier headlines. One study is not definitive either, but articles like you bring up often talk as if it were. Lets use your peanut example. I am going to make up all the following results to provide an illustration. Say one study measures the amount of toxins in peoples urine and finds that eating peanuts lowers the amount of toxins in urine. They then suggest that this evidence might support the idea of improved liver performance. The study found some evidence and made a suggestion to the larger scientific community to investigate further. Somebody who doesnt understand the process then writes an article claiming "science says peanuts are good for your liver" even though the first study never said that, they suggested it m8ght be true. Then another study looks at liver activity and finds that peanuts cause your liver to work super hard. This removes more toxins from y9ur body, but stresses your liver out. So another article is written now claiming "peanuts are bad for your liver". If you just read the reporting you would think that tue 2 studies contradicted each other, but in reality they are entirely consistent. This type of thing happens in almost all science reporting I have seen. This is why it is so important for the gemeral population to understand the scientific process.

    The reproducability problem is different. This comes from a variety of sources and is hard to explain in a forum, but I will try. First, scientists are incentivized to always do something new. So a scientist might publish a paper with a new finding that was true in the very specific place and conditions that they studied. But when other people go to try to confirm this finding, they cannot. The finding would then be deemed un reproducable. That sounds bad, but ultimately whatever that finding was did not have a lot of evidence to support it so the idea does not persist. It is corrected by the subsequebt studies that could not reproduce the results. That is how science works, it is an interative process where ideas are proposed and rejected until we find an emergent truth. The problem comes when people dont understand the process and try to cherry pick results. Say 10 years after this un reproduceable study was published, some journalist or politician goes back and quotes it as evidence to support their position. That would be wrong because the larger body of evidence shows it is not true. This is what happened with that vaccine autism study. After that study was completed, other scientists found out that the author was wrong and showed how. That first author who was wrong got fired, but year later peole still quote his work even though it has been showed incorrect.

    LawOfOne [266775]

    I don't need science to not be naive. What kind of point is that? Finding out what subatomic particles come from smashing gold atoms together will have absolutely zero impact on my life ever. If and when they find a Wimp they might research it and find some way to change the world after I am dead but that would happen with or without my study of the subject.

    So you are saying you have never read 2 studies that contradict each other? Ok...

    If a research firm does not find the conclusions that the company wants do you honestly think that company will get repeat business from that holding company or the more likely scenario, they will find someone that finds the conclusion they want after investing millions into a product?

    The problem that I am referring to is people, like the media, use sciences "infallibility" to push their ideas of the truth, a product or worse. Like I said which is more true...there are many studies that have been completely proven as cherry picked data or out right bunk studies. Like I said the Tobacco and vaccine have been caught red handed pushing bunk science. The idea that science cant be bought is absurd, if that is what you are trying to represent.

    Quickdraw [915500]

    Well, when you are talking about policy regarding science, yes you do need to understand science, otherwise you seem naive and probably are not voting how you would like to if you truly understood what you were voting about. Understanding the ways in which understanding atoms improves your life, would help you understand the point of funding large atomic colliders at least. For example, we are building much faster and smaller computers using knowledge about sub-atomic particles.

    What you are talking about is not science. Science is the process of having a question and looking at the evidence available to come to a conclusion about the answer to that question. What you are talking about is having an answer and trying to find the evidence that supports that answer. That is not science. Companies may try to dress it up to look like science, but private sector "science" is very rarely real science.

    I understand the point that your are trying to make, but it is not a valid point. Science can NOT be bought because the very nature of the scientific method is non-partisan and un-biased. There are plenty of people who try to pretend that what they do is science (tobacco companies and the anti-vaccine groups are great examples), but it is not actually science because if you start out with two possible answers to a question and you know the answer that you want to support, you are not starting from an un-biased position and looking at what the evidence shows. This is why it is so important for the general populace to have a better understanding of the scientific process so that they are able to discern these differences and understand what is actually science vs. what is propoganda. I would argue that understanding the scientific process is part of your civic duty, how can you make an informed vote if you are not informed?
    " Companies may try to dress it up to look like science, but private sector "science" is very rarely real science." I whole heartedly I agree. The public sector is absolutely trustworthy when it comes to science, especially something such as NASA. Thanks Obama! ^o^
    • LawOfOne [266775]
    • Role: Civilian
    • Level: 100
    • Posts: 1,172
    • Karma: 272
    • Last Action: 4 years
      • 0
    • Reason:
      Are you sure you want to report this post to staff?
      Cancel
    Posted on 04:56:52 - 11/03/18 (6 years ago)
    Post link copied to clipboard Copy post link

    LawOfOne [266775]

    I promise you how CERN works or lasers work will never enrich my life in anyway.

    Peer reviewed studies with conflicting results or scientists are pissed off and coming out on record saying most studies findings can't be replicated, cherry picked data that your client. How can one vaccine study say vaccines are perfectly safe and another says they are deadly? This type of thing is all over Google and the news, however you choose to get it. Studies that said tobacco was safe for decades.

    You see it all the time of facebook, people will quote some study that says peanut butter is great for your liver and you go look at the study it was funded by the peanut growers association of america and most people will just not even look into it because science says its true, it must be true. If a Company contracts a study and says they want a positive outcome the study will be positive one way or another.

    Quickdraw [915500]

    I think your life would be deeply enriched by understanding how science works and what the scientific process is. Without the scientific process you have no way of determining what is true or not, so you are totally dependant on somebody else dictating to you what is true or not. This makes it awfully easy to manipulate you (I am using "you" in a general sense, not trying to make you feel bad), which I am sure you do not want.

    Most of the problems that you brought up are a result of poor scientific reporting by journalists. Very few journalists have any scientific training at all so their coverage of it is naturally poor. They often misrepresent results to get catchier headlines. One study is not definitive either, but articles like you bring up often talk as if it were. Lets use your peanut example. I am going to make up all the following results to provide an illustration. Say one study measures the amount of toxins in peoples urine and finds that eating peanuts lowers the amount of toxins in urine. They then suggest that this evidence might support the idea of improved liver performance. The study found some evidence and made a suggestion to the larger scientific community to investigate further. Somebody who doesnt understand the process then writes an article claiming "science says peanuts are good for your liver" even though the first study never said that, they suggested it m8ght be true. Then another study looks at liver activity and finds that peanuts cause your liver to work super hard. This removes more toxins from y9ur body, but stresses your liver out. So another article is written now claiming "peanuts are bad for your liver". If you just read the reporting you would think that tue 2 studies contradicted each other, but in reality they are entirely consistent. This type of thing happens in almost all science reporting I have seen. This is why it is so important for the gemeral population to understand the scientific process.

    The reproducability problem is different. This comes from a variety of sources and is hard to explain in a forum, but I will try. First, scientists are incentivized to always do something new. So a scientist might publish a paper with a new finding that was true in the very specific place and conditions that they studied. But when other people go to try to confirm this finding, they cannot. The finding would then be deemed un reproducable. That sounds bad, but ultimately whatever that finding was did not have a lot of evidence to support it so the idea does not persist. It is corrected by the subsequebt studies that could not reproduce the results. That is how science works, it is an interative process where ideas are proposed and rejected until we find an emergent truth. The problem comes when people dont understand the process and try to cherry pick results. Say 10 years after this un reproduceable study was published, some journalist or politician goes back and quotes it as evidence to support their position. That would be wrong because the larger body of evidence shows it is not true. This is what happened with that vaccine autism study. After that study was completed, other scientists found out that the author was wrong and showed how. That first author who was wrong got fired, but year later peole still quote his work even though it has been showed incorrect.

    LawOfOne [266775]

    I don't need science to not be naive. What kind of point is that? Finding out what subatomic particles come from smashing gold atoms together will have absolutely zero impact on my life ever. If and when they find a Wimp they might research it and find some way to change the world after I am dead but that would happen with or without my study of the subject.

    So you are saying you have never read 2 studies that contradict each other? Ok...

    If a research firm does not find the conclusions that the company wants do you honestly think that company will get repeat business from that holding company or the more likely scenario, they will find someone that finds the conclusion they want after investing millions into a product?

    The problem that I am referring to is people, like the media, use sciences "infallibility" to push their ideas of the truth, a product or worse. Like I said which is more true...there are many studies that have been completely proven as cherry picked data or out right bunk studies. Like I said the Tobacco and vaccine have been caught red handed pushing bunk science. The idea that science cant be bought is absurd, if that is what you are trying to represent.

    Quickdraw [915500]

    Well, when you are talking about policy regarding science, yes you do need to understand science, otherwise you seem naive and probably are not voting how you would like to if you truly understood what you were voting about. Understanding the ways in which understanding atoms improves your life, would help you understand the point of funding large atomic colliders at least. For example, we are building much faster and smaller computers using knowledge about sub-atomic particles.

    What you are talking about is not science. Science is the process of having a question and looking at the evidence available to come to a conclusion about the answer to that question. What you are talking about is having an answer and trying to find the evidence that supports that answer. That is not science. Companies may try to dress it up to look like science, but private sector "science" is very rarely real science.

    I understand the point that your are trying to make, but it is not a valid point. Science can NOT be bought because the very nature of the scientific method is non-partisan and un-biased. There are plenty of people who try to pretend that what they do is science (tobacco companies and the anti-vaccine groups are great examples), but it is not actually science because if you start out with two possible answers to a question and you know the answer that you want to support, you are not starting from an un-biased position and looking at what the evidence shows. This is why it is so important for the general populace to have a better understanding of the scientific process so that they are able to discern these differences and understand what is actually science vs. what is propoganda. I would argue that understanding the scientific process is part of your civic duty, how can you make an informed vote if you are not informed?

    LawOfOne [266775]

    I don't really care who thinks I am naive, thats not a factual statement. Me knowing about atoms will never help my life. I really don't give 2 shits how they fund CERN. Virtually all people when asked won't care.

    I know what I am talking about isn't science, I said that multiple times, you seem to be the only one that doesn't understand that I am not. My problem is the exact thing you describe but people have been brainwashed to believe everything associated with science and believe it and the corruption.

    Science can be bought, everything is for sale for the right price. Just because the wrong conclusion was made doesn't mean science did not happen. Just because it is not to your standards or your opinion doesn't mean it didn't happen. You can start from a stance that it is legit and when you go to analyze the data more cash comes your way and you did some science but your answer to why what happened came to the wrong conclusion. The average person doesn't have the will or the time to get science on a basic level but I assure you bunk studies and conclusions will be found eventually without the everyday man having a grasp on it

    Quickdraw [915500]

    "I know what I am talking about isn't science" - Then why did you call it science in the thread title and continue referring to it as science?

    Maybe a specific scientist can be bought and convinced to stop performing work based on the scientific method, but down the road other scientists who are still doing good work based on evidence will find the falsehoods. Oil companies have bankrolled "scientists" to try to prove that global warming doesn't exist, but the larger scientific community has found that based on the evidence humans are warming the planet. The only reason that there is any "debate" about global warming is because the general populace is either too lazy to understand the process that led us to know that we are causing global warming or they are too arrogant to admit that their preconcieved idea might be wrong. Either way, the solution is for the general populace to get off their asses and learn. The scientific method cannot be bought and it is the best thing we have to find the truths of our universe.

    Honestly, I do not understand your argument. You are saying that people should be skeptical of scientific results, which is true, but you are then saying that there is no point in putting in the effort to understand the results. How can you critically examine something you don't understand? It seems to me like you are upset that people have found evidence that contradicts your ideas and you just want people to believe the same things that you do.
    Because you never got the point of the thread even though I have outlined it 5 or 6 times??

    Entire Companies can either be bought or corrupt from top to bottom and put out misinformation.

    Global warming, oh boy....the earth is getting hotter, but it heats and cools in cycles that go well beyond our accurate data collecting. It goes up and it goes down. Have we influenced it, probably but the earth will be fine long after we are gone. No need to go all Al Gore panicking. The problem with this subject is there are many books, articles and videos from the science community that people are saying they are scared to not go with the status quo and agree but there is much evidence that the stuff they have been representing as facts about global warming have been falsified. Thats a big problem. If it was good data and the studies were good then the world would be over by now according to the Al Gores of the world. Geo Engineering has also not been taken into account either.

    Climate change is a good example if the science was really settled would the founder of Weather channel really be on TV saying Global warming/climate change is bullshit? If vaccines were safe and effective would giant parts of the population be questioning it? If tobacco was perfectly safe would people have turned on them? If glyphosate and GMOs were harmless would people really be riding monsantos nuts for decades? I don't hear anyone criticizing running, swimming, hiking or enjoying nature. Wanna know why? Because its fantastic for you and if it weren't there would be a large group of people bashing it because of bunk science. Don't act like Science is perfect, it's not.

    Come on man, science is dirty, has been bought many many many times and then they use the information to give us the "truth". Don't act like you have not idea what I am talking about. Cut the science is perfect stuff and stop being obtuse. All men can be bought.

    "you are just as qualified as anyone to collect data and build an argument showing how they are wrong" Well when the funds are made available to verify or confirm I am sure we will all be in line...

     

    • Quickdraw [915500]
    • Role: Civilian
    • Level: 89
    • Posts: 1,111
    • Karma: 526
    • Last Action: 3 years
      • 0
    • Reason:
      Are you sure you want to report this post to staff?
      Cancel
    Posted on 19:18:49 - 11/03/18 (6 years ago)
    Post link copied to clipboard Copy post link

    Quickdraw [915500]

    I think your life would be deeply enriched by understanding how science works and what the scientific process is. Without the scientific process you have no way of determining what is true or not, so you are totally dependant on somebody else dictating to you what is true or not. This makes it awfully easy to manipulate you (I am using "you" in a general sense, not trying to make you feel bad), which I am sure you do not want.

    Most of the problems that you brought up are a result of poor scientific reporting by journalists. Very few journalists have any scientific training at all so their coverage of it is naturally poor. They often misrepresent results to get catchier headlines. One study is not definitive either, but articles like you bring up often talk as if it were. Lets use your peanut example. I am going to make up all the following results to provide an illustration. Say one study measures the amount of toxins in peoples urine and finds that eating peanuts lowers the amount of toxins in urine. They then suggest that this evidence might support the idea of improved liver performance. The study found some evidence and made a suggestion to the larger scientific community to investigate further. Somebody who doesnt understand the process then writes an article claiming "science says peanuts are good for your liver" even though the first study never said that, they suggested it m8ght be true. Then another study looks at liver activity and finds that peanuts cause your liver to work super hard. This removes more toxins from y9ur body, but stresses your liver out. So another article is written now claiming "peanuts are bad for your liver". If you just read the reporting you would think that tue 2 studies contradicted each other, but in reality they are entirely consistent. This type of thing happens in almost all science reporting I have seen. This is why it is so important for the gemeral population to understand the scientific process.

    The reproducability problem is different. This comes from a variety of sources and is hard to explain in a forum, but I will try. First, scientists are incentivized to always do something new. So a scientist might publish a paper with a new finding that was true in the very specific place and conditions that they studied. But when other people go to try to confirm this finding, they cannot. The finding would then be deemed un reproducable. That sounds bad, but ultimately whatever that finding was did not have a lot of evidence to support it so the idea does not persist. It is corrected by the subsequebt studies that could not reproduce the results. That is how science works, it is an interative process where ideas are proposed and rejected until we find an emergent truth. The problem comes when people dont understand the process and try to cherry pick results. Say 10 years after this un reproduceable study was published, some journalist or politician goes back and quotes it as evidence to support their position. That would be wrong because the larger body of evidence shows it is not true. This is what happened with that vaccine autism study. After that study was completed, other scientists found out that the author was wrong and showed how. That first author who was wrong got fired, but year later peole still quote his work even though it has been showed incorrect.

    LawOfOne [266775]

    I don't need science to not be naive. What kind of point is that? Finding out what subatomic particles come from smashing gold atoms together will have absolutely zero impact on my life ever. If and when they find a Wimp they might research it and find some way to change the world after I am dead but that would happen with or without my study of the subject.

    So you are saying you have never read 2 studies that contradict each other? Ok...

    If a research firm does not find the conclusions that the company wants do you honestly think that company will get repeat business from that holding company or the more likely scenario, they will find someone that finds the conclusion they want after investing millions into a product?

    The problem that I am referring to is people, like the media, use sciences "infallibility" to push their ideas of the truth, a product or worse. Like I said which is more true...there are many studies that have been completely proven as cherry picked data or out right bunk studies. Like I said the Tobacco and vaccine have been caught red handed pushing bunk science. The idea that science cant be bought is absurd, if that is what you are trying to represent.

    Quickdraw [915500]

    Well, when you are talking about policy regarding science, yes you do need to understand science, otherwise you seem naive and probably are not voting how you would like to if you truly understood what you were voting about. Understanding the ways in which understanding atoms improves your life, would help you understand the point of funding large atomic colliders at least. For example, we are building much faster and smaller computers using knowledge about sub-atomic particles.

    What you are talking about is not science. Science is the process of having a question and looking at the evidence available to come to a conclusion about the answer to that question. What you are talking about is having an answer and trying to find the evidence that supports that answer. That is not science. Companies may try to dress it up to look like science, but private sector "science" is very rarely real science.

    I understand the point that your are trying to make, but it is not a valid point. Science can NOT be bought because the very nature of the scientific method is non-partisan and un-biased. There are plenty of people who try to pretend that what they do is science (tobacco companies and the anti-vaccine groups are great examples), but it is not actually science because if you start out with two possible answers to a question and you know the answer that you want to support, you are not starting from an un-biased position and looking at what the evidence shows. This is why it is so important for the general populace to have a better understanding of the scientific process so that they are able to discern these differences and understand what is actually science vs. what is propoganda. I would argue that understanding the scientific process is part of your civic duty, how can you make an informed vote if you are not informed?

    LawOfOne [266775]

    I don't really care who thinks I am naive, thats not a factual statement. Me knowing about atoms will never help my life. I really don't give 2 shits how they fund CERN. Virtually all people when asked won't care.

    I know what I am talking about isn't science, I said that multiple times, you seem to be the only one that doesn't understand that I am not. My problem is the exact thing you describe but people have been brainwashed to believe everything associated with science and believe it and the corruption.

    Science can be bought, everything is for sale for the right price. Just because the wrong conclusion was made doesn't mean science did not happen. Just because it is not to your standards or your opinion doesn't mean it didn't happen. You can start from a stance that it is legit and when you go to analyze the data more cash comes your way and you did some science but your answer to why what happened came to the wrong conclusion. The average person doesn't have the will or the time to get science on a basic level but I assure you bunk studies and conclusions will be found eventually without the everyday man having a grasp on it

    Quickdraw [915500]

    "I know what I am talking about isn't science" - Then why did you call it science in the thread title and continue referring to it as science?

    Maybe a specific scientist can be bought and convinced to stop performing work based on the scientific method, but down the road other scientists who are still doing good work based on evidence will find the falsehoods. Oil companies have bankrolled "scientists" to try to prove that global warming doesn't exist, but the larger scientific community has found that based on the evidence humans are warming the planet. The only reason that there is any "debate" about global warming is because the general populace is either too lazy to understand the process that led us to know that we are causing global warming or they are too arrogant to admit that their preconcieved idea might be wrong. Either way, the solution is for the general populace to get off their asses and learn. The scientific method cannot be bought and it is the best thing we have to find the truths of our universe.

    Honestly, I do not understand your argument. You are saying that people should be skeptical of scientific results, which is true, but you are then saying that there is no point in putting in the effort to understand the results. How can you critically examine something you don't understand? It seems to me like you are upset that people have found evidence that contradicts your ideas and you just want people to believe the same things that you do.

    LawOfOne [266775]

    Because you never got the point of the thread even though I have outlined it 5 or 6 times??

    Entire Companies can either be bought or corrupt from top to bottom and put out misinformation.

    Global warming, oh boy....the earth is getting hotter, but it heats and cools in cycles that go well beyond our accurate data collecting. It goes up and it goes down. Have we influenced it, probably but the earth will be fine long after we are gone. No need to go all Al Gore panicking. The problem with this subject is there are many books, articles and videos from the science community that people are saying they are scared to not go with the status quo and agree but there is much evidence that the stuff they have been representing as facts about global warming have been falsified. Thats a big problem. If it was good data and the studies were good then the world would be over by now according to the Al Gores of the world. Geo Engineering has also not been taken into account either.

    Climate change is a good example if the science was really settled would the founder of Weather channel really be on TV saying Global warming/climate change is bullshit? If vaccines were safe and effective would giant parts of the population be questioning it? If tobacco was perfectly safe would people have turned on them? If glyphosate and GMOs were harmless would people really be riding monsantos nuts for decades? I don't hear anyone criticizing running, swimming, hiking or enjoying nature. Wanna know why? Because its fantastic for you and if it weren't there would be a large group of people bashing it because of bunk science. Don't act like Science is perfect, it's not.

    Come on man, science is dirty, has been bought many many many times and then they use the information to give us the "truth". Don't act like you have not idea what I am talking about. Cut the science is perfect stuff and stop being obtuse. All men can be bought.

    "you are just as qualified as anyone to collect data and build an argument showing how they are wrong" Well when the funds are made available to verify or confirm I am sure we will all be in line...
    Why are there giant parts of the population questioning scientific results? Because there are powerful, rich people who push the narrative that you cannot trust scientific results. They do this becuase if the people don't have an evidence-based way to determine the truth, then the only source of truth is what the powerful say. In your admirable attempts to avoid being manipulated by the powerful, you have actually fallen for their tactics. 

    If you think that the climate change narrative is not true, prove it! The first step would be understanding it. Nobody said the world would be over by now, they said the temperatures would be warmer and that we would have more intense storms and droughts. That has all happened, there are even wars being fought right now because of global warming (in Syria). After you understand what you are investigating there is actually an enormous amount that you can do without any funds. All of the data collected is freely available online, and data collection is often the most expensive thing. Also, all of the principles that our understanding of climate change is based on are from classical physics, which people discovered during the 17th century. You can certainly afford the tools that they had available to them. If you don't trust climate models, you can build your own! Here is a free book to get you started and a link to where yo ucan download the data from all of the climate models currently in use, for free:

    http://www.springer.com/us/book/9783662489574

    https://esgf-node.llnl.gov/projects/esgf-llnl/

    If you need a supercomputer to prove your points (another place where cost can be a barrier), I will let you use mine for free.

    Now, you don't have any more excuses, so don't come back until you have something to actually add to the conversation, baseless accusations and mistrust are a waste of time. Back up what you are saying with something meaningful.
    • PopadaPill [900338]
    • Role: Civilian
    • Level: 91
    • Posts: 6,071
    • Karma: 3,820
    • Last Action: 3 years
      • 0
    • Reason:
      Are you sure you want to report this post to staff?
      Cancel
    Posted on 19:46:59 - 11/03/18 (6 years ago)
    Post link copied to clipboard Copy post link
    when someone says 97% one day and then someone else quotes 96%...what are the names of those who changed their minds.
    Last edited by PopadaPill on 19:47:26 - 11/03/18
    • ENO [954364]
    • Role: Civilian
    • Level: 100
    • Posts: 980
    • Karma: 2,820
    • Last Action: 7 hours
      • 0
    • Reason:
      Are you sure you want to report this post to staff?
      Cancel
    Posted on 20:09:13 - 11/03/18 (6 years ago)
    Post link copied to clipboard Copy post link

    • LawOfOne [266775]
    • Role: Civilian
    • Level: 100
    • Posts: 1,172
    • Karma: 272
    • Last Action: 4 years
      • 0
    • Reason:
      Are you sure you want to report this post to staff?
      Cancel
    Posted on 17:01:36 - 12/03/18 (6 years ago)
    Post link copied to clipboard Copy post link

    LawOfOne [266775]

    I don't need science to not be naive. What kind of point is that? Finding out what subatomic particles come from smashing gold atoms together will have absolutely zero impact on my life ever. If and when they find a Wimp they might research it and find some way to change the world after I am dead but that would happen with or without my study of the subject.

    So you are saying you have never read 2 studies that contradict each other? Ok...

    If a research firm does not find the conclusions that the company wants do you honestly think that company will get repeat business from that holding company or the more likely scenario, they will find someone that finds the conclusion they want after investing millions into a product?

    The problem that I am referring to is people, like the media, use sciences "infallibility" to push their ideas of the truth, a product or worse. Like I said which is more true...there are many studies that have been completely proven as cherry picked data or out right bunk studies. Like I said the Tobacco and vaccine have been caught red handed pushing bunk science. The idea that science cant be bought is absurd, if that is what you are trying to represent.

    Quickdraw [915500]

    Well, when you are talking about policy regarding science, yes you do need to understand science, otherwise you seem naive and probably are not voting how you would like to if you truly understood what you were voting about. Understanding the ways in which understanding atoms improves your life, would help you understand the point of funding large atomic colliders at least. For example, we are building much faster and smaller computers using knowledge about sub-atomic particles.

    What you are talking about is not science. Science is the process of having a question and looking at the evidence available to come to a conclusion about the answer to that question. What you are talking about is having an answer and trying to find the evidence that supports that answer. That is not science. Companies may try to dress it up to look like science, but private sector "science" is very rarely real science.

    I understand the point that your are trying to make, but it is not a valid point. Science can NOT be bought because the very nature of the scientific method is non-partisan and un-biased. There are plenty of people who try to pretend that what they do is science (tobacco companies and the anti-vaccine groups are great examples), but it is not actually science because if you start out with two possible answers to a question and you know the answer that you want to support, you are not starting from an un-biased position and looking at what the evidence shows. This is why it is so important for the general populace to have a better understanding of the scientific process so that they are able to discern these differences and understand what is actually science vs. what is propoganda. I would argue that understanding the scientific process is part of your civic duty, how can you make an informed vote if you are not informed?

    LawOfOne [266775]

    I don't really care who thinks I am naive, thats not a factual statement. Me knowing about atoms will never help my life. I really don't give 2 shits how they fund CERN. Virtually all people when asked won't care.

    I know what I am talking about isn't science, I said that multiple times, you seem to be the only one that doesn't understand that I am not. My problem is the exact thing you describe but people have been brainwashed to believe everything associated with science and believe it and the corruption.

    Science can be bought, everything is for sale for the right price. Just because the wrong conclusion was made doesn't mean science did not happen. Just because it is not to your standards or your opinion doesn't mean it didn't happen. You can start from a stance that it is legit and when you go to analyze the data more cash comes your way and you did some science but your answer to why what happened came to the wrong conclusion. The average person doesn't have the will or the time to get science on a basic level but I assure you bunk studies and conclusions will be found eventually without the everyday man having a grasp on it

    Quickdraw [915500]

    "I know what I am talking about isn't science" - Then why did you call it science in the thread title and continue referring to it as science?

    Maybe a specific scientist can be bought and convinced to stop performing work based on the scientific method, but down the road other scientists who are still doing good work based on evidence will find the falsehoods. Oil companies have bankrolled "scientists" to try to prove that global warming doesn't exist, but the larger scientific community has found that based on the evidence humans are warming the planet. The only reason that there is any "debate" about global warming is because the general populace is either too lazy to understand the process that led us to know that we are causing global warming or they are too arrogant to admit that their preconcieved idea might be wrong. Either way, the solution is for the general populace to get off their asses and learn. The scientific method cannot be bought and it is the best thing we have to find the truths of our universe.

    Honestly, I do not understand your argument. You are saying that people should be skeptical of scientific results, which is true, but you are then saying that there is no point in putting in the effort to understand the results. How can you critically examine something you don't understand? It seems to me like you are upset that people have found evidence that contradicts your ideas and you just want people to believe the same things that you do.

    LawOfOne [266775]

    Because you never got the point of the thread even though I have outlined it 5 or 6 times??

    Entire Companies can either be bought or corrupt from top to bottom and put out misinformation.

    Global warming, oh boy....the earth is getting hotter, but it heats and cools in cycles that go well beyond our accurate data collecting. It goes up and it goes down. Have we influenced it, probably but the earth will be fine long after we are gone. No need to go all Al Gore panicking. The problem with this subject is there are many books, articles and videos from the science community that people are saying they are scared to not go with the status quo and agree but there is much evidence that the stuff they have been representing as facts about global warming have been falsified. Thats a big problem. If it was good data and the studies were good then the world would be over by now according to the Al Gores of the world. Geo Engineering has also not been taken into account either.

    Climate change is a good example if the science was really settled would the founder of Weather channel really be on TV saying Global warming/climate change is bullshit? If vaccines were safe and effective would giant parts of the population be questioning it? If tobacco was perfectly safe would people have turned on them? If glyphosate and GMOs were harmless would people really be riding monsantos nuts for decades? I don't hear anyone criticizing running, swimming, hiking or enjoying nature. Wanna know why? Because its fantastic for you and if it weren't there would be a large group of people bashing it because of bunk science. Don't act like Science is perfect, it's not.

    Come on man, science is dirty, has been bought many many many times and then they use the information to give us the "truth". Don't act like you have not idea what I am talking about. Cut the science is perfect stuff and stop being obtuse. All men can be bought.

    "you are just as qualified as anyone to collect data and build an argument showing how they are wrong" Well when the funds are made available to verify or confirm I am sure we will all be in line...

    Quickdraw [915500]

    Why are there giant parts of the population questioning scientific results? Because there are powerful, rich people who push the narrative that you cannot trust scientific results. They do this becuase if the people don't have an evidence-based way to determine the truth, then the only source of truth is what the powerful say. In your admirable attempts to avoid being manipulated by the powerful, you have actually fallen for their tactics.

    If you think that the climate change narrative is not true, prove it! The first step would be understanding it. Nobody said the world would be over by now, they said the temperatures would be warmer and that we would have more intense storms and droughts. That has all happened, there are even wars being fought right now because of global warming (in Syria). After you understand what you are investigating there is actually an enormous amount that you can do without any funds. All of the data collected is freely available online, and data collection is often the most expensive thing. Also, all of the principles that our understanding of climate change is based on are from classical physics, which people discovered during the 17th century. You can certainly afford the tools that they had available to them. If you don't trust climate models, you can build your own! Here is a free book to get you started and a link to where yo ucan download the data from all of the climate models currently in use, for free:

    http://www.springer.com/us/book/9783662489574

    https://esgf-node.llnl.gov/projects/esgf-llnl/

    If you need a supercomputer to prove your points (another place where cost can be a barrier), I will let you use mine for free.

    Now, you don't have any more excuses, so don't come back until you have something to actually add to the conversation, baseless accusations and mistrust are a waste of time. Back up what you are saying with something meaningful.
    No because there is bunk science and corruptible scientists. I have fallen for their tactics because I question it? LOL Ok guy!

    You can't prove anything anymore but when I know scientists are scared to talk about the fact that they think it's natural for temps to go up and down throughout time there is a problem. When the scientist that founded the Weather channel says its mostly bullshit, you should listen. No one has denied that man is a contributing factor but geo engineering that is happening all over the globe is a factor as well that can be stopped. Actually if you go read Al Gores quotes, he predicted doomsday type BS. Then you need to look at Physics and core samples to figure out that temps go up and they come down. It's natural. The studies that the establishment presented at the Paris talks and all the global warming(LOL) summits has been heavily criticized for lacking the scientific method and being cherry picked. this is widely available with a google search. I would also point to the climate study for ice loss scheduled a few months back but all the ships got stuck in Ice and the 17 million in their budget had to be spent on recovery. Its a joke man, stop with the BS.

    The Syrian war officially is because of Gas usage, thats why our troops are on the ground. However anyone not watching Corporate media already knew from 2013 that Assad does not use Gas and the UN inspectors confirmed this. The moderate rebels we support, which is really ISIS, pulled off the gas attacks and we use them to destabilize the region for our Wars for Profit. The defense contractors get rich, the bankers get rich from more loans for more war and they also get to set up central banks in the countries we destroy and there are competing oil pipelines in Syria. One is for our petro dollar and one is Russian to sell off our scam of a system and use their own currency, along with the Chinese. You have zero understanding of Geo Politics so you should not speak about them.

    Super computer???????? You want me to pour water on it?

     

    • Viracocha [1772040]
    • Role: Civilian
    • Level: 92
    • Posts: 14,351
    • Karma: 4,724
    • Last Action: 1 year
      • 0
    • Reason:
      Are you sure you want to report this post to staff?
      Cancel
    Posted on 18:21:03 - 12/03/18 (6 years ago)
    Post link copied to clipboard Copy post link
    real scientists rarely attest to certainties.

    then why do they teach us that everything theorized is a certainty?

    Have a Great Day!

    • Quickdraw [915500]
    • Role: Civilian
    • Level: 89
    • Posts: 1,111
    • Karma: 526
    • Last Action: 3 years
      • 0
    • Reason:
      Are you sure you want to report this post to staff?
      Cancel
    Posted on 20:27:12 - 12/03/18 (6 years ago)
    Post link copied to clipboard Copy post link

    Quickdraw [915500]

    Well, when you are talking about policy regarding science, yes you do need to understand science, otherwise you seem naive and probably are not voting how you would like to if you truly understood what you were voting about. Understanding the ways in which understanding atoms improves your life, would help you understand the point of funding large atomic colliders at least. For example, we are building much faster and smaller computers using knowledge about sub-atomic particles.

    What you are talking about is not science. Science is the process of having a question and looking at the evidence available to come to a conclusion about the answer to that question. What you are talking about is having an answer and trying to find the evidence that supports that answer. That is not science. Companies may try to dress it up to look like science, but private sector "science" is very rarely real science.

    I understand the point that your are trying to make, but it is not a valid point. Science can NOT be bought because the very nature of the scientific method is non-partisan and un-biased. There are plenty of people who try to pretend that what they do is science (tobacco companies and the anti-vaccine groups are great examples), but it is not actually science because if you start out with two possible answers to a question and you know the answer that you want to support, you are not starting from an un-biased position and looking at what the evidence shows. This is why it is so important for the general populace to have a better understanding of the scientific process so that they are able to discern these differences and understand what is actually science vs. what is propoganda. I would argue that understanding the scientific process is part of your civic duty, how can you make an informed vote if you are not informed?

    LawOfOne [266775]

    I don't really care who thinks I am naive, thats not a factual statement. Me knowing about atoms will never help my life. I really don't give 2 shits how they fund CERN. Virtually all people when asked won't care.

    I know what I am talking about isn't science, I said that multiple times, you seem to be the only one that doesn't understand that I am not. My problem is the exact thing you describe but people have been brainwashed to believe everything associated with science and believe it and the corruption.

    Science can be bought, everything is for sale for the right price. Just because the wrong conclusion was made doesn't mean science did not happen. Just because it is not to your standards or your opinion doesn't mean it didn't happen. You can start from a stance that it is legit and when you go to analyze the data more cash comes your way and you did some science but your answer to why what happened came to the wrong conclusion. The average person doesn't have the will or the time to get science on a basic level but I assure you bunk studies and conclusions will be found eventually without the everyday man having a grasp on it

    Quickdraw [915500]

    "I know what I am talking about isn't science" - Then why did you call it science in the thread title and continue referring to it as science?

    Maybe a specific scientist can be bought and convinced to stop performing work based on the scientific method, but down the road other scientists who are still doing good work based on evidence will find the falsehoods. Oil companies have bankrolled "scientists" to try to prove that global warming doesn't exist, but the larger scientific community has found that based on the evidence humans are warming the planet. The only reason that there is any "debate" about global warming is because the general populace is either too lazy to understand the process that led us to know that we are causing global warming or they are too arrogant to admit that their preconcieved idea might be wrong. Either way, the solution is for the general populace to get off their asses and learn. The scientific method cannot be bought and it is the best thing we have to find the truths of our universe.

    Honestly, I do not understand your argument. You are saying that people should be skeptical of scientific results, which is true, but you are then saying that there is no point in putting in the effort to understand the results. How can you critically examine something you don't understand? It seems to me like you are upset that people have found evidence that contradicts your ideas and you just want people to believe the same things that you do.

    LawOfOne [266775]

    Because you never got the point of the thread even though I have outlined it 5 or 6 times??

    Entire Companies can either be bought or corrupt from top to bottom and put out misinformation.

    Global warming, oh boy....the earth is getting hotter, but it heats and cools in cycles that go well beyond our accurate data collecting. It goes up and it goes down. Have we influenced it, probably but the earth will be fine long after we are gone. No need to go all Al Gore panicking. The problem with this subject is there are many books, articles and videos from the science community that people are saying they are scared to not go with the status quo and agree but there is much evidence that the stuff they have been representing as facts about global warming have been falsified. Thats a big problem. If it was good data and the studies were good then the world would be over by now according to the Al Gores of the world. Geo Engineering has also not been taken into account either.

    Climate change is a good example if the science was really settled would the founder of Weather channel really be on TV saying Global warming/climate change is bullshit? If vaccines were safe and effective would giant parts of the population be questioning it? If tobacco was perfectly safe would people have turned on them? If glyphosate and GMOs were harmless would people really be riding monsantos nuts for decades? I don't hear anyone criticizing running, swimming, hiking or enjoying nature. Wanna know why? Because its fantastic for you and if it weren't there would be a large group of people bashing it because of bunk science. Don't act like Science is perfect, it's not.

    Come on man, science is dirty, has been bought many many many times and then they use the information to give us the "truth". Don't act like you have not idea what I am talking about. Cut the science is perfect stuff and stop being obtuse. All men can be bought.

    "you are just as qualified as anyone to collect data and build an argument showing how they are wrong" Well when the funds are made available to verify or confirm I am sure we will all be in line...

    Quickdraw [915500]

    Why are there giant parts of the population questioning scientific results? Because there are powerful, rich people who push the narrative that you cannot trust scientific results. They do this becuase if the people don't have an evidence-based way to determine the truth, then the only source of truth is what the powerful say. In your admirable attempts to avoid being manipulated by the powerful, you have actually fallen for their tactics.

    If you think that the climate change narrative is not true, prove it! The first step would be understanding it. Nobody said the world would be over by now, they said the temperatures would be warmer and that we would have more intense storms and droughts. That has all happened, there are even wars being fought right now because of global warming (in Syria). After you understand what you are investigating there is actually an enormous amount that you can do without any funds. All of the data collected is freely available online, and data collection is often the most expensive thing. Also, all of the principles that our understanding of climate change is based on are from classical physics, which people discovered during the 17th century. You can certainly afford the tools that they had available to them. If you don't trust climate models, you can build your own! Here is a free book to get you started and a link to where yo ucan download the data from all of the climate models currently in use, for free:

    http://www.springer.com/us/book/9783662489574

    https://esgf-node.llnl.gov/projects/esgf-llnl/

    If you need a supercomputer to prove your points (another place where cost can be a barrier), I will let you use mine for free.

    Now, you don't have any more excuses, so don't come back until you have something to actually add to the conversation, baseless accusations and mistrust are a waste of time. Back up what you are saying with something meaningful.

    LawOfOne [266775]

    No because there is bunk science and corruptible scientists. I have fallen for their tactics because I question it? LOL Ok guy!

    You can't prove anything anymore but when I know scientists are scared to talk about the fact that they think it's natural for temps to go up and down throughout time there is a problem. When the scientist that founded the Weather channel says its mostly bullshit, you should listen. No one has denied that man is a contributing factor but geo engineering that is happening all over the globe is a factor as well that can be stopped. Actually if you go read Al Gores quotes, he predicted doomsday type BS. Then you need to look at Physics and core samples to figure out that temps go up and they come down. It's natural. The studies that the establishment presented at the Paris talks and all the global warming(LOL) summits has been heavily criticized for lacking the scientific method and being cherry picked. this is widely available with a google search. I would also point to the climate study for ice loss scheduled a few months back but all the ships got stuck in Ice and the 17 million in their budget had to be spent on recovery. Its a joke man, stop with the BS.

    The Syrian war officially is because of Gas usage, thats why our troops are on the ground. However anyone not watching Corporate media already knew from 2013 that Assad does not use Gas and the UN inspectors confirmed this. The moderate rebels we support, which is really ISIS, pulled off the gas attacks and we use them to destabilize the region for our Wars for Profit. The defense contractors get rich, the bankers get rich from more loans for more war and they also get to set up central banks in the countries we destroy and there are competing oil pipelines in Syria. One is for our petro dollar and one is Russian to sell off our scam of a system and use their own currency, along with the Chinese. You have zero understanding of Geo Politics so you should not speak about them.

    Super computer???????? You want me to pour water on it?
    You absolutely should question the science and I am glad that you are! So, for example, regarding global warming. If you are questioning that current global warming trends are caused by humans, here is a bunch of evidence, in addition to the book I already sent you, showing how it is cause pretty much entirely by humans: 

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2000JD000028/full

    http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0442%282004%29017%3C3721%3ACONAAF%3E2.0.CO%3B2

    http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.167.2337&rep=rep1&type=pdf

    http://thingsbreak.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/anthropogenic-and-natural-warming-inferred-from-changes-in-earths-energy-balance.pdf

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2011GL050226/full

    http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00382-012-1585-8

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jgrd.50239/abstract

    http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00382-016-3079-6

    Even if every single author in this list is a corrupt piece of shit, there is an abundance of data showing how global warming is caused by humans. If rather than questioning the science, you are accusing it of being wrong, you need to present evidence that shows why these studies are wrong. That is why I offered you the supercomputer, so that there is absolutely no excuse. You can either use data and evidence to prove these studies wrong, or stop making baseless accusations.
    • Quickdraw [915500]
    • Role: Civilian
    • Level: 89
    • Posts: 1,111
    • Karma: 526
    • Last Action: 3 years
      • 0
    • Reason:
      Are you sure you want to report this post to staff?
      Cancel
    Posted on 20:33:41 - 12/03/18 (6 years ago)
    Post link copied to clipboard Copy post link

    Viracocha [1772040]

    real scientists rarely attest to certainties.

    then why do they teach us that everything theorized is a certainty?
    I cant remember if you are just trolling or not, but in case this is an honest question:

    In science the word theory is used differently than in general conversation. Generally, the word theory means a guess, or hypothesis. In science a theory means an explanation for an observation that is supported by evidence. Additionally the general public hasnt been trained to understand probabilities as they are used in science. So we can say with almost certainty that humans are causing global warming and that it is causing problems for us. We leave the possibility that we are wrong open, but that does not mean we should not act. So when we enter the political realm, it is easier to talk in certainties because otherwise people will not act.
Reply
Thread Title: