Skip to comments.You Can Trust a Scientist Ė Canít You?
Posted on 06/01/2009 9:56:17 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
You Can Trust a Scientist Cant You?
May 31, 2009 After the flap over the missing link Ida last week (05/19/2009), paleontologist Christopher Beard warned about how such stunts damage scientific credibility. The only thing we have going for us that Hollywood and politicians dont is objectivity, he told Science magazine. Can the public trust the objectivity of scientists as a class? Do they get more credibility points than other groups of professionals? Do the processes of scientific publication warrant a higher level of trust?
A study reported on Science Daily may shake that trust...
(Excerpt) Read more at creationsafaris.com ...
As opposed to creationists, whose biases and agendas are obvious for all to see. I guess there’s some value in that...
not so long as they have to step and fetch for government and foundation grants to put bread on their tables....
Thanks for the ping!
As the son of a world-renowned scientist, I can personally attest that those who are certain their judgment is "objective" are fully susceptible to deluding themselves.
Their confidence in their own objectivity only serves to make them more arrogant and condescending in expressing their personal biases.
One of the more important lessons I learned in high school physics was the procedure of “fudging” the results to get the desired answer. In that case, the payoff was a better grade.
To a working scientist, the payoff is continued funding.
At least the creationists have the advantage of not believing their wisdom is the ultimate measure of all things.
Humility is just another foolish notion to those you defend.
It is so funny that when it’s a creationist, their world view is automatically labeled as biased, and the scientists’ worldview NEVER is.
The fact is that everyone is biased. People who claim they are objective when they are not, are hypocrites. That’s what makes scientists worse. They say they aren’t biased when it’s clear they are. Same reason most of us cannot stand the MSM - they claim objectivity, yet 90% of them vote democrat and on any issue, if you watch how any certain story is reported, they all have the same liberal talking points. We know it’s not surprising given that over 90% of thme MSM admits voting democrat, yet they still try to convince us that they are objective and unbiased, only FOX news is biased.
Same damn thing here.
“Objectivity”. Hee Hee Heee.
“American Association for the Advancement of Science” “Objective”.
You'll get stuffed into the 'science hater' box if you keep that up. ;-)
Yes, when there is so much funding at stake....there is fraud to be had. Wow.....so since there is some fraud, nothing is to be trusted but the Bible in all affairs concerning the sciences.
Having been in the field, I’d say most of the fraud I witnessed was “passing on someone else’s work as your own”....and not “making it up” “fudging the numbers” or any other statistical play.
Where in the Bible does God tell Noah to NOT gather up a male and female of each kind of dinosaur? Or was the decision all Noah’s....to purposely let hundreds of species of God’s creations become extinct on a humanly whim?
what an apropriate screen name!
To a working scientist, the payoff is continued funding.
I actually left my first job out of graduate school - at a start-up pharma development company - in part because of the poor working relationship that developed with my supervisor after I refused his "suggestions" that I fudge some data to make the results look better for what the company wanted.
The other part was because this same supervisor was a drunk driver - with me and other co-workers in the vehicle with him, not noticing until after he started driving - which caused me to question his judgment.
Scientists are flawed like everybody else.
The atheists more so.
Thanks for the warning, but I've long since reconciled myself that in here on FR, as in our culture in general, there are many who will "stuff us into boxes" based on the views we express.
Just look at the example our dear President Obortion is setting with his institutionalized racism (which, BTW, I feel quite confident MLK would strongly condemn): Bigotry can be a good thing, as long as it's the bigotry YOU want.
Why can’t Dr. Daniele Fanelli get his research published in a REAL journal?
Studies examine withholding of scientific data among researchers, trainees
It May Look Authentic; Heres How to Tell It Isnt
Most scientific papers are probably wrong
Most Science Studies Appear to Be Tainted By Sloppy Analysis
Why Most Published Research Findings Are False
What then the intent of this essay if not to attempt to discredit science, scientists and the scientific method?
LOL...Allmendream can’t distinguish between science and the fallible human beings who practice science!
Science is what I do.
I am a fallible human being who practices science.
I am not my job. Thus I can easily distinguish between the two.
This lameness is the equivalent of saying that all U.S. currency in your possession should be thrown out, none should be accepted as legal tender, and all U.S. currency is naturally suspect; as in the past people have successfully counterfeited U.S. currency.
The strength of U.S. currency is despite attempts to counterfeit.
The strength of the scientific method is despite attempts at fraud.
Both U.S. currency and the scientific method are highly valued commodities because of their REAL WORLD VALUE.
Meanwhile Creationism has no application or utility other than in selling books to the deliberately ignorant.
Did the article say that science shouldn’t be accepted, or that people need to know that scientists are just as fallible as the rest of us?
It is a juvenile attempt to throw mud at those who Creationists hate and despise; actual scientists who practice actual science.
Creationism as a movement formed in opposition to a scientific theory. They have moved on to oppose more and more scientific theories as the movement has “progressed” and science has continued to formulate theories that Creationists object to.
Thus it is quite natural that Creationist publications would attempt to discredit science, scientists and the scientific method; in favor of slavish devotion to a particular Biblical interpretation.
It’s the ultimate in ad-hominen attacks.
To the point where if I don’t see it with my own lying eyes I just don’t believe it.
And I’m skeptical of what my eyes see.
Funny you should mention the drunk supervisor. I was in a similar situation on my last job (actually a part-time post-retirement gig). The supervisor would frequently disappear in the afternoon to another part-timer’s house for “conferences”. They are both drunks. I’d rather not speculate about what went on, but it was definitely not work in the usual sense of the word. He also urged me to charge hours that I didn’t actually work, which was strange, but it probably made him feel better about doing the same thing himself.
More of the same. Nothing to see here.
We’re not anti-science.
We’re anti fraud in science.
That's quite a charge there, that creationists hate and despise *actual* scientists and *real* science.
Care to support it? What evidence can you put for to support your claims of *hate* and *despise*?
ARGH!!! Will you quit posting actual facts to back up what you say!!!!! Now we’ll have to create a strawman to get us off topic so we have something to knock down.
As time has gone by, Creationists have also opposed other scientific theories that they objected to, which include but are in no way limited to......
Atomic half life decay
The speed of light
etc, etc, etc.
Creationists MO, as evidenced by what gets posted on FR is to not do any actual scientific research themselves (Heaven Forfend!), but to snipe at real scientists doing real science and explain how it all supposedly supports the recent simultaneous creation of all species in their present form.
Funny, many of those you condemn as *Creationists* are scientists compared to the number of evos who do this as a hobby.
It’s deceptive to hold up the pretense that every evo is a scientist and knows what science is all about and every creationist, isn’t and couldn’t do *real* science to save their lives.
The ToE is nothing more that a litmus test for the evo crowd to use in determining who to discredit and who not to.
While correct in what you say, you have to give credit to GGG for posting these topics to allow for the free exchange of ideas. Blithe sniping and flaming are never a good thing from either side - I’ve been on the receiving end (even had my professional ethics questioned - funny). As triple-G will likely agree, I am the first to criticize bad science on either side. Unfortunately, most ID and CS articles are criticism and not science so they leave little room for any constructive dissection.
==It is a juvenile attempt to throw mud at those who Creationists hate and despise; actual scientists who practice actual science.
TQC, you are an actual, working scientist who believes the origin of species is best explained by biblical creation. According to Allmendream, you feel this way because you secretly have a juvenile hatred for scientists who practice actual science. I was hoping you could explain to us how this hatred began, how it consumed you, and how it led you to use creation science as a means to express your hatred of all things scientific.
PS Do you hate yourself when you practice science at work? Just curious....
Exactly my point. The I.D. (incompetent design) and Creationists position on science is not to actually go out and PERFORM scientific discovery; but to criticize the work that actual scientists do.
Creationists oppose all those scientific findings just as much.
Nothing is stopping the Discovery Institute or these Creationists Institutions from actually doing science. Yet for over one hundred years there has been no scientific progress from either of these movements, no scientific discoveries, no scientific experiments.
Nobody is keeping Creationists or “cdesign proponentists” from doing science.
They seem to have willingly relegated themselves to the heckling from the sidelines already.
Maybe he’s schizo, like the rest of us who have degrees in science and love it?
We lay awake at night, each side hating the other.
Scientists say all that? I am a scientist and I don't claim any of that. And yet you think of yourself as a scientist?
I think you are confused.
I sat in church this week listening to the message and kept thinking, “MAN, GodGunsGuts needs to hear this!”
Well, take some time to listen to what my pastor had to say: http://www.gsumc.org/247036.ihtml?ResourceID=1350&type=0
(The message starts after some statistics were shown demonstrating the falling appeal of Christianity according to polls.)
You fit the mold perfectly. You - GodGunsGuts - are famous on this board for being against scientists, evolution, and ANYONE who dares suggest the universe is a *wee* bit older than a few thousand years. Even when people like myself suggest we should all celebrate the fact we have the same savior, you tell me “NO - you worship a FALSE GOD! You are DAMNED.”
Listen to the sermon. You are THAT GUY. As Talbot suggests, you are better at driving people away from Christianity than you are at drawing people TO IT.
Listen to the sermon.
==The I.D....and Creationists position on science is not to actually go out and PERFORM scientific discovery
Yo Dreamer...Here are some selected research projects that have been, or are being conducted by Creation/ID scientits. Unlike the Temple of Darwin, Creationists and IDers do not shake-down Joe Taxpayer to fund their research. You really ought to consider doing a little more fact checking before issuing public statements that can only serve to make you look both ignorant and foolish. Although, you do it so often, I can honestly say I’m getting used to it:
Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth (RATE)
The GENE Project
The FAST Project
White hole cosmology
Proceedings of the Microbe Forum
Baraminology Study Group
Biologic Institute (ID)
Hmmm...it’s kind of hard to take you seriously when a number of FReepers have PM’d me and thanked me for helping them break free of the Temple of Darwin and accept Jesus Christ as their Lord and personal Savior.
You and your obviously liberal United Methodist pastor should sit down together and discuss the following:
Dangerous Turn Ahead: Traveling down the road to compromise
May God open your eyes and heart to His Word. Amen.
Ya know...the crap GGG posts is technically a “journal” too...even a “real” journal..but it’s not “real” “journal”....in the research sense. If you’ve got some great research, a real journal would gladly publish it......I’d guess that the Doctor has a sample size that is too small to make the cut to make a real journal.
I read your link to the microbiology forum and found the articles to be nothing but group think and conjecture. In fact, many of the questions posed by the various authors could be answered by 3rd year biology students. One author was nearly right when discussing the Vibrio cholera bacterium until he wandered off into conjecture at the end of his article.
Anytime a scientist wonders off the actual data, they are either entering conjecture, historical science, or both. The Darwinists do it all the time, but they pretend their conjectures are one in the same with the scientific data. If you have been reading my posts on a fairly regular basis, you should know this is absolutely true.
PS Did you notice the disclaimer at the bottom of page #4. Ever see such a disclaimer at the bottom of a report from a Temple of Darwin forum?
I did. I found it very disturbing that the PhD’s had to write under pseudonym. Honestly, I hate that they are either unwilling or unable to present themselves openly.
Therein, they have my deepest sympathy.
You know that I have come to your support when an overzealous scientist has made broad unsupportable observations. I will back you up 100% of the time when I see that. Their PhD doesn’t make them right all the time.
Uh, you do realise that PLoSOne is a "real" journal, right? It is
An interactive open-access journal for the communication of all peer-reviewed scientific and medical research.
Gee, peer-reviewed and everything. By real science-type guys.