Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: AmishDude
This is what "science" has become: "Well, the science is clear. This month, a study published in the journal Nature by a renowned MIT climatologist linked the increasing prevalence of destructive hurricanes to human-induced global warming." -- Patrick Kennedy

Patrick Kennedy is a scientist? Where's his degree from?

"We collected popcorn samples in 12 theaters from six chains in San Francisco, Chicago, and Washington, D.C. We combined them into three "composites" (coconut oil, coconut oil with topping, and canola shortening), and sent the composites to an independent laboratory to be analyzed for calories, sodium, etc." -- CSPI in depth study on popcorn and coconut oil

So what's your criticism of this? I agree that popcorn in movie theaters is probably not high on my list of social concerns, but there's something wrong with the methodology? How?

"Research just published by the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) claims, in opposition to a bill currently before Congress, that unborn babies' perception of pain is unlikely until the third trimester. However, the article fails to mention the authors' ties to the abortion industry." -- CWA comment on the "fetuses feel no pain" article.

I'd certainly be inclined to be skeptical of this or any other research where the author was a clear advocate of one position or other. So, given that we have grounds to suspect the motives, can we find anything wrong with the substance of the paper? Merely pointing out one side or other has a vested interest does not invalidate their position, it just suggests one needs to scrutinize what they say extra-carefully.

On a personal note, I am a mathematician (not a "mathematician" like Hawking -- he's a physicist) and if you believe in evolution, math is still true. If you believe in ID, math is still true. Axiom, conjecture, theorem, proof. No muss, no fuss. Of course, that kind of rigor is a little too difficult for most.

It's not an issue of rigor. It's an issue of the clear difference between science and mathematics. Your misunderstanding of the former does you no credit.

26 posted on 09/06/2005 8:32:13 AM PDT by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies ]


To: Right Wing Professor
Patrick Kennedy is a scientist? Where's his degree from?

Doesn't matter. He's a scientific expert in the eyes of the media and the public and "scientists" allow him, by assent, to use their results for his own purposes. But again, this is what science has become, not what you want it to be.

So what's your criticism of this?

Methodology. Many sciences have gotten to the point where they are simply the art of finding one data point and then calculating the best-fit straight line.

I'd certainly be inclined to be skeptical of this or any other research where the author was a clear advocate of one position or other.

Well, you weren't the referee, were you? It managed to get into JAMA and then the NYT. And now, the ether.

It's not an issue of rigor. It's an issue of the clear difference between science and mathematics. Your misunderstanding of the former does you no credit.

Oh, I think I understand it quite well. Entirely too well.

29 posted on 09/06/2005 8:37:34 AM PDT by AmishDude (Join the AmishDude fan club: "Great point." -- AliVertias; ":-) Very clever" -- MJY1288)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson