[tpanther]

Right, they interpret the objective data, in a very subjective way. So who's to say what is or isn't obejctive other than by sheer scientific concensus?

Just like some astronomers are on board with reclassifying Pluto while others are not. And some scientists, while seeking out grant money, are arguing that manmade global warming is a valid argument, as well as evolution, nothing is immune to godless liberals, scientific or otherwise.

The objectivity of science you speak of is mere concensus and hardly stationery.

The research, studies, peer review, publication and so on are all guarantees that, in the end, the drugs will have been scrutinized sufficiently to give a solid estimation of the expected outcomes.

Nope, there are no guarantees of objectivity in peer review when all the peers are drinking from the same kool-aid fountain. It's a nice idea in theory but in practice it's a corrupted practice as human beings aren't 100% objective no matter how many times people say they are, or assert that they're inacapable of succumbing to outside influence.

So, how therefore can a scientist or anyone for that matter pretend to tell others, let alone demand from them, what is or isn't objective science?

algore said the debate is over...and there's your "in the end" problem...there literally IS no end when it comes to origins or which drug is the best choice or how to classify and reclassify Pluto.

It's an ongoing endeavor, with not only new data to be extrapolated but new methodologies to understand it.

After all, what once was alchemy is today called science and vice versa.......it's all about human interpretation and perception.

The only way to appreciate obejective science, whatever that is, is to remove the human element.

The problems with your last statement is algore has way more in common with his fellow godless liberals that have turned the theory of evolution into a cult with their myriad God-hang-ups and too many scientists are in his pocket ensuring it's not seen as junk science but as objective science, proving my very point.

Beware of any human being, scientist or otherwise, who thinks he has the keys to scientific objectivity.

Again, "in the end" (if there's such a thing), it's all about the interpretation and perception. More scientists can exclaim manmade global warming is real and obejective than do not, and bingo, it's magically "real" and "objective", and all via the guise of "peer review" no less.

[Filo]

Right, they interpret the objective data, in a very subjective way. So who's to say what is or isn't obejctive other than by sheer scientific concensus?


Not at all. That's not how it works. Science has nothing to do with "consensus." If 10,000 scientists think that the earth is flat and one proves it's round then it's round.

Just like some astronomers are on board with reclassifying Pluto while others are not. And some scientists, while seeking out grant money, are arguing that manmade global warming is a valid argument, as well as evolution, nothing is immune to godless liberals, scientific or otherwise.

I'm sorry, but you are conflating completely different concepts. The classification of Pluto is a matter of opinion, but not about Pluto itself. Astronomers merely selected a few criteria that they apply uniformly to define what a planet is. That has nothing to do with the discussion at hand.

Pseudo-scientists following grant money and pursuing junk science, much as ID types follow their religious principles while abandoning reason, are also not related to science.

The objectivity of science you speak of is mere concensus and hardly stationery.

Sorry, but not at all. Science is the pursuit of provable fact. Consensus has nothing to do with it. I can see, however, why you think that ID is anything but garbage. Your concept and understanding of science is deeply flawed.

Nope, there are no guarantees of objectivity in peer review when all the peers are drinking from the same kool-aid fountain. It's a nice idea in theory but in practice it's a corrupted practice as human beings aren't 100% objective no matter how many times people say they are, or assert that they're inacapable of succumbing to outside influence.

No doubt those flaws make it harder, but in the end 2+2=4 is recognized as reality and 2+2=Buick will be rejected as junk.

The truth always wins in the end, even if there is resistance and even if the truth-tellers find themselves in a church prison for a time..

algore said the debate is over...and there's your "in the end" problem...there literally IS no end when it comes to origins or which drug is the best choice or how to classify and reclassify Pluto.

Again you are conflating disparate things. There certainly is an end when something is proven - like Evolution. The facts line up and reality is set. Atomic theory is the same way, as are Newton's laws and so on.

Yes there are areas that are not yet settled, but application of the scientific method will eventually settle them.

Application of the nonsense that IDers use will do nothing but perpetuate their mental masturbation and define their inability to grasp basic precepts of science, logic and reason.