Evolution Theory is Error

Thomas_S_Hunterson

CDfm wrote: »

Non disclosure agreements ?

Completely uninterested in the interests of their clients interested just the science or the source of their funding

So science is about truthiness http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truthiness

Breach of contract is against the law.

The scientist's would have been taken to the cleaners. The cigarette companies could take them for every single thing they had. Their families would be out on the street while they themselves would probably end up in prison.

Zombrex

CDfm wrote: »

I know this will surprise you but sometimes professional scientists hide information on dangerous side affects.

And some scientists butcher their wives and children to death ... :eek:

What has this got to do with science and the scientific method?

Your posts a few pages ago were along the lines that you had some big problem with the scientific method and after a rather rambling conversation it seems to have come down to the fact that scientists are human and some of them lie. Shocking. Again you seem to be ignoring that the scientific method recognizes that scientists are human and that some of them lie (and eat babies)

In fact it is for that very reason that science is so hard on ideas such as God, ideas that rely so much on personal human experience and interpretation (Truthiness as you say). Humans are flawed creatures. We lie. We make stuff up. We imagine things. We believe what we want to believe.

All of those flaws are recognized by the way the scientific method is structured.

That recognition is precisely why the scientific method is so good at getting to the truth of things, and why something like religion is so (so so so) bad.

CDfm

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Prejudiced broad sweeping bigotted crap.

Every Christian is like Fred Phelps. Oh look we can play this game too.

Its my hypotheses that scientists with an affiliation to an industry might bias results.

http://www.ourstolenfuture.org/Industry/1998barnesandbero.htm

Zombrex

CDfm wrote: »

Its my hypotheses that scientists with an affiliation to an industry might bias results.

Ok, well I suppose we are making progress ...

we have gone from general statements about all of science being conjecture to the charge that some scientists working in some industries with a PR problem, might if given sufficient money or threatened with job loss, bias results.

Even that is a bit of a silly statement demonstrating a lack of understanding. Why would the scientists bias results of internal studies?

The company needs to know what is going on with their product as much as anyone. It doesn't help the company, nor does it make much sense, for the scientists to start lying to their own bosses with results.

A far more plausible scenario is that the results are either not acted upon, or suppressed from the public by the management of the company, as in the case of Big Tobacco.

AtomicHorror

CDfm wrote: »

Its my hypotheses that scientists with an affiliation to an industry might bias results.

http://www.ourstolenfuture.org/Industry/1998barnesandbero.htm

And you'd stating the painfully bloody obvious- which is why we have transparent publication, peer review, independent reproducibility. There are flaws, but we're working on it.

What's your point? Coz it seems like you've backed off from your science = conjecture assertion and have jumped on some handwavey vague "sometimes science is wrong" line. Of course it is, the difference between science and the rest is that we have mechanisms in place to recognise that and redesign models to fit the evidence. Self correction. It's the opposite of dogma.

CDfm

Sean_K wrote: »

Breach of contract is against the law.

The scientist's would have been taken to the cleaners. The cigarette companies could take them for every single thing they had. Their families would be out on the street while they themselves would probably end up in prison.

We are being asked to accept that scientists will act in the public and mankinds interest
and do so in a dispassionate manner.

Some scientists such as Dr Jeffrey Wigand have acted as whistleblowers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Wigand

So scientists are not as purely ethical as you want to make out. They will surpress negative data.

All I am saying is that in their self interest or in their clients interest scientists can and do put the the general good to one side.

AtomicHorror

CDfm wrote: »

We are being asked to accept that scientists will act in the public and mankinds interest
and do so in a dispassionate manner.

Rubbish. We're pushing a system. A self-correcting community. Some scientist are jerks. Some are idiots. Some are geniuses. See a pattern here? They're people. Which is what the system is designed to account for.

CDfm wrote: »

Some scientists such as Dr Jeffrey Wigand have acted as whistleblowers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Wigand

Supporting my point that the system works but then you say...

CDfm wrote: »

So scientists are not as purely ethical as you want to make out. They will surpress negative data.

All I am saying is that in their self interest or in their clients interest scientists can and do put the the general good to one side.

And around and around we go. Flailing for a point.

The Mad Hatter

Wicknight wrote: »

Ok, well I suppose we are making progress ...

we have gone from general statements about all of science being conjecture to the charge that some scientists working in some industries with a PR problem, might if given sufficient money or threatened with job loss, bias results.

Even that is a bit of a silly statement demonstrating a lack of understanding. Why would the scientists bias results of internal studies?

The company needs to know what is going on with their product as much as anyone. It doesn't help the company, nor does it make much sense, for the scientists to start lying to their own bosses with results.

A far more plausible scenario is that the results are either not acted upon, or suppressed from the public by the management of the company, as in the case of Big Tobacco.

Actually, speaking of Big Tobacco - I seem to remember reading that the same couple of PR companies are used to spin this, creationism and anti-climate change propaganda.

sink

CDfm wrote: »

We are being asked to accept that scientists will act in the public and mankinds interest
and do so in a dispassionate manner.

Some scientists such as Dr Jeffrey Wigand have acted as whistleblowers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Wigand

So scientists are not as purely ethical as you want to make out. They will surpress negative data.

All I am saying is that in their self interest or in their clients interest scientists can and do put the the general good to one side.

On an individual case by case basis. Do you not understand what peer review is or are you just ignoring because it doesn't fit with your world view (scientists/science = bad, your religion = good)?

CDfm

AtomicHorror wrote: »

And you'd stating the painfully bloody obvious- which is why we have transparent publication, peer review, independent reproducibility. There are flaws, but we're working on it.

What's your point? Coz it seems like you've backed off from your science = conjecture assertion and have jumped on some handwavey vague "sometimes science is wrong" line. Of course it is, the difference between science and the rest is that we have mechanisms in place to recognise that and redesign models to fit the evidence. Self correction. It's the opposite of dogma.

AH - I havent backed off - I have gone on to point that in specific areas scientists are biased and surpress data. There is a long history of it.

Its often done for self interest or financial gain.

I thought it might be too much of a leap for some to suggest that the pro stemcell lobby groups had industry funding.

Goduznt Xzst

CDfm wrote: »

All I am saying is that in their self interest or in their clients interest scientists can and do put the the general good to one side.

CDfm... what exactly is your point. Where is this going? So some Scientists are unethical, some make preposterous claims, some imagine God exists... so what?

Are you going anywhere with this line of argument?

AtomicHorror

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

Actually, speaking of Big Tobacco - I seem to remember reading that the same couple of PR companies are used to spin this, creationism and anti-climate change propaganda.

Any idea where you heard that? Would be an interesting point. I think the creationists tend to handle their own stuff- PR dominates their time and budget. Primary research seems to be low priority. If not, I struggle to imagine where all the money goes.

Zombrex

CDfm wrote: »

We are being asked to accept that scientists will act in the public and mankinds interest
and do so in a dispassionate manner.

No we aren't, and (again!) science is in fact build around the realization that this often doesn't happen. The scientific method, and the scientific community are structured in such a way that the individual tales of a scientist, his individual opinions are irrelevant. Again this is why science ignores concepts like God, a concept that the only evidence for is the personal testimony of individuals.

You seem to be constantly ignoring this point, I can't tell is it out of ignorance of science or simply because it doesn't fit the agenda you appear to be pushing ...

AtomicHorror

CDfm wrote: »

AH - I havent backed off - I have gone on to point that in specific areas scientists are biased and surpress data. There is a long history of it.

And there's a long history of it being caught too. The system is not perfect, but it does work most of the time. If it did not, then what practical applications would any of science actually have? So what about your conjecture point? Because suppression of data is not conjecture, it's suppression of data. Biased observation and reporting is not conjecture, it's bias.

And what of our point that we're not at all suggesting that individual scientists are infallible, but are saying quite the opposite? Our system assumes we must question everything and then question it again.

CDfm wrote: »

Its often done for self interest or financial gain.

Well there's an enormous non-surprise. Thanks.

CDfm wrote: »

I thought it might be too much of a leap for some to suggest that the pro stemcell lobby groups had industry funding.

Wouldn't surprise me if they did. Wouldn't make the data on stem cells any more or less convincing though. It's there in the journals in black and white. Some of it turned out to be crap- because we tried to reproduce it and it didn't work.

CDfm

sink wrote: »

On an individual case by case basis. Do you not understand what peer review is or are you just ignoring because it doesn't fit with your world view (scientists/science = bad, your religion = good)?

I do understand peer review - but surely you are assuming that other scientists have adequete resources and funding to conduct such a review and that commercially sensitive proprietory information will be released to conduct a review.

I dont buy that.

CDfm

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

So some Scientists are unethical, some make preposterous claims..... so what?

You dont seem to have a very high opinion of scientists. Whose side are you on?

Zombrex

CDfm wrote: »

AH - I havent backed off -

You have backed off, which is a good thing.

Now if you could only realize that the problems with scientists you think you are highlighting have in fact already been recognized by the scientific method (hundreds of years ago) and that the method is in fact build around dealing with these problems.

And it would be great if you realized that all the problems you think you have discovered with science are in fact endemic in religion, except unlike science, religion is not build around dealing with these problems, it in fact embraces them as not being problems at all but in fact corner stones!!

But that might be pushing it.

Zombrex

CDfm wrote: »

You dont seem to have a very high opinion of scientists. Whose side are you on?

It is a requirement of science to not have a very high opinion of scientist. Keeps you from accepting what they believe or say without the evidence or data to back it up.

Someone should probably tell the Creationists that ... :pac:

AtomicHorror

CDfm wrote: »

I do understand peer review - but surely you are assuming that other scientists have adequete resources and funding to conduct such a review and that commercially sensitive proprietory information will be released to conduct a review.

Then you don't actually understand peer review at all.

It is unpaid to avoid bias. Resources needed are knowledge of the area and a biro. Full disclosure of all relevant materials is required. If not provided, it will be requested. If still not provided, the paper is rejected.

Please. Do. Some. Research. Before. You. Make. Crap. Up.

aidan24326

CDfm wrote: »

But you have to agree that Dawkins is known for his Anti-God Professional Atheism and not his Science.

Not strictly true. He is one of the best popular science writers alive and has made significant contributions to evolutionary theory.

CDfm wrote: »

You dont seem to have a very high opinion of scientists. Whose side are you on?

He said some scientists. You know well what he means. In any profession there will be a few bad eggs.

robindch

CDfm wrote: »

I do understand peer review

Rather than writing a bunch of posts that make you look a right plonker, why not ask a couple of questions?

Some of the posters here are professional scientists and while you've been extraordinarily discourteous to them, their profession, and their code of ethics, I'm sure if you ask something in good faith, they'll be happy to fill in what you don't currently understand.

You could do worse than to start by asking what peer review is.

Zombrex

CDfm wrote: »

I do understand peer review - but surely you are assuming that other scientists have adequete resources and funding to conduct such a review and that commercially sensitive proprietory information will be released to conduct a review.

I dont buy that.

If it isn't peer reviewed it isn't considered. A tobacco company can release all the research they like but no one is going to take it seriously unless it is peer reviewed. Again, this is part of the scientific standard. And it is the problem Creationists have because they can't get their stuff peer reviewed (because it is nonsense and no one will pass it)

But even after peer review the work still has a long way to go before it is considered solid. Some theories are batted around for years before being accepted as accurate.

Just like religious ideas ... oh wait ... :rolleyes:

AtomicHorror

robindch wrote: »

Rather than writing a bunch of posts that make you look a right plonker, why not ask a couple of questions?

+1 to this.

You can't go much further wrong than stating "I understand thing X" and then describing the complete opposite to it. Epic trainwreck fail.

CDfm

Wicknight wrote: »

You have backed off, which is a good thing.

Now if you could only realize that the problems with scientists you think you are highlighting have in fact already been recognized by the scientific method (hundreds of years ago) and that the method is in fact build around dealing with these problems.

And it would be great if you realized that all the problems you think you have discovered with science are in fact endemic in religion, except unlike science, religion is not build around dealing with these problems, it in fact embraces them as not being problems at all but in fact corner stones!!

But that might be pushing it.

I havent discovered anything. I am just pointing out the fact that science aint pure and scientists are in it for the money - thats not logic its greed.

If anything - you have relaxed your point of view.

Dogmatic atheists continue with their Creationist mantra -even when not dealing with creationists.

A lot of science is just about conjecture and unprovable models - a ball of smoke.

The Mad Hatter

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Any idea where you heard that? Would be an interesting point. I think the creationists tend to handle their own stuff- PR dominates their time and budget. Primary research seems to be low priority. If not, I struggle to imagine where all the money goes.

I think it was in Heat by George Monbiot, but I could be completely wrong. I'm nearly certain of the link between tobacco and climate change - not quite so sure about creationism.

AtomicHorror

CDfm wrote: »

Dogmatic atheists continue with their Creationist mantra -even when not dealing with creationists.

Because they're the gold standard for garbage masquerading as science. We could talk about the alternative medicine industry if you prefer.

On your misunderstanding of peer review, here's a shameless link to my blog which should help you figure out what you're talking about:

http://thebiologista.blogspot.com/2008/07/science-says-popular-science-will-give.html

Criticism/debate/abuse welcome.

AtomicHorror

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

I think it was in Heat by George Monbiot, but I could be completely wrong. I'm nearly certain of the link between tobacco and climate change - not quite so sure about creationism.

Thanks, I'll take a look at that!

The Mad Hatter

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Thanks, I'll take a look at that!

It's well worth a read anyhow.

CDfm

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Because they're the gold standard for garbage masquerading as science. We could talk about the alternative medicine industry if you prefer.

On your misunderstanding of peer review, here's a shameless link to my blog which should help you figure out what you're talking about:

http://thebiologista.blogspot.com/2008/07/science-says-popular-science-will-give.html

Criticism/debate/abuse welcome.

AH - I know you are a scientist and your stuff is very well written. I operate in business and what you put forward is idealistic and is pro-science. And its a very good article.

However it doesnt point out the dangers of Dawkins and that he neither disproves or proves the existence of God. Thats a major ommision.

I am not a creationist.

sink

CDfm wrote: »

AH - I know you are a scientist and your stuff is very well written. I operate in business and what you put forward is idealistic and is pro-science.

I am not a creationist.

And what you put out is paranoia induced by years of religious indoctrination.