The Instigator
Wylted
Con (against)
Winning
10 Points
The Contender
Challengerqwerty
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

Scientists Never Falsify Data

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
Wylted
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/30/2015 Category: Science
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,069 times Debate No: 69209
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (36)
Votes (2)

 

Wylted

Con

This debate should be impossible to accept. I'm trying to see if somebody I'm arguing with on Facebook is willing to take this debate since he told me that scientists don't falsify data.

This kinda came up after I mentioned climate gate and he sarcastically made statements that him and his scientist buddies always falsify data for their political agendas.
Challengerqwerty

Pro

I will be supporting the Pro side, and will prove that scientists have never falsified data.

Definitions:

Falsify: To alter (information or evidence) so as to mislead.

Scientist: one engaging in a systematic activity to acquire knowledge, and who performs research toward a more comprehensive understanding of nature, including physical, mathematical and social realms.

Knowledge: facts, information, and skills acquired through experience or education; the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject.

Data: facts and statistics collected together for reference or analysis; information.

My rebuttal to you is that there has never been a single scientist that has falsified data because:

1. Scientists "engage in systematic activity to acquire knowledge, and perform research toward a more comprehensive understanding of nature" by definition.
2. Knowledge is " facts, information, and skills acquired through experience or education; the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject."
3. Data is "facts and statistics collected together for reference or analysis; information."
4. Knowledge and data are synonyms when used to mean facts and information gathered together from experiments.
5. People who falsify data are falsifying knowledge, and therefore are not adding to the "comprehensive understanding of nature", and therefore do not fit the definition of scientist.
6. People who falsify data are not real scientists
7. Real scientists do not falsify data.

Anyone who falsifies data and claims to be a scientist is just an impostor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks! :)
Debate Round No. 1
Wylted

Con

Scientists are human just like anyone else and with such a wide ranging field, there are many different characters in the field. Many of them honest and many dishonest, but even honest scientists can use dishonesty from time to time. We all have our faults.

SCIENTISTS DEFINED

Here is how my opponent defined scientist:

"scientists, engage in systematic activity to acquire knowledge and perform research toward a more comprehensive understanding of nature"

One problem with this definition is that it's not cited. It also seems like a job description of what scientists do or at best is a descriptive definition not meant to be all inclusive.

The Google definition of scientist is as follows.

Scientist- a person who is studying or has expert knowledge of one or more of the natural or physical sciences. (Google define)

I checked about 5 different dictionaries mc they're all variations of that to some extent. Even that definition is descriptive and not meant to be all inclusive.

CLIMATE GATE

In November of 2009 a bunch of climate scintists e-mails were hacked into. [1] These E-mails actually show scientists actively engaging in suppression of evidence.

"I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline."[2]

The trick he is rferring to is using a hockey stick type of graph to make the data hide a cooling trend. [3]

"Because how can we be critical of Crowley for throwing out 40-years in the middle of his calibration, when we"re throwing out all post-1960 data "cos the MXD has a non-temperature signal in it, and also all pre-1881 or pre-1871 data "cos the temperature data may have a non-temperature signal in it! If we write the Holocene forum article then we"ll have to be critical or our paper as well as Crowley"s!"

... Also we have applied a completely artificial adjustment to the data after 1960, so they look closer to observed temperatures than the tree-ring data actually were

Also, we set all post-1960 values to missing in the MXD data set (due to decline), and the method will infill these, estimating them from the real temperatures " another way of "correcting" for the decline, though may be not defensible![Tim Osborne]"[4]

""Solution 1: fudge the issue. Just accept that we are Fast-trackers and can therefore get away with anything. [Mike Hulme] In any simple global formula, there should be at least two clearly identifiable sources of uncertainty. One is the sensitivity (d(melt)/dT) and the other is the total available ice. In the TAR, the latter never comes into it in their analysis (i.e., the 'derivation' of the GSIC formula) -- but my point is that it *does* come in by accident due to the quadratic fudge factor. The total volume range is 5-32cm, which is, at the very least, inconsistent with other material in the chapter (see below). 5cm is clearly utterly ridiculous.[Tom Wigley, 2004] "[5]

I could literally show hundreds of emails where these scientists speak of fudging the numbers or doing tricks with the data or applying artificial adjustments but space is limited on this debate.

sources
1. http://web.archive.org...

2. http://www.americanthinker.com...

3. http://wattsupwiththat.com...

4. http://tomnelson.blogspot.com...

5. http://tomnelson.blogspot.com...
Challengerqwerty

Pro

I have been very sick for the past few days, and have been overloaded with school work as well. I haven't had time to even think about this topic, much less write a full round of debate. I am really sorry to waste your time this round, but I hope to be able to make up for it in the next. Please don't feel like you have to hold back or anything. If you have any arguments or points you want to make, I don't want to restrict you just because I am bad at time management :)

Sincere Thanks to Wylted, both for the fun debate, and for being understanding of my situation. I wish more people were like him, especially on the internet! :D

Sorry again; I really do feel terrible for this.

Best of Luck,
CQ
Debate Round No. 2
Wylted

Con

I'm just going to extend and give my opponent a fair shot at this, mostly out of laziness though, because I'm not a nice person.
Challengerqwerty

Pro

Challengerqwerty forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
Challengerqwerty

Pro

Challengerqwerty forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
36 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Wylted 1 year ago
Wylted
Sometimes it doesn't work and falsified data goes unnoticed for long periods
Posted by UnderdogRising 1 year ago
UnderdogRising
Scientists do sometimes falsify data. That's why the system of peer review exists. But those studies are quickly refuted. I'll site the study in the UK that showed a vaccine and autism link. That researcher has had his medical licence revoked for falsified data. That means the system of peer review works.
Posted by dsjpk5 2 years ago
dsjpk5
I would have pointed out how Pro used the " no true Scotsman" fallacy.
Posted by Challengerqwerty 2 years ago
Challengerqwerty
Immortal: living forever; never dying or decaying.

Jesus died, then came back. He is not immortal, he is a zombie.
Posted by UndeniableReality 2 years ago
UndeniableReality
Well, I'm not personally familiar with what's in the bible, but I did hear mention of some such story in the bible =P
Posted by Wylted 2 years ago
Wylted
He actually killed a fig in the bible. He's like fvck you figget. The Christians actually mistranslated it to be against gay marriage somehow.
Posted by UndeniableReality 2 years ago
UndeniableReality
I thought it was wigs, so he never wore one.
Posted by Wylted 2 years ago
Wylted
Jesus hates figs so I doubt he is one.
Posted by UndeniableReality 2 years ago
UndeniableReality
How do you know Jesus wasn't transgender?
Posted by Wylted 2 years ago
Wylted
Actually Jesus is a man and immortal. So the syllogism is wrong.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Zarroette 2 years ago
Zarroette
WyltedChallengerqwertyTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: ff
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 2 years ago
dsjpk5
WyltedChallengerqwertyTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit