Total Posts:41|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Corrupt Scientists Ruining This Country!!!

darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2012 1:25:56 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
I don't see why its so implausible to believe that scientists are susceptible to incentive structures, and group think like everybody else. They aren't robots that aren't susceptible to emotions and cognitive biases.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2012 1:35:14 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/29/2012 1:25:56 AM, darkkermit wrote:
I don't see why its so implausible to believe that scientists are susceptible to incentive structures, and group think like everybody else. They aren't robots that aren't susceptible to emotions and cognitive biases.

Of course they do. No scientist claims that they don't. The big thing here is that science is an ever correcting system. Where there is a bias, it is never safe.

There are big issues with trusting people. But it's unavoidable if you're going to function in this world with some sense of bearing. It's simply most reasonable that scientists, those who are most pressured to follow the scientific method, are the most reliable.

If you think there is a bias in science, then you go prove it wrong with science, by being a scientist.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2012 1:49:17 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/29/2012 1:35:14 AM, FREEDO wrote:
At 9/29/2012 1:25:56 AM, darkkermit wrote:
I don't see why its so implausible to believe that scientists are susceptible to incentive structures, and group think like everybody else. They aren't robots that aren't susceptible to emotions and cognitive biases.

Of course they do. No scientist claims that they don't. The big thing here is that science is an ever correcting system. Where there is a bias, it is never safe.

I don't think science is an ever correcting system at all. There are positive feedback loops in it. Group think is one of them. As is how one plans on getting funding.

There are big issues with trusting people. But it's unavoidable if you're going to function in this world with some sense of bearing. It's simply most reasonable that scientists, those who are most pressured to follow the scientific method, are the most reliable.

I don't deny that most scientists are reasonable. If I believe they have incentives to lie, then that's when the trust becomes less and less. The social sciences are limited because it tries to remain as PC as possible. Poor methodology practices exist because its based on tradition. Bad theories remain. Poor explanations remain.

If you think there is a bias in science, then you go prove it wrong with science, by being a scientist.

Sorry, I don't really feel like getting a pHD in a subject, learning the pre-existing theories that are based on poor research but continue to persist. Have to play the game only to be screwed over in the end.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2012 1:53:04 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Like when my Introduction to Psychology book, which was a college-level book, stated that men have more sex than women, you begin to realize how fvcking retarded this field is and decide not to go in it rather than try to "make it as a researcher" to "change the system". No.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Man-is-good
Posts: 6,871
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2012 1:54:17 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/29/2012 1:25:56 AM, darkkermit wrote:
I don't see why its so implausible to believe that scientists are susceptible to incentive structures, and group think like everybody else. They aren't robots that aren't susceptible to emotions and cognitive biases.

Some people believe that setting a recourse to objectivity means becoming an epitome of said quality; that being said, there are plenty of "incentive structures," bias, underlying currents and prejudices to sway a scientist, especially in the realm of academics.
"Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto." --Terence

"I believe that the mind can be permanently profaned by the habit of attending to trivial things, so that all our thoughts shall be tinged with triviality."--Thoreau
Man-is-good
Posts: 6,871
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2012 1:56:56 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/29/2012 1:35:14 AM, FREEDO wrote:
At 9/29/2012 1:25:56 AM, darkkermit wrote:
I don't see why its so implausible to believe that scientists are susceptible to incentive structures, and group think like everybody else. They aren't robots that aren't susceptible to emotions and cognitive biases.

Of course they do. No scientist claims that they don't. The big thing here is that science is an ever correcting system. Where there is a bias, it is never safe.

There are big issues with trusting people. But it's unavoidable if you're going to function in this world with some sense of bearing. It's simply most reasonable that scientists, those who are most pressured to follow the scientific method, are the most reliable.

If you think there is a bias in science, then you go prove it wrong with science, by being a scientist.

This.
"Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto." --Terence

"I believe that the mind can be permanently profaned by the habit of attending to trivial things, so that all our thoughts shall be tinged with triviality."--Thoreau
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2012 2:08:41 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/29/2012 1:54:17 AM, Man-is-good wrote:
At 9/29/2012 1:25:56 AM, darkkermit wrote:
I don't see why its so implausible to believe that scientists are susceptible to incentive structures, and group think like everybody else. They aren't robots that aren't susceptible to emotions and cognitive biases.

Some people believe that setting a recourse to objectivity means becoming an epitome of said quality;

Except it really doesn't and only to a certain degree. Human behavior trumps all.

that being said, there are plenty of "incentive structures," bias, underlying currents and prejudices to sway a scientist, especially in the realm of academics.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Man-is-good
Posts: 6,871
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2012 2:10:35 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/29/2012 2:08:41 AM, darkkermit wrote:
At 9/29/2012 1:54:17 AM, Man-is-good wrote:
At 9/29/2012 1:25:56 AM, darkkermit wrote:
I don't see why its so implausible to believe that scientists are susceptible to incentive structures, and group think like everybody else. They aren't robots that aren't susceptible to emotions and cognitive biases.

Some people believe that setting a recourse to objectivity means becoming an epitome of said quality;

Except it really doesn't and only to a certain degree. Human behavior trumps all.
Well, yes. There are barriers to objectivity. Human behavior is one of them--and quite a conspicuous one at that.

that being said, there are plenty of "incentive structures," bias, underlying currents and prejudices to sway a scientist, especially in the realm of academics.
"Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto." --Terence

"I believe that the mind can be permanently profaned by the habit of attending to trivial things, so that all our thoughts shall be tinged with triviality."--Thoreau
Thaumaturgy
Posts: 166
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2012 9:44:55 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/29/2012 1:49:17 AM, darkkermit wrote:
I don't think science is an ever correcting system at all. There are positive feedback loops in it. Group think is one of them. As is how one plans on getting funding.

Science really doesn't work like that on a large scale. "Group think" is a convenient meme for those outside of the sciences, but as was pointed out earlier science self-corrects precisely because OTHER scientists are gunning for YOUR hypothesis or theory.

Scientists are historically quite antagonistic toward each other. They are like a town full of gun slingers always itching to take the best one down.

I don't deny that most scientists are reasonable. If I believe they have incentives to lie, then that's when the trust becomes less and less. The social sciences are limited because it tries to remain as PC as possible. Poor methodology practices exist because its based on tradition. Bad theories remain. Poor explanations remain.

Science is interesting in this aspect. Yes there are "bad" people in science as there are in any endeavor, but when a scientist is found lying it is essentially a career-ending event. There are no "3 Strikes" rules in science. Once you lose that trust you are washed out.

And thanks to the antagonistic nature of science people are always looking over your shoulder. If you publish a paper in which you lied to get the results to work out and someone even attempts to try that experiment and fails repeatedly then guess what? At best your paper is relegated to "They made a mistake and got it wrong", and at worst someone looks really, really closely and finds out you lie at which point you can kiss getting any grants or positions after that goodbye.

Sorry, I don't really feel like getting a pHD in a subject, learning the pre-existing theories that are based on poor research but continue to persist. Have to play the game only to be screwed over in the end.

This sounds like a convenient excuse. When I got my PhD clearly I didn't have such a jaded look at it. Probably because so much of science has proven to be the best human endeavor we've ever undertaken to explain reality. It "works". That isn't to say there isn't more to learn. And sometimes the fun stuff comes in finding out the errors in prior thought.

"Screwed over in the end"? So if you did get your "pHD" and you worked on a topic that revolutionized our understanding of that topic you'd feel "screwed over"? I suspect that receiving the Nobel Prize for such a discovery could ameliorate those feelings of being screwed.

But, sad to say, the majority of us in the sciences (even PhD's) don't get to see such adventure writ large. Science is fun and a wonderful way to approach the world. It's a big tool box made up mostly of only the best tools available and you are set loose to go hammer and tongs at the world.
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2012 11:24:09 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Thaumaturgy proves again why he is the official scientist of DDO. Well done, sir.
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2012 3:29:35 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/29/2012 9:44:55 AM, Thaumaturgy wrote:
Scientists are historically quite antagonistic toward each other. They are like a town full of gun slingers always itching to take the best one down.

My point exactly. Well put.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2012 4:07:29 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/29/2012 9:44:55 AM, Thaumaturgy wrote:
At 9/29/2012 1:49:17 AM, darkkermit wrote:
I don't think science is an ever correcting system at all. There are positive feedback loops in it. Group think is one of them. As is how one plans on getting funding.

Science really doesn't work like that on a large scale. "Group think" is a convenient meme for those outside of the sciences, but as was pointed out earlier science self-corrects precisely because OTHER scientists are gunning for YOUR hypothesis or theory.

And you don't think one group has more power over the other? You don't think one group will have more funding then the other?

Scientists are historically quite antagonistic toward each other. They are like a town full of gun slingers always itching to take the best one down.

I don't deny that most scientists are reasonable. If I believe they have incentives to lie, then that's when the trust becomes less and less. The social sciences are limited because it tries to remain as PC as possible. Poor methodology practices exist because its based on tradition. Bad theories remain. Poor explanations remain.

Science is interesting in this aspect. Yes there are "bad" people in science as there are in any endeavor, but when a scientist is found lying it is essentially a career-ending event. There are no "3 Strikes" rules in science. Once you lose that trust you are washed out.

Okay, obviously people aren't going to straight out fabricate data. Well, at least not as often. It probably does happen. However, people can definitely "tweak" data, which probably occurs more often then just straight up lying. A good example, is that the lipid-hypothesis pursuit even though the correlation relied on throwing out data that went against the hypothesis.

Also most experiments don't get replicated again. They can, but not often. "Peer review" doesn't mean that they're going to replicate all the experiments. It isn't some perfect system.

And thanks to the antagonistic nature of science people are always looking over your shoulder. If you publish a paper in which you lied to get the results to work out and someone even attempts to try that experiment and fails repeatedly then guess what? At best your paper is relegated to "They made a mistake and got it wrong", and at worst someone looks really, really closely and finds out you lie at which point you can kiss getting any grants or positions after that goodbye.

Again, most experiments don't get replicated again.

Sorry, I don't really feel like getting a pHD in a subject, learning the pre-existing theories that are based on poor research but continue to persist. Have to play the game only to be screwed over in the end.

This sounds like a convenient excuse.

Its a convinent excuse to not waste 4+ years of one's life, living broke through that time period, to go in a field that one doesn't like and not even be promised a good paying career (professor isn't that high of a salary)? Are you kidding me. Do you realize how many opportunity costs are lost from just trying to be an ideologist and change the field. I'm a chemical engineer. Guess what, I don't have any problems with the field I am in. I'm not complaning about chemical engineering, chemistry, or physics. They don't study controversial things. What I am complaining about our the controversial fields, mainly the social sciences.

When I got my PhD clearly I didn't have such a jaded look at it.

Hence why it would make sense for you to go for a pHD and not me. I don't want a pHD. I don't want to go into academia.

Probably because so much of science has proven to be the best human endeavor we've ever undertaken to explain reality. It "works". That isn't to say there isn't more to learn. And sometimes the fun stuff comes in finding out the errors in prior thought.


"Screwed over in the end"? So if you did get your "pHD" and you worked on a topic that revolutionized our understanding of that topic you'd feel "screwed over"? I suspect that receiving the Nobel Prize for such a discovery could ameliorate those feelings of being screwed.

Me getting a Nobel Prize is unlikely, espcially since the subjects that I despise: the social sciences, don't have nobel prizes in. At best, there could be some grey areas in climate science and economics. But I'm only saying that because they do have public policy ramifications, that could cause biases. I really don't know and don't plan on studying the material enough to find out.

But, sad to say, the majority of us in the sciences (even PhD's) don't get to see such adventure writ large. Science is fun and a wonderful way to approach the world. It's a big tool box made up mostly of only the best tools available and you are set loose to go hammer and tongs at the world.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
sadolite
Posts: 8,837
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2012 10:07:20 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Science goes where the money is and says what the money wants it to say.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
Thaumaturgy
Posts: 166
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2012 11:17:54 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/29/2012 4:07:29 PM, darkkermit wrote:

Its a convinent excuse to not waste 4+ years of one's life, living broke through that time period, to go in a field that one doesn't like and not even be promised a good paying career (professor isn't that high of a salary)?

I actually wanted to go into academia, but I ended up in INDUSTRY. The pay isn't bad. Not as good as if I got an MBA and went into bizness, but I had no interest in that.

Are you kidding me. Do you realize how many opportunity costs are lost from just trying to be an ideologist and change the field. I'm a chemical engineer.

Getting a PhD isn't really being an "ideologist", but our point is well taken. As a ChemE you don't need a PhD to get where you want to go. Industry loves you guys.

Guess what, I don't have any problems with the field I am in. I'm not complaning about chemical engineering, chemistry, or physics. They don't study controversial things. What I am complaining about our the controversial fields, mainly the social sciences.

Actually many of the physical sciences get hit with "controversy" at least in political realms. Just see the weird controversy around global climate change over the past few years despite the relatively non-controversial nature of the science.

Hence why it would make sense for you to go for a pHD and not me. I don't want a pHD. I don't want to go into academia.

Two unrelated topics. Getting a PhD is not necessarily a step to academia. But if you don't want a PhD then that's fantastic for you. I just hope that that is the reason and not simply that you think it a waste in general. The concept of getting a PhD is not, ipso facto, a waste in any sense. If someone personally has no interest in doing that, then that's a different matter. My wife and I met in grad school but she stopped at the MS because she didn't dig the research aspect.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2012 11:35:38 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/29/2012 11:17:54 PM, Thaumaturgy wrote:
At 9/29/2012 4:07:29 PM, darkkermit wrote:

Its a convinent excuse to not waste 4+ years of one's life, living broke through that time period, to go in a field that one doesn't like and not even be promised a good paying career (professor isn't that high of a salary)?

I actually wanted to go into academia, but I ended up in INDUSTRY. The pay isn't bad. Not as good as if I got an MBA and went into bizness, but I had no interest in that.

I thought that industry preferred masters over doctorates. Apparently a lot of industries hate pHD people since they have a high turnover rate and not really used to an industrial setting.

Are you kidding me. Do you realize how many opportunity costs are lost from just trying to be an ideologist and change the field. I'm a chemical engineer.

Getting a PhD isn't really being an "ideologist", but our point is well taken. As a ChemE you don't need a PhD to get where you want to go. Industry loves you guys.

Getting a PhD isn't being an "ideologist". Getting a PhD so you can change certain standards, assumptions and poor methodology standards is.


Guess what, I don't have any problems with the field I am in. I'm not complaning about chemical engineering, chemistry, or physics. They don't study controversial things. What I am complaining about our the controversial fields, mainly the social sciences.

Actually many of the physical sciences get hit with "controversy" at least in political realms. Just see the weird controversy around global climate change over the past few years despite the relatively non-controversial nature of the science.

Global climate change only encompasses a small portion of natural science doctorates anyways. I even stated that global warming could be considered controversial later on.

Hence why it would make sense for you to go for a pHD and not me. I don't want a pHD. I don't want to go into academia.

Two unrelated topics. Getting a PhD is not necessarily a step to academia. But if you don't want a PhD then that's fantastic for you. I just hope that that is the reason and not simply that you think it a waste in general.

Its a waste for some and not others. It would be a waste for me, especially since the reasons for getting it, as stated earlier, would not be good enough to justify it.

The concept of getting a PhD is not, ipso facto, a waste in any sense. If someone personally has no interest in doing that, then that's a different matter. My wife and I met in grad school but she stopped at the MS because she didn't dig the research aspect.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Thaumaturgy
Posts: 166
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2012 9:34:42 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/29/2012 11:35:38 PM, darkkermit wrote:
I thought that industry preferred masters over doctorates. Apparently a lot of industries hate pHD people since they have a high turnover rate and not really used to an industrial setting.

Gotta correct a miscoception there. While you are correct, some hiring managers are "scared" of hiring PhD's (usually because they have no real understanding of what it takes to get a PhD and they think that a PhD will be a risk to long-term or will want to be so focused on one topic that they are no good anywhere else), but your other point that PhD's will not be used to an industrial setting is plain wrong.

Just because someone has the abiity to focus on a topic for a few years doesn't make them somehow incapable of working in industry. I know many, many PhD's in industry. In fact some people get PhD's to be better at their job in industry!

This "myth" of the PhD being a bad choice for industry is, I find, a convenient excuse for people who are insufficiently confident that they could get one themselves to kind of get their "digs" in. Perhaps a form of mild "professional jealousy"?

When someone is so certain that they had what it takes to do it but they continuously try to tell me it would have been a waste of time so they choose NOT to get one, well, I take it with the same grain of salt as an athlete would when faced with a regular guy who says "Yeah, I probably had a shot at the pro's, but I decided it wasn't worth it..."

I actually am GLAD there are people who choose not to get a PhD since it isn't for everyone. And no doubt carries no value for them whatsoever. Just as I would never want to get an MBA! No interest. And besides I'd probably suck at it!

As I said I understand your view because it is not unlike my wife's view. She had no interest in getting a PhD in geology because doing so would have put her in something that she didn't feel was a good fit for her.

Its a waste for some and not others. It would be a waste for me, especially since the reasons for getting it, as stated earlier, would not be good enough to justify it.

That seems to be a flawed analysis since there really isn't a single set of "reasons" for getting a PhD. Sometimes getting a PhD can be just pure fun! If all one bases their analysis on is a set of randomly chosen and NON-EXHAUSTIVE reasons as to why it would "not be worth" it then the analysis is flawed.

IF, however, one merely states: "I have no interest in DOING that" then that's fine. You did give a perfectly legitimate answer earlier that the years of poverty aren't any fun. I get that. That's reason enough! None of the reasons around how the PhD qua PhD however are sufficient to make the PhD a waste of time.

In my case after I got my MS in geology I worked for a year as an oceanographic lab tech for an Ivy League university. As such I was living more hand-to-mouth tha when I was in school and indeed I could get a better living ON A STIPEND in the midwest going back to grad school to get the PhD than I was doing that!

So in my case poverty OUTSIDE of academia was worse than inside. After that I got a decent postdoc, good money and ultimately jumped to industry. So in my case the $$$$ argument would have failed to be dispositive of the PhD's waste-of-time status.
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2012 10:23:44 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/29/2012 10:07:20 PM, sadolite wrote:
Science goes where the money is and says what the money wants it to say.

This. Many modern scientific opinions are great examples of group think.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,250
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2012 10:27:54 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/30/2012 10:23:44 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 9/29/2012 10:07:20 PM, sadolite wrote:
Science goes where the money is and says what the money wants it to say.

This. Many modern scientific opinions are great examples of group think.

Consensus is not as rational as science.
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2012 10:56:50 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/30/2012 10:27:54 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 9/30/2012 10:23:44 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 9/29/2012 10:07:20 PM, sadolite wrote:
Science goes where the money is and says what the money wants it to say.

This. Many modern scientific opinions are great examples of group think.

Consensus is not as rational as science.

I was hinting to AGW... I hoped that clarified it
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
Thaumaturgy
Posts: 166
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2012 12:50:43 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/30/2012 10:23:44 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 9/29/2012 10:07:20 PM, sadolite wrote:
Science goes where the money is and says what the money wants it to say.

This. Many modern scientific opinions are great examples of group think.

Hmmm, not really. A huge amount of science funding comes from places like the NSF and NIH and they don't really put "ideological strings" on the money that I've heard of.

This fantasy that science is massively corrupted by money is a projection that non-scientists put onto science thinking that if money corrupts some things then it must be behind the science they don't agree with.

I am not saying that science is never corrupted, or that science can't be corrupted, but again, when one realizes that the goal of a scientific publication is to spur further investigation on things (calling out the other scientists to double check the science) then it kind of polices itself.

I've even had one of my findings called into question and I was a peer reviewer on the paper. I was pleased as punch that someone found my error! I heartily voted for the publication of the article correcting me.

Now let's go to this alternate conspiracy universe where money corrupts science. If I had found a way to quash the publication of the critical paper, what good would it have possibly done? Countless other people could easily have published my error and unless I was OMNIPRESENT I wouldn't be able to stop it! So why even try?

But further more: I actually think scientists are afraid of making errors and when an error is made most would welcome a correction, even if it kind of stings to see the ego take a hit.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2012 2:52:18 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/1/2012 12:50:43 PM, Thaumaturgy wrote:
At 9/30/2012 10:23:44 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 9/29/2012 10:07:20 PM, sadolite wrote:
Science goes where the money is and says what the money wants it to say.

This. Many modern scientific opinions are great examples of group think.

Hmmm, not really. A huge amount of science funding comes from places like the NSF and NIH and they don't really put "ideological strings" on the money that I've heard of.

This fantasy that science is massively corrupted by money is a projection that non-scientists put onto science thinking that if money corrupts some things then it must be behind the science they don't agree with.

I am not saying that science is never corrupted, or that science can't be corrupted, but again, when one realizes that the goal of a scientific publication is to spur further investigation on things (calling out the other scientists to double check the science) then it kind of polices itself.

I've even had one of my findings called into question and I was a peer reviewer on the paper. I was pleased as punch that someone found my error! I heartily voted for the publication of the article correcting me.

Now let's go to this alternate conspiracy universe where money corrupts science. If I had found a way to quash the publication of the critical paper, what good would it have possibly done? Countless other people could easily have published my error and unless I was OMNIPRESENT I wouldn't be able to stop it! So why even try?

But further more: I actually think scientists are afraid of making errors and when an error is made most would welcome a correction, even if it kind of stings to see the ego take a hit.

Curious: What exactly do you study?

I don't believe that most natural scientists engaging in non-controversial subjects is corrupt.

I have 2 videos that demonstrate some poor studies which are critiqued, notably from the social sciences:

Fox news users are minsinformed

The unanticipated interpersonal and societal consequences of choice
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Thaumaturgy
Posts: 166
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2012 5:19:14 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/2/2012 2:52:18 AM, darkkermit wrote:
Curious: What exactly do you study?

I'm a geologist by degree and a chemist by career. My publications have largely been in chemistry.

I don't believe that most natural scientists engaging in non-controversial subjects is corrupt.

I have 2 videos that demonstrate some poor studies which are critiqued, notably from the social sciences:

I gather from your numerous mentions that you find the social sciences to be the most egregious. I actually think that the social sciences, when done properly, can be extremely useful areas but it requires a lot more statistical nuance than even the physical sciences.

People are a particularly hard area to study. Those pesky brains tend to induce bias in the samples no doubt.

Fox news users are minsinformed

I have read a study by Farleigh Dickinson University that found that Fox News viewers knew less about current affairs than people who claimed to not watch any news.

I would imagine that the social science can verge over onto the more "mushy" and fluffy areas bordering on psychology and I've got mixed feelings about the scientific robustness of some parts of psychology, but I'm not entirely willing to toss the baby out with the bathwater.

When looking at "social" type studies or anything that requires an "objective" statement from PEOPLE as the basis for data that I should really be careful not to extrapolate TOO far out of the sample set and assume the correlations have biiiiig error bars.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2012 5:40:05 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/2/2012 5:19:14 PM, Thaumaturgy wrote:
At 10/2/2012 2:52:18 AM, darkkermit wrote:
Curious: What exactly do you study?

I'm a geologist by degree and a chemist by career. My publications have largely been in chemistry.

I don't believe that most natural scientists engaging in non-controversial subjects is corrupt.

I have 2 videos that demonstrate some poor studies which are critiqued, notably from the social sciences:

I gather from your numerous mentions that you find the social sciences to be the most egregious. I actually think that the social sciences, when done properly, can be extremely useful areas but it requires a lot more statistical nuance than even the physical sciences.

People are a particularly hard area to study. Those pesky brains tend to induce bias in the samples no doubt.

Fox news users are minsinformed

I have read a study by Farleigh Dickinson University that found that Fox News viewers knew less about current affairs than people who claimed to not watch any news.

I would imagine that the social science can verge over onto the more "mushy" and fluffy areas bordering on psychology and I've got mixed feelings about the scientific robustness of some parts of psychology, but I'm not entirely willing to toss the baby out with the bathwater.

When looking at "social" type studies or anything that requires an "objective" statement from PEOPLE as the basis for data that I should really be careful not to extrapolate TOO far out of the sample set and assume the correlations have biiiiig error bars.

Did you take a look at the video? A lot of the questions asked in the study for "Fox news viewers are misinformed" ask questions in which the answer to the question is uncertain. For example "Did the stimulus create jobs?". There's no way to prove that because one doesn't know what the difference would've been If the stimulus wasn't passed. Its just assumed that there is a fiscal multiplier.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
sadolite
Posts: 8,837
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2012 7:45:39 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/1/2012 12:50:43 PM, Thaumaturgy wrote:
At 9/30/2012 10:23:44 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 9/29/2012 10:07:20 PM, sadolite wrote:
Science goes where the money is and says what the money wants it to say.

This. Many modern scientific opinions are great examples of group think.

Hmmm, not really. A huge amount of science funding comes from places like the NSF and NIH and they don't really put "ideological strings" on the money that I've heard of.

This fantasy that science is massively corrupted by money is a projection that non-scientists put onto science thinking that if money corrupts some things then it must be behind the science they don't agree with.

I am not saying that science is never corrupted, or that science can't be corrupted, but again, when one realizes that the goal of a scientific publication is to spur further investigation on things (calling out the other scientists to double check the science) then it kind of polices itself.

I've even had one of my findings called into question and I was a peer reviewer on the paper. I was pleased as punch that someone found my error! I heartily voted for the publication of the article correcting me.

Now let's go to this alternate conspiracy universe where money corrupts science. If I had found a way to quash the publication of the critical paper, what good would it have possibly done? Countless other people could easily have published my error and unless I was OMNIPRESENT I wouldn't be able to stop it! So why even try?

But further more: I actually think scientists are afraid of making errors and when an error is made most would welcome a correction, even if it kind of stings to see the ego take a hit.

None the less the scientific community has allowed politics to enter its frain and there is no way to tell what is and what isn't corrupted. Science has reduced itself to that of what all who disbelieve in god say. Blind faith. The only science that can be trusted are those things that either work or don't work like technology. Studies about climate and other issues that can't be verified or proven with absolute certainty, basically are not worth the paper they are written on and it is the scientific communities own fault. I will never believe anything the scientific community says about the climate. Everything they have given us has been over exaggerated and in many cases proven absolute lies and riddled with politics.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2012 1:13:02 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/5/2012 7:45:39 PM, sadolite wrote:

None the less the scientific community has allowed politics to enter its frain and there is no way to tell what is and what isn't corrupted.

Reason government is evil #2469812469

However, science is subject to peer review. As resident PhD Thaumaturgy puts it, Science really doesn't work like that on a large scale. "Scientists are historically quite antagonistic toward each other. They are like a town full of gun slingers always itching to take the best one down."

Science has reduced itself to that of what all who disbelieve in god say. Blind faith.

No. That is the exact opposite of what science is. Science is the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment. It requires strong argument and evidence for theories, and strong reasons for a falsifiable hypothesis to be suggested. Everything in science is subject to revision; it is falsifiable. Conversely ideas in religion are asserted as absolute truth with poor or nonexistent evidence and poor arguments; they are unfalsifiable hypotheses.

The only science that can be trusted are those things that either work or don't work like technology.

False dichotomy. Science doesn't function like that. There are varying degrees of accuracy in scientific theories on a continuum from what likely could happen to the closest approximation of the truth.

Studies about climate and other issues that can't be verified or proven with absolute certainty, basically are not worth the paper they are written on and it is the scientific communities own fault.

Science never claims absolute certainty about anything. Some scientific laws and theories are so well-tested and observed that it seems like they are absolute truths (e.g. Law of Gravity and the Germ Theory of Disease), but they, like all ideas in science, are subject to review and alteration. Climate science is a very difficult science, and we do not have all the answers currently. Eventually, flawed models and poor data will be winnowed out and the good science strengthened and edited because science is falsifiable, subject to peer review, and constantly adding/subtracting/editing information to a vast scientific body knowledge to give us a closer approximation of the truth.

I will never believe anything the scientific community says about the climate.

K. What do you think about this: http://mises.org...

Everything they have given us has been over exaggerated and in many cases proven absolute lies and riddled with politics.

See above.
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
Thaumaturgy
Posts: 166
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2012 8:10:11 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/5/2012 7:45:39 PM, sadolite wrote:
None the less the scientific community has allowed politics to enter its frain and there is no way to tell what is and what isn't corrupted.

Politics gets into everything. And science has always run up against the body politic. Gallileo stumbled into what amounts to a political quagmire with his publication that upset the church. Controlling bodies who find scientific information inconvenient tend to be the ones at drag the scientists into the political debate. Not the other way around.

In the case of Global Warming it had been around for about 60 years before Roger Revelle started trying to get people to pay attention to it as a possible issue in the 1960's. So he took it to the public and to the politicians.

But it wasn't until nearly 30 years later that it became a political football when people started to realize the gravity of the situation and the political lines were drawn.

The science ran as normal throughout all that time. The science was not politicized. The science became a battleground later on largely due to ideologues with no real technical understanding who cherry picked the data in support of their debate points.

Science has reduced itself to that of what all who disbelieve in god say. Blind faith.

Pardon my dutch but bulls***. This is pure demagoguery. Science is not "blind faith" no matter how many religious people who have no training in science claim it is. Science presents the results with the appropriate caveats and people who don't like what it says but have no understanding of the technical details disagree and when they are shown their lack of detailed knowledge and how they are in error suddenly it's THE SCIENTISTS who are "blindly faithful" to something.

Give this meme a final burial!

[quote]
The only science that can be trusted are those things that either work or don't work like technology.[/quote]

This sounds suspiciously like an idea that hasn't been thought through properly.

[quote]
Studies about climate and other issues that can't be verified or proven with absolute certainty, [/quote]

Ahh, that didn't take long! Now we see you have no idea how science has EVER worked. You see, science doesn't EVER deal in "absolute certainty". The minute you hear a scientist claim "absolute certainty" you know they are doing it wrong.

Read a science paper and notice how conclusions are phrased. Note the statistical details of "p-values" and inferential statistical work.

I will never believe anything the scientific community says about the climate.

Of course not. Nor do you have to. Because, I'm assuming, you have almost no scientific training so your "opinion" is just an opinion.

I'm guessing you've never actually picked up a real climatology paper, or an actual scientific paper on climate research. If you can find "politics" in a dry paper on the statistical impact of the Urban Heat Island effect (Peterson 1999 or Peterson 2003) or how to correct for "Time of Observation Bias" in temperature measurements (Karl, 1986) then you MAY be seeing thing YOU bring to the article.
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2012 3:28:22 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The mathematicians re ruining this country as well! Do you think we should teach math in school?
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
Thaumaturgy
Posts: 166
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2012 6:04:45 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/6/2012 3:28:22 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
The mathematicians re ruining this country as well! Do you think we should teach math in school?

Well, to be fair, math has been corrupted by big "Math Money". When mathematicians realized they could get megabux from solving Fermat's last theorem the flood gates were opened.

Suddenly there was all this theoretical stuff out there funded by the Big Math Money Machine.

Why I heard that the mathematicians are going to revise 1+1 to equal 1.78886. My brother, who is a janitor at a big math company told me. The mathematicians are calling it "additive deflationary theory" (ADT).

My kids, Aleister and Minky, were taught by their 3rd grade teacher that 2 apples + 3 oranges meant that the kids had to accept gay marriage.

I honestly don't see why the mathematicians have to get involved in that. But I see dark days ahead.

America needs to wake up and get back to Fundamental Math. We need to get rid of heathen calculus. And my pastor tells me that 99% of all statistics are LIES.