Science fraud.

[Shadowrider]

I think you're making the point of the article here (without having read the article myself). Science can be wrong. It can be wrong for innocent reasons (mistakes, invalid or incomplete experiment parameters, etc), but also for not so innocent reasons, which primarily revolve around money and power.

If the results of science can or are making someone money or giving them power/control, then said results are suspect - not necessarily wrong.

The point is that it is not "anti-science" to be suspicious or critical of scientific results.

While I agree with what sanjuro says, it is also true that a lot of people put faith in "what science says" without understanding or questioning any of it themselves, and will make decisions based on that. What this results in is when "scientists say" (whether they do or not is irrelevant) that we are/are not experiencing global warming (not arguing for or against it here) some people will make decisions in life that involve both money and power. This being a hot topic, there is financial and control incentive for both sides to make "scientific" claims about their position. So results in this area must be scrutinized closely before being trusted. The same goes for any other publicly sensitive "science" issue.

Scientists studying aerodynamics, or electrical superconductors, are probably not as affected.

^^^ Post of the month right here.

 

[sanjuro893]

Most of this I agree with. The problem is that science is turning into an organized religion. They no longer question themselves and each other. Instead they fight tooth and nail to protect their findings and will not let anyone who does not side with them see the data and methods used to come up with their theory. To me that is not real science. Others have to be able to replicate your findings.

I agree, there are many who treat it that way. But don't lose faith in science itself. It's just a process. That process has made our world a better place for the most part. Too many people choose science or faith and think you can't use both. The two aren't mutually exclusive. When a scientist makes a claim, check his work. Anybody worth their salt will have a link to it and can be either supported or picked apart from there. If they're afraid to show they're work and wanna play the "consensus" game, that don't mean jack in the real world. It's the equivalent of "pics or it didn't happen."

 

[RickN]

I think you're making the point of the article here (without having read the article myself). Science can be wrong. It can be wrong for innocent reasons (mistakes, invalid or incomplete experiment parameters, etc), but also for not so innocent reasons, which primarily revolve around money and power.

If the results of science can or are making someone money or giving them power/control, then said results are suspect - not necessarily wrong.

The point is that it is not "anti-science" to be suspicious or critical of scientific results.

While I agree with what sanjuro says, it is also true that a lot of people put faith in "what science says" without understanding or questioning any of it themselves, and will make decisions based on that. What this results in is when "scientists say" (whether they do or not is irrelevant) that we are/are not experiencing global warming (not arguing for or against it here) some people will make decisions in life that involve both money and power. This being a hot topic, there is financial and control incentive for both sides to make "scientific" claims about their position. So results in this area must be scrutinized closely before being trusted. The same goes for any other publicly sensitive "science" issue.

Scientists studying aerodynamics, or electrical superconductors, are probably not as affected.

Very good post and agree with most of it.

I agree, there are many who treat it that way. But don't lose faith in science itself. It's just a process. That process has made our world a better place for the most part. Too many people choose science or faith and think you can't use both. The two aren't mutually exclusive. When a scientist makes a claim, check his work. Anybody worth their salt will have a link to it and can be either supported or picked apart from there. If they're afraid to show they're work and wanna play the "consensus" game, that don't mean jack in the real world. It's the equivalent of "pics or it didn't happen."

Oh I have not lost my belief in science, only in a large number of scientist. Like I said, science has become a religion and there are far to many who think it can do no wrong while many scientist are is doing their own version of the preacher and the choirboy. Doing wrong and depending on the powers to cover it up. It has gotten so bad it has a name now, sciencism. The unfailing belief that anything a "scientist" says or publishes is truth. Never mind the Japanese scientist who fabricated a whopping 183 papers that got published, or the investigations going on into peer review fraud. People have stopped thinking for themselves or questioning things. Scientist are just humans and are no more infallible, and no less greedy or crooked then any other human. Right now there is a big push to publish and it is creating a mess.

A good read even if a blog.

http://nautil.us/issue/24/error/how...l&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer

A pretty good source for those who want to keep an eye on things.

http://retractionwatch.com/

 

[dennishoddy]

Saw a news report this morning about the scientific study that said dark chocolate can cause weight loss.
The study was carried and touted by all of the media outlets.
Came out yesterday by the reporting scientist that it was all a hoax, perpetrated by him self.
He wanted to show how media outlets grasp at any news, and run with it without actually doing any cross checking of the facts.
Of course we already knew that.

 

[TerryMiller]

It's similar to polls and surveys in the "opinion" world. Anyone with a wee bit of knowledge knows that one can design the questions in such a way as to get a particular outcome. Which is why I put very little faith in polls, except for those actually conducted at election polling locations.

Now to get tacky, I blame it all on Al Gore with his global warming mantra. Prior to that, I don't think the general populace had much skepticism of science.

 

[Eagle Eye]

I'll give my honest opinion: I've worked with and around scientists for many years (although I'm officially not one myself) Bear in mind this is just my opinion....

There are plenty of "scientists" where I work and there's politics and ladder climbers just like anywhere else. There are still people (usually younger) that are idealists and believe in making the world a better place but then they get through school and get working somewhere and get jaded once they hit the "agenda wall". (A lot of that is in the medical and pharmaceutical research community but I've also seen NASA engineers get drunk at parties and gripe about the "establishment")

I think that's me. So far, there is no agenda wall, but im sure it's around the corner.

Its an editorial. Im not surprised.
Also, Id encourage you stay married to science, but divorce yourself from the other processes, the limitations. What a hypothesis really is, the ones we teach the students.

Main reason I like teaching intro courses.