User Tag List

First 8910111220 Last

Results 91 to 100 of 239

  1. #91
    Lex Parsimoniae Xander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    9w8
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    4,463

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Studmuffin23 View Post
    Science in it's true essence consists of observations, not speculations. The academic community, which is one of the most politically-charged of human institutions (and therefore the least rational), has turned science into 95% speculation and 5% observation.
    I don't think that's entirely fair.

    What has to be remembered is that there's very rarely the scientist reading to us from his notes and answering our questions directly. On fact, quite often, we only get snippets of the scientist revealing the "headlines" of their research before fantasy conclusions are displayed for our delight.

    We are sold science twice. Once in the product we buy when the science is sound and once before by the media hounds when it is often barely formed.

    Any scientific theory which reaches the general populace has been reviewed and postulated on by people who's job it is to make you listen to them. They get money for your attention and thus everything relayed must be attention grabbing.

    Primary evidence, vaping.

    Vaping has high levels of formaldehyde present. Higher than cigarettes! These scientists have shown this in their research!
    Said scientists in Boston (I think) are appalled as the setting they used to produce this result was unusable by anyone wanting a throat left but was done to show that perhaps safety limits should be established.

    These are the same people who report on e-cig batteries exploding. They fail to mention the person was using an unsuitable phone charger and considering how many people do that only a very few have issues. They fail to mention that the larger devices replicate how a torch works and thus if they are the spawn of Satan then so are torches.

    They don't exist to inform you of information which is useful. They aren't benefactors of an educated society. They don't sell well to people who are rational, calm and wise beings. What they want is a herd of hyper sensitive, over reacting traditionalists.

    It just makes sense that America is their favourite playground. It's just made for them.
    Isn't it time for a colourful metaphor?

  2. #92
    Senior Member Survive & Stay Free's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    9 so/sx
    Posts
    21,661

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hard View Post
    Poll Results Show Disparity Between Scientists And American Public On Scientific Issues | IFLScience

    There's been many news articles posted on this over the past several days.




    This is incredibly depressing, angering, and in some cases, dangerous. I've known for a long time that there is a very unfortunate gap between what scientists view as valid, and what they general american public views as valid. I did not know it was this bad though, in some of the issues I am utterly flabbergasted and imbarrasted. The fact of the matter is, science is unbias and speaks for itself. There is no disagreeing with fact. There will always be some naysayers and a bit of disagreement on matters that are more opinion based, but on other matters there truly is a right or wrong answer. How someone can just flagerently ignore fact in favor of fringe low impact material, personal opinion, gut feelings, or simple dislike is absolutely beyond me.

    I really don't know what we can do about this. There is talk about increasing STEM education, but I am not sure that will do quite enough. There are other root problems that might make it intractable. We do need to improve this though, because when the public disagrees with science, even when the science is factually and morally sound as it can be, even when the public is dead wrong it still effects it, and everyone else.

    Discuss.
    Said the Phrenologist, Mesmerist and Electrolist.

    Lets retire for some healthy cups of radium and extra tar cigars. Fortifying.

  3. #93
    Mojibake sprinkles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Posts
    2,968

    Default

    It's ironic how people bring up bad examples of science but we only have these bad examples because science found they were bad and threw them out.

    i.e. you only know these bad examples because science is too good to keep them.
    Likes Hard liked this post

  4. #94
    Mojibake sprinkles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Posts
    2,968

    Default

    Also if it weren't for science you'd be going to your barber surgeon for bloodletting still instead of using it as an example. Who do you think did the experiments to find that this wasn't the greatest of ideas?

    Moreover, bloodletting, radium, mercury etc. aren't examples of bad science because they weren't ever scientific in the first place. In other words, proper experiments were not done with them. So science never truly accepted these methods but rather was the first thing to truly look at them and find that they are harmful.

    So it's not an example of bad science but instead is an example of what good science saved you from.

  5. #95
    deplorable basketcase Tellenbach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    MBTI
    ISTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5
    Posts
    3,953

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sprinkles
    It's ironic how people bring up bad examples of science but we only have these bad examples because science found they were bad and threw them out.
    It's because people (skeptics) raised questions. You don't get progress if scientists refuse to submit their work to public and professional scrutiny. In the end, climate science will just be another lump on the ash heap of pseudoscience (but it may take an ice age to do it).
    Senator Rand Paul is alive because of modern medicine and because his attacker punches like a girl.

  6. #96
    Mojibake sprinkles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Posts
    2,968

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tellenbach View Post
    It's because people (skeptics) raised questions. You don't get progress if scientists refuse to submit their work to public and professional scrutiny. In the end, climate science will just be another lump on the ash heap of pseudoscience (but it may take an ice age to do it).
    Can we be done please
    Likes Hard liked this post

  7. #97
    Analytical Dreamer Coriolis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/sx
    Posts
    17,586

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tellenbach View Post
    It's because people (skeptics) raised questions. You don't get progress if scientists refuse to submit their work to public and professional scrutiny. In the end, climate science will just be another lump on the ash heap of pseudoscience (but it may take an ice age to do it).
    Scientists who do not submit their work to professional scrutiny do not get published, do not get promotion or tenure, do not get funded, and in short, are not successful. And those skeptics raising questions? Mostly other scientists who know better and can raise questions that are actually relevant and intelligent.
    I've been called a criminal, a terrorist, and a threat to the known universe. But everything you were told is a lie. The truth is, they've taken our freedom, our home, and our future. The time has come for all humanity to take a stand...

  8. #98
    deplorable basketcase Tellenbach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    MBTI
    ISTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5
    Posts
    3,953

    Default

    @Coriolis Climate scientists are notorious for hiding raw data and not divulging the methods used to derive their statistical results. Here's an opinion from a climate scientist on the problem:

    "The [Wall Street Journal (WSJ)]highlights what Regaldo and McIntyre say is Mann's resistance or outright refusal to provide to inquiring minds his data, all details of his statistical analysis, and his code. The WSJ's anecdotal treatment of the subject goes toward confirming what I've been hearing for years in climatology circles about not just Mann, but others collecting original climate data...

    As concerns Mann himself, this is especially curious in light of the recent RealClimate posts...in which Mann and Gavin Schmidt warn us about peer review and the limits therein. Their point is essentially that peer review is limited and can be much less than thorough. One assumes that they are talking about their own work as well as McIntyre's, although they never state this...

    Of their take on peer review, I couldn't agree more. In my experience, peer review is often cursory at best. So this is what I say to Dr. Mann and others expressing deep concern over peer review: give up your data, methods and code freely and with a smile on your face. This is real peer review...

    Your job is not to prevent your critics from checking your work and potentially distorting it; your job is to continue to publish insightful, detailed analyses of the data and let the community decide. You can be part of the debate without seeming to hinder access to it." Kevin Vranes, climatologist quoted in "The Hockey Stick Illusion"
    Senator Rand Paul is alive because of modern medicine and because his attacker punches like a girl.

  9. #99
    Lex Parsimoniae Xander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    9w8
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    4,463

    Default

    Based on this thread, everyone I know is a scientist!

    Must get them to start publishing... I could be editor and give up real work.
    Isn't it time for a colourful metaphor?

  10. #100
    Mojibake sprinkles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Posts
    2,968

    Default

    I wouldn't give data to witch hunters either if it were me. Can't get away from this so might as well give up and let idiots sort themselves out.

    Give data and it'll be misused to paint you wrong. Don't give data and you're hiding something. Just fuck it because it doesn't matter either way.

Similar Threads

  1. Final decision on my type between INTP and INFP.
    By Cat Brainz in forum What's my Type?
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 11-01-2016, 07:10 PM
  2. Russian Orthodoxy on the rise with decreasing seperation between church and state
    By UniqueMixture in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 11-05-2012, 01:57 PM
  3. Replies: 5
    Last Post: 11-05-2010, 01:58 AM
  4. on this day midway between solstice and christmas
    By bcvcdc in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 12-23-2009, 08:13 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO