Science Doesn't Say Anything - Scientists Do

Discussion in 'News / Current Events' started by Revmitchell, Dec 1, 2009.

  1. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,283
    Likes Received:
    780
    You can't put honesty in a test tube.

    "Science" doesn't say anything-scientists do.

    Those are a couple of the illuminating conclusions we can draw from the global warming e-mail scandal.

    "You mean science is not objective?" No, unless the scientists are, and too often they are not. I don't want to impugn all scientists, but it is true that some of them are less than honest. Sometimes they lie to get or keep their jobs. Sometimes they lie to get grant money. Sometimes they lie to further their political beliefs. Sometimes they don't intentionally lie, but they draw bad scientific conclusions because they only look for what they hope to find.

    Misbehavior by scientists is more prevalent than you might think. A survey conducted by University of Minnesota researchers found that 33% of scientists admitted to engaging in some kind of research misbehavior, including more than 20% of mid-career scientists who admitted to "changing the design, methodology or results of a study in response to pressure from a funding source." Think of how many more have done this but refuse to admit it! (The researchers said as much in their findings.)

    Outright lies and deception certainly seem to be the case with "Climategate." The exposed e-mails reveal cherry picking; manipulating data; working behind the scenes to censor dissenting views; and doubting what the measurements say because they don't fit their pre-determined conclusion. Matt Drudge headlined this yesterday as the "Greatest scandal in modern science."

    More Here
     
  2. billwald

    billwald
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2000
    Messages:
    11,414
    Likes Received:
    0
    Written texts don't "say" anything. The Bible doesn't "say" anything. Texts and statements must be interpreted.
     
  3. targus

    targus
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2008
    Messages:
    8,459
    Likes Received:
    0
    You seem to grasp the point of the OP.

    Scientific data must be interpreted.

    Those who are doing the interpreting may have a bias or agenda.
     
  4. SolaSaint

    SolaSaint
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2009
    Messages:
    2,824
    Likes Received:
    25
    Rev,

    All this makes one wonder how far beyond just climate data this scandal may go. Sure does seem like these scientists manipulated data or just out right dumped it to skew results in favor of global warming. What about evolutionary studies? How much have scientists lied about this? Of course we know evolution isn't true, but these scientists either believe it to be or want it to be just like global warming. Or is this apples and oranges?
     
    #4 SolaSaint, Dec 2, 2009
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 2, 2009
  5. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,283
    Likes Received:
    780
    When ever scientist want to control dissenting views then I am suspicious of their so called "science" we see this happening with climate change, evolution, vaccinations, and abortion related cancers.
     
  6. SolaSaint

    SolaSaint
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2009
    Messages:
    2,824
    Likes Received:
    25
    Didn't Obama say in a speech (maybe state-of-the-union) that he was going to return science to it's rightful place? Maybe this is what he meant?
     
  7. Gold Dragon

    Gold Dragon
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2005
    Messages:
    3,837
    Likes Received:
    3
    For those interested, here is Phil Jones' official response to the most talked about e-mail. He has also agreed to step down from his position because his association with this controversy has hindered the day to day running of the CRU. He does claim to have done nothing wrong at the moment and that these e-mails are being misinterpreted and taken out of context.

     
    #7 Gold Dragon, Dec 2, 2009
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 2, 2009
  8. Aaron

    Aaron
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2000
    Messages:
    15,646
    Likes Received:
    223
    Yep. And Puff, the Magic Dragon was only an innocent song about a boy who outgrew his world of make believe.
     
  9. Aaron

    Aaron
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2000
    Messages:
    15,646
    Likes Received:
    223
    Gold Dragon, I don't quite know how to break this to you, but . . .

    there's no Santa Claus either.
     
  10. SolaSaint

    SolaSaint
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2009
    Messages:
    2,824
    Likes Received:
    25
    Yeah, and I also believed Clinton when he said, "I didn't have s3x with that woman"
     
  11. Gold Dragon

    Gold Dragon
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2005
    Messages:
    3,837
    Likes Received:
    3
    Whether you believe him or not is up to you. I'm just presenting his argument as what he claims. We can all read and judge for ourselves if we believe his explanation for his e-mails.

    When two children argue about something or when two people go to court, it is useful to get both sides of the story before making a judgement.

    I addressed my post "For those interested". Some people have already made up their mind about this issue and will not be interested. That is their prerogative.
     
  12. billwald

    billwald
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2000
    Messages:
    11,414
    Likes Received:
    0
    >Scientific data must be interpreted.

    >Those who are doing the interpreting may have a bias or agenda.

    Everyone has a bias and agenda.

    For example, St Paul's letters. All we have is one side of an exchange and any conclusion about what initiated them is a biased agenda.
     
  13. targus

    targus
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2008
    Messages:
    8,459
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yes, that is the whole point of the OP.

    "Science doesn't say anything" - it is the interpretation of some scientists that is tell us all this stuff about global warming.

    Those scientists appear to have a bias.
     

Share This Page

Loading...