Corruption....

[cdn_bc_ca]

Are you talking about Political Science? If so, then yes... definitely. ;-)

Seriously though, when you have big multi-national companies funding or have an interest in the science, you can be sure corruption is just around the corner. The amount of funding and research being put into a particular science often puts so much pressure to produce results that sometimes the published results are misleading.

For example, the science of radio communications... specifically the area of cellular mobile. Some scientific studies have shown that it does not cause cancer while others show that it does. Guess which studies were funded by the wireless companies?

Then you have scientists who are fame-seekers and want to win a prize...
Hwang Woo-suk - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So yes, science can be corrupted.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

Fair enough. As I mentioned, there is nothing "corrupt" about that, however, the failing in the consequent theories/models, etc. is that they are based on incomplete foundations... You can see that as we travel down the slippery slope this initial omission/shortcoming beginns to have more highly impacting ramifications.

Could you be more specific? I haven't a clue what you're referring to. The structure of the periodic table is primarily a consequence of theories and models, not a basis for them; it's more an output than an input.

 

[Bar Sinister]

Yes, science can be corrupted. One example:

Actually selecting one of the most influential work of science in human history as a corruption of science might not be a particularly good example.

 

[darkbeaver]

Actually selecting one of the most influential work of science in human history as a corruption of science might not be a particularly good example.

The theory supports the uniform (non catastrophic) development and linear progression of life on this planet. Evolutionary evidence contrary to the slow uniform progression of life exists in abundance.

Pytheas the GreekPytheas the Greek
Mar 03, 2011

We still labour under the impression that knowledge, however presented, as well the theories and opinions of scientists are absolute truth. Around the sixth century BCE, a Phoenician named Pytheas set sail from Massalia (modern day Mar

 

[mentalfloss]

The problem with science is not with corruption. At this point in history, it is actually fairly easy for any dissenting scientific opinions to actually take precedent over an existing scientific ideal. The reason being is that there are more forums for open discussion and debate than ever before. So science, now, more than ever - is improving upon itself because it continuously and rigorously tests its own former conclusions.

One pretty blatant example of this is the global warming 'debate'. Even though there are a number of skeptics who may jump on this issue - all their scientific arguments have been exhausted. And the reason why the anthropogenic position has strengthened is precisely the fact that scientists have actually taken into account the skeptics scientific arguments - whether it be the sun, volcanoes, natural changes in climate, el nino/la nina cycles or anything else that could explain the warming. All of these counter-arguments are actually taken very seriously by the scientific community.

The remaining skeptics (including scientific skeptics) arguments' fall upon the political inclinations of existing scientific organizations. But even that argument is respectfully acknowledged as scientists are now forced to spend taxpaying money to do studies on the scientific methodologies and review processes themselves - again, strengthening the body of science that purports this view. If there is a scientist that has accepted grant money or is working deviantly, let's just say, you can sure as hell bet that another scientist will challenge their work and win the prevailing debate if their methods are verifiable.

The more evidence and verifiability from multiple resources - the more successful any science is. That's why the harder sciences like physics, chemistry and biology (including evolutionary biology) and atmospheric science (including climatology or climate science) carry out experiments and studies that are highly verifiable. They have the luxury of being able to carry out experiments with lower levels of variance and higher levels of mathematical predictability. The softer sciences, like psychology and sociology, have a much higher variance and it's more difficult to test their models because there are so many variables that could change from one experiment to the next.

No, the real problem with science is not corruption, but rather - human error. There are plenty of studies done with the best of intentions, but bring about the wrong conclusion due to a natural cognitive bias on the part scientist. Again, the softer sciences are more privy to this sort of cognitive bias than the harder sciences. This could have huge ramifications for everyone, but is unavoidable.

So at this time, I wouldn't be worrying about the tin-foil hats - a global conspiracy is not the problem. It's scientists unintentionally ****ing up the science that's the problem.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

The theory supports the uniform (non catastrophic) development and linear progression of life on this planet. Evolutionary evidence contrary to the slow uniform progression of life exists in abundance.

I see you understand as much about modern evolutionary theory as you do about modern physics and cosmology.

 

[darkbeaver]

I see you understand as much about modern evolutionary theory as you do about modern physics and cosmology.

Congradulations, you are finally correct. Enjoy the feeling.

No, the real problem with science is not corruption, but rather - human error. There are plenty of studies done with the best of intentions, but bring about the wrong conclusion due to a natural cognitive bias on the part scientist. Again, the softer sciences are more privy to this sort of cognitive bias than the harder sciences. This could have huge ramifications for everyone, but is unavoidable.

So at this time, I wouldn't be worrying about the tin-foil hats - a global conspiracy is not the problem. It's scientists unintentionally ****ing up the science that's the problem.

Corruption is human error. Your obfuscation is pathetic, the records are overloaded with dishonest scientists who have willingly lied to the public. It is practically impossible to falsify the global warming AGW nonsense even after the CO2 driving rubbish has been falsified definitively and finally. Obfuscation is human error. Belittling ,via the tired old mechanism of the tinfoil hat crack ,those who do not agree with your beliefs is also human error. If you'd like something to read to improve your perspective in this matter I would be happy to link you up with some of the thousands of criminal cases involving crooked science practices.

 

[mentalfloss]

Congradulations, you are finally correct. Enjoy the feeling.



Corruption is human error. Your obfuscation is pathetic, the records are overloaded with dishonest scientists who have willingly lied to the public. It is practically impossible to falsify the global warming AGW nonsense even after the CO2 driving rubbish has been falsified definitively and finally. Obfuscation is human error. Belittling ,via the tired old mechanism of the tinfoil hat crack ,those who do not agree with your beliefs is also human error. If you'd like something to read to improve your perspective in this matter I would be happy to link you up with some of the thousands of criminal cases involving crooked science practices.

You will find corruption in every field. And by corruption - I mean legitimate corruption -- as in, it's pre-meditated and intentional. But we are talking about the comparative corruption of science to other doctrines. Linking thousands of criminal science cases doesn't bolster any argument that it is a worse industry than legal practice, for instance.

Also, if there is legitimate corruption in the practice of science - it's not due to the science itself. It is the political ideologies of governments spinning science or the corporate sponsored 'science' which isn't actually science at all - they're fabricated studies.

 

[cdn_bc_ca]

Look the pharmaceutical companies doing research and testing on new drugs, you will see lots of corruption there.

 

[mentalfloss]

Of course. These companies may use deceptive promotional tactics and fund the creation drugs that may not be needed when healthier alternatives are available. That's not really scientific corruption though - or a corruption stemming from science.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

Congradulations, you are finally correct. Enjoy the feeling.

I'm usually correct, and I do enjoy the feeling, it's nice to know and understand things and be able to explain them to others who are interested and paying attention and trying to think clearly. You won't be among them until you understand enough to see what's wrong with Velikovsky's ideas.

 

[darkbeaver]

I'm usually correct, and I do enjoy the feeling, it's nice to know and understand things and be able to explain them to others who are interested and paying attention and trying to think clearly. You won't be among them until you understand enough to see what's wrong with Velikovsky's ideas.

When you can explain something that didn't and couldn't happen like the big bang you are doing nothing less than preaching for the big bang god. It must have been nice at one time to know the earth was flat and with a clear conscience explain it to children.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

Well, that sums it up nicely. How do you know the Big Bang didn't and couldn't happen? There's lots of evidence that points to it as the best explanation we currently have, and you haven't successfully made the contrary case according to science's rules for doing so, you just wave your hands, talk about physics without actually doing any physics, and draw cartoons of the electric cosmos. Yes, people once thought the earth was flat, and people once thought the earth was a sphere, but if you think the latter idea is just as wrong as the former you're more wrong than both of them.

 

[Bar Sinister]

The theory supports the uniform (non catastrophic) development and linear progression of life on this planet. Evolutionary evidence contrary to the slow uniform progression of life exists in abundance.

That is not the point. The point is that Darwin's work was a work of science. To my knowledge he did not invent any of his evidence. He may not have been 100% right, but that doesn't matter; most new scientific theories are not absolutely accurate. That is why it is called science and not religion; science is capable of being revised and even reversed if new evidence arises. BTW that is something that AGW types lack. The last GW denier will drown in the rising seas while claiming that the increase in sea levels due to the melting of polar ice is only the result of a spate of wet weather.

 

[mentalfloss]

Right, and the 'world is flat' argument is also poor because there were many clues - ie. scientific evidence - that could help determine that it was spherical long before we had telescopes or could send satellites into space.

Viewing boats at a distance, it is possible to see the hull partly below sea level. The sun gets closer to the horizon as you move north. The earth throws a circular shadow during an eclipse. All of these lead Hellenistic astronomers to claim the earth as spherical was a physical given in the 3rd century BC.

They were able to use various sets of data which were consistent and measurable, to reach the same conclusion. That's science. The same methods used to determine the 'big bang' exist are also based on measurable evidence.

Scientists are able to determine that the farthest stars are moving at a much faster speed as if the universe was expanding from an explosion. There was a mathematical formula to determine the velocity - which led to the theory of expansion, which was later confirmed using telescopic instruments.

 

[Tonington]

Can science be corrupted as easily as any other doctrine? Some here tend to think not. I'd really like to know why this belief exists.

Thanks.

Do you have direct quotes for this belief, or is this a straw man thread?

As Unf said, first of all science is not a doctrine. Science is just a method for investigating the universe, amongst other methods like history, or philosophy. It's not codified. It's not a belief system.

Of course it can be corrupted, but science as a system has built in quality control. The first layer is peer review. This helps minimize publication of results that are in error, though it's not a perfect system. A great example is the link between autism and vaccination.

The next layer of quality control is replication. New results don't become part of the body of knowledge just because they passed peer review. Other researchers will take those results, and scrutinize them further. If the results are robust, then the outcome will not be dependent on the methods used to analyze results, or on the experimental design. Again, going back to autism and vaccination, initial results were scrutinized, and other researchers have not been able to replicate the results. The results were not robust.

So, science is self-correcting. The journal which originally published Wakefield's results has retracted the published investigation. There may very well have been some truth in Wakefield's study, but the results are not where the truth lies, or rather the interpretation of those results was not true.

No method is perfect, and I doubt anyone who knows anything about science would ever tell you that it is a perfect system. I don't even know how someone could measure the ease of corruption for science, to compare against other methods (not doctrines). As always, anyone who can think of methods to add to the scientific method that will improve the end results, to add more quality, will have to be able to verify that their additions can indeed improve the quality. It's the best system we have for understanding the physical universe. I have no idea what the alternatives are that we would be interested in comparing the ease of corruption against, if we can even have an empirical standard measure.

 

[taxslave]

I think it depends on who is paying. Certainly there is lots of junk science out there but often it can be hard to determine whether it is because of flawed testing, looking for a predetermined outcome or just out for a buck. The last two are probably interchangeable. Even in universities there is a push to publish or perish.

 

[Tonington]

I think it depends on who is paying. Certainly there is lots of junk science out there but often it can be hard to determine whether it is because of flawed testing, looking for a predetermined outcome or just out for a buck. The last two are probably interchangeable. Even in universities there is a push to publish or perish.

It takes years of hard work and effort to be a publishing scientist. The payoff isn't even that large. For less effort, a different field could have been chosen which pays much more. The payoff for becoming a scientist is that you get to ask unanswered questions that interest you, and try to determine the answer, or at least learn something which allows you to ask better questions. Universities don't pay better than industry, and industry doesn't publish what can be patented in peer-reviewed journals.

I'm working on developing a DNA vaccine at work. If we can develop a successful challenge model that produces mortality for the disease we're interested in, that would be a publishable finding, as nobody has done so, despite vaccines already being on the market for this disease. But we wouldn't include anything related to our vaccine development, because that can hamper patent applications once the information becomes public.

That science is no less rigorous than that which universities produce. We still get peer reviewed, as there are many independent scientists involved in the decisions when dossiers are submitted for product approval.

 

[Avro]

Of course it can be corrupted, but science as a system has built in quality control. The first layer is peer review. This helps minimize publication of results that are in error, though it's not a perfect system. A great example is the link between autism and vaccination.

Yep, no doubt it can.

Ciggarette companies tried to do it.

Creationists try to do it...

YouTube - 11 -- Creation 'Science' Made Easy


Climate denialist try to do it.

 

[darkbeaver]

Well, that sums it up nicely. How do you know the Big Bang didn't and couldn't happen? There's lots of evidence that points to it as the best explanation we currently have, and you haven't successfully made the contrary case according to science's rules for doing so, you just wave your hands, talk about physics without actually doing any physics, and draw cartoons of the electric cosmos. Yes, people once thought the earth was flat, and people once thought the earth was a sphere, but if you think the latter idea is just as wrong as the former you're more wrong than both of them.

What evidence? And remember it only takes one falsification to destroy any theory. There are several for the BB, which I have posted here many times already in the futile belief that science could wean you away from your fanatical religious adherence to a long disproved theory. You're the one who continually attempts to raise physics above the physical realm. It is impossible to exist in the physical realm without successfully practicing/doing the physics. God only knows what you believe physics to be. The earth, in fact, is not a sphere. Please try to be more precise when you address me, a practicing phizzisist, we frown on imprecision.