A Anti science argument
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
15-09-2016, 06:24 PM
A Anti science argument
A fringaloon argument i have heard

1. Concerns a supposed study were a large body of scientists have admitted to fudging data .I have yet i have yet to see this study if it exist and will believe when i see the methodology used in the study . And even if these scientist made such a confession my skepticism senses are tingling as to why they should be believed . This they use as proof that science is agenda driven and not objective .Or the peer review is biased .Or (insert conspiracy here )

Thoughts or has anyone else heard of a study like this?

[Image: giphy.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-09-2016, 06:48 PM
RE: A Anti science argument
(15-09-2016 06:24 PM)OrdoSkeptica Wrote:  A fringaloon argument i have heard

1. Concerns a supposed study were a large body of scientists have admitted to fudging data .I have yet i have yet to see this study if it exist and will believe when i see the methodology used in the study . And even if these scientist made such a confession my skepticism senses are tingling as to why they should be believed . This they use as proof that science is agenda driven and not objective .Or the peer review is biased .Or (insert conspiracy here )

Thoughts or has anyone else heard of a study like this?

Fudging data is always a risk, especially when there's so much "publish or perish" pressure on academics (college science professors usually cannot get tenure unless their work makes it into a scientific journal-- thus, publish or perish). That's why an integral part of the scientific method is the Peer Review process, by which others test your claims to see if they can be reproduced. Eventually, the bad will be challenged and filtered out.

The only study with which I am familiar on the subject was to deliberately insert fudged data and shady claims into papers submitted for PR, and to see if they were caught either by the people who decide which papers are to be published in the scientific journals and which are to be rejected, or if other scientists caught the errors in their attempts to replicate the published results. Unfortunately, the study showed that quite a bit of their junk got through the filters, prompting a review of the selection process and other safeguards against bogus information (which was the point of the experiment, to see if new measures were needed).

Obviously, the more obscure and minor the research, the less likely it is to be reviewed and test-replicated by others (because who cares?), but on major subjects that have many active researchers looking into the question, the correction mechanism is quite strong.

Of course, what your fringaloon buddies are really trying to say is that scientists can't be trusted, and/or that they're fudging all data that conflicts with their religious worldviews. As I just said, it'd be amazing if someone managed to get something about evolution past the filters, simply because there are so many scientists and organizations looking at the cutting edge of that field of study. The same applies to cosmology/astrophysics and abiogenesis research, for the same reason.

In other words, it's true that there are those who fudge their data, but on the whole that's a guaranteed way to ruin your career if caught doing it by your competition (every other scientist in the field), and it's a very small number who'd be willing to risk their reputations by doing so. Your conspiracy theorist friends are barking up the wrong tree.

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
15-09-2016, 07:30 PM
RE: A Anti science argument
I saw some study of studies showing there's a unfavorable trend of too many studies getting media buzz before there is enough good recreation of the studies to show them as consistent

And there's a bit too much rereading a study in a way not as the hypothesis was questioning.

Why must I be Ladd? via da Tapatalk

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes ClydeLee's post
15-09-2016, 08:31 PM
RE: A Anti science argument
(15-09-2016 06:24 PM)OrdoSkeptica Wrote:  A fringaloon argument i have heard

1. Concerns a supposed study were a large body of scientists have admitted to fudging data .I have yet i have yet to see this study if it exist and will believe when i see the methodology used in the study . And even if these scientist made such a confession my skepticism senses are tingling as to why they should be believed . This they use as proof that science is agenda driven and not objective .Or the peer review is biased .Or (insert conspiracy here )

Thoughts or has anyone else heard of a study like this?

I would probably regret asking the question, but what would they consider an objective way of discerning truth?

I already know:

1. The Bible
2. Supernatural revelation

Then this would be my response:

[Image: 3c87d0bae0040cb721927e4160ed6cbe.jpg]

Gods derive their power from post-hoc rationalizations. -The Inquisition

Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you. -The Inquisition
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes TheInquisition's post
15-09-2016, 09:03 PM
RE: A Anti science argument
I read about couple of cases of altering the data in Tomasz Witkowski "Forbidden Psychology".

Wysłane z mojego 6045K przy użyciu Tapatalka

The first revolt is against the supreme tyranny of theology, of the phantom of God. As long as we have a master in heaven, we will be slaves on earth.

Mikhail Bakunin.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Szuchow's post
15-09-2016, 09:09 PM
RE: A Anti science argument
So since some scientists may have fudged some data that means all scientists are conspiring to alter data?

Morons.

If people are "against science" then they should go out in the woods and live like a caveman. Otherwise they're hypocrites.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Dark Wanderer's post
15-09-2016, 09:52 PM
RE: A Anti science argument
(15-09-2016 09:03 PM)Szuchow Wrote:  I read about couple of cases of altering the data in Tomasz Witkowski "Forbidden Psychology".

Wysłane z mojego 6045K przy użyciu Tapatalka

I can't wait until the day that psychology becomes a science. Wink

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes RocketSurgeon76's post
16-09-2016, 04:29 AM (This post was last modified: 16-09-2016 06:11 AM by unfogged.)
RE: A Anti science argument
(15-09-2016 06:24 PM)OrdoSkeptica Wrote:  A fringaloon argument i have heard

1. Concerns a supposed study were a large body of scientists have admitted to fudging data .I have yet i have yet to see this study if it exist and will believe when i see the methodology used in the study . And even if these scientist made such a confession my skepticism senses are tingling as to why they should be believed . This they use as proof that science is agenda driven and not objective .Or the peer review is biased .Or (insert conspiracy here )

Thoughts or has anyone else heard of a study like this?

I've heard of individual cases but not widespread fraud. The question I have is how the fraud was uncovered? My guess would be other scientists trying to duplicate the results and coming up with something totally different.

Scientists are human and therefore fallible and able to make bad decisions. Science, as a method, takes that into account. That's why you don't accept new claims immediately (or, at least, only accept them provisionally) but wait until they've been reviewed and confirmed.

[Image: EFB-00019-2T.jpg?1414683479]

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like unfogged's post
16-09-2016, 09:16 PM
RE: A Anti science argument
(15-09-2016 09:52 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  
(15-09-2016 09:03 PM)Szuchow Wrote:  I read about couple of cases of altering the data in Tomasz Witkowski "Forbidden Psychology".

Wysłane z mojego 6045K przy użyciu Tapatalka

I can't wait until the day that psychology becomes a science. Wink
From what little I remember (I've read it about 3 years ago) guy who wrote it was pretty sciency with advocating evidence bases approach to psychology and spoking about things like NLP.

The first revolt is against the supreme tyranny of theology, of the phantom of God. As long as we have a master in heaven, we will be slaves on earth.

Mikhail Bakunin.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Szuchow's post
17-09-2016, 01:19 AM
RE: A Anti science argument
(15-09-2016 09:52 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  
(15-09-2016 09:03 PM)Szuchow Wrote:  I read about couple of cases of altering the data in Tomasz Witkowski "Forbidden Psychology".

Wysłane z mojego 6045K przy użyciu Tapatalka

I can't wait until the day that psychology becomes a science. Wink

Experimental psychology is a science. Clinical psychology not so much.

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like GirlyMan's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: