Oh look, more "science" falls by the wayside..unethical study

[koshergrl]

Where are all the idiots who jump all over these studies when they come out and immediately proclaim that we must all acknowledge the superiority of "science" over "common sense" or "faith".

"A University of Connecticut researcher who studied the link between aging and a substance found in red wine has committed more than 100 acts of data fabrication and falsification, the university said Wednesday, throwing much of his work into doubt.
Dipak K. Das, who directed the university's Cardiovascular Research Center, studied resveratrol, touted by a number of scientists and companies as a way to slow aging or remain healthy as people get older. Among his findings, according to a work promoted by the University of Connecticut in 2007, was that "the pulp of grapes is as heart-healthy as the skin, even though the antioxidant properties differ."
"We have a responsibility to correct the scientific record and inform peer researchers across the country," Philip Austin, the university's interim vice president for health affairs, said in a statement."

Red wine-heart research slammed with fraud charges | Reuters

 

[PredFan]

Unfortunately, science has been bought and paid for for a long time.

 

[koshergrl]

Absolutely.

Not that it means that we should discard the pursuit of knowledge and understanding. But what I'm trying to get across is that just because somebody SAYS something has been "scientifically proven" doesn't mean it has, or that there isn't more to learn, or that it won't be disproven later down the road.

 

[Steelplate]

I don't understand what this has to do with religion vs. science....

 

[PoliticalChic]

I don't understand what this has to do with religion vs. science....

What it does is weaken the argument that when scientists speaketh, it is only truth, facts, that passeth their lips.


There are scientists who lie for money and career, some who will construct bizarre scenarios in the name of science, some who toil lifelong in attempts to benefit humanity.

Some, all three, as in a Venn Diagram.

 

[Steelplate]

There are people who lie for money and career everywhere... even people of the cloth.... Human nature is human nature. Remember Jimmy Swaggart who cried "Lord, I have sinned against you"(after he was caught)... How about Jim Baker?

I mean, I understand... we must take things with a grain of salt when we hear them. To blindly believe in things without questioning them is folly.

In fact, Thomas Jefferson once wrote this to his Nephew about religion..."Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because, if there be one, he must more approve the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear."

Good words... Question everything...even the existence of a God.

Now personally, I believe there is a God.... what I question is his intolerance. I have doubts about him being the boogeyman who wants to send us hopelessly flawed humans to hell for making our mistakes and never seeming to truly repent.... because repenting means not to sin again. I know I am unable to do that. I can and do easily confess my failings and ask for forgiveness... but I always fall short in the "not sinning again" part.

 

[Woyzeck]

Absolutely.

Not that it means that we should discard the pursuit of knowledge and understanding. But what I'm trying to get across is that just because somebody SAYS something has been "scientifically proven" doesn't mean it has, or that there isn't more to learn, or that it won't be disproven later down the road.

This is funny, because you say in your first post people who think science is more trustworthy than "common sense" and "faith" to be idiots. Considering how broad the definition of those terms can be, and how susceptible they are to cognitive and logical fallacies as opposed to the scientific method, it's not looking good in terms of a low irony score for this post:

Where are all the idiots who jump all over these studies when they come out and immediately proclaim that we must all acknowledge the superiority of "science" over "common sense" or "faith".

Suffice to say, yes, there are bad scientists. This is not news. This is not a surprise to anyone who supports science as a whole such as myself. This is why papers in academic journals are supposed to be peer-reviewed. This is why when you conduct an experiment, you write as much detail as you can when you perform the experiment so other scientists can replicate the results, and double-check for it themselves if they so wish.

Generally, a single experiment will not convince any good scientist that something should be considered a fact. Replication is vital. Take the news about neutrinos from a couple of months ago. No good scientist will accept that at fact, instead there is a suspicion of instrument error somewhere along the line, and repeated replication is needed, possibly by different scientists and with different equipment. Rest assured, scientists are very well aware how much they could be wrong, and the scientific method and science as a whole holds very little facts sacred and taboo to touch, if any at all. Modern theories are built on the failures of older theories to accurately describe the universe.

I find it extremely amusing at the notion that people who place trust in science must believe everything that comes out of a scientist's mouth. You know, accusing science supporters as placing the blind trust that religious people often place in religious texts or figures. Irony abounds, because most of us know how the science process works, and it's nothing like the blind faith the religious like to equate it with.

 

[PoliticalChic]

There are people who lie for money and career everywhere... even people of the cloth.... Human nature is human nature. Remember Jimmy Swaggart who cried "Lord, I have sinned against you"(after he was caught)... How about Jim Baker?

I mean, I understand... we must take things with a grain of salt when we hear them. To blindly believe in things without questioning them is folly.

In fact, Thomas Jefferson once wrote this to his Nephew about religion..."Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because, if there be one, he must more approve the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear."

Good words... Question everything...even the existence of a God.

Now personally, I believe there is a God.... what I question is his intolerance. I have doubts about him being the boogeyman who wants to send us hopelessly flawed humans to hell for making our mistakes and never seeming to truly repent.... because repenting means not to sin again. I know I am unable to do that. I can and do easily confess my failings and ask for forgiveness... but I always fall short in the "not sinning again" part.

A reasonable and well-tempered post....

....but I don't believe that it hits the mark.
If I can presume to speak for koshergrl and the OP, it seems to me that it is geared toward those who use 'science' and 'scientists' as some sort of cudgel against religious folk, and theology.

The point is, as you suggest, scientists are merely people. Further, science itself uses faith and belief at its hightest levels to advance theories and hypotheses.

This, from chapter five of David Berlinski's "The Devil's Delusion,"
"As a general explanation, arguments follow from assumptions, and assumptions follow from beliefs, and very rarely- perhaps never- do beliefs reflect an agenda determined entirely by the facts. No less than the doctrines of religious belief, the doctrines of quantum cosmology are what they seem: biased, partial, inconclusive, and largely in the service of passionate but unexamined conviction."

It seems, unfortunately, that there are those who are chagrined that others believe, have faith, but mistakenly attribute an undeserved greatness to science.
Thus the OP.

Most of us who are religious are not offended by those who are not...but there are those on the other side who never miss an opportunity to insult the community of faith.

Since you mention Jefferson, I find this quote germane:
But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.

 

[Woyzeck]

There are people who lie for money and career everywhere... even people of the cloth.... Human nature is human nature. Remember Jimmy Swaggart who cried "Lord, I have sinned against you"(after he was caught)... How about Jim Baker?

I mean, I understand... we must take things with a grain of salt when we hear them. To blindly believe in things without questioning them is folly.

In fact, Thomas Jefferson once wrote this to his Nephew about religion..."Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because, if there be one, he must more approve the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear."

Good words... Question everything...even the existence of a God.

Now personally, I believe there is a God.... what I question is his intolerance. I have doubts about him being the boogeyman who wants to send us hopelessly flawed humans to hell for making our mistakes and never seeming to truly repent.... because repenting means not to sin again. I know I am unable to do that. I can and do easily confess my failings and ask for forgiveness... but I always fall short in the "not sinning again" part.

A reasonable and well-tempered post....

....but I don't believe that it hits the mark.
If I can presume to speak for koshergrl and the OP, it seems to me that it is geared toward those who use 'science' and 'scientists' as some sort of cudgel against religious folk, and theology.

The point is, as you suggest, scientists are merely people. Further, science itself uses faith and belief at its hightest levels to advance theories and hypotheses.

I've yet to see an actual explanation or reasoning for this, besides stretching the definition of faith to mean several words it does not.

This, from chapter five of David Berlinski's "The Devil's Delusion,"
"As a general explanation, arguments follow from assumptions, and assumptions follow from beliefs, and very rarely- perhaps never- do beliefs reflect an agenda determined entirely by the facts. No less than the doctrines of religious belief, the doctrines of quantum cosmology are what they seem: biased, partial, inconclusive, and largely in the service of passionate but unexamined conviction."

Ah yes, you chose one of the most speculative parts of theoretical physics and apply it to all of science. It's hardly representative of theoretical physics, let alone the rest of science. So his point, and you're larger point about science being built on the same belief as religion falls flat.

It seems, unfortunately, that there are those who are chagrined that others believe, have faith, but mistakenly attribute an undeserved greatness to science.
Thus the OP.

Why is the greatness attributed to science undeserved? No one views their findings as being set in stone, any scientist or even a mere look into the history of science will show you that.

Most of us who are religious are not offended by those who are not...but there are those on the other side who never miss an opportunity to insult the community of faith.

Such generalized statements are retarded. It is very easily just as true that religious people never miss an opportunity to insult atheists and/or science.

 

[kiwiman127]

Science is a revolving. New science yields new science. An example is with the new science that has brought us more sophisticated technology, that new technology provides science a new tool for research that leads to new scientific discoveries.
Also, science in continuously researching itself and confirming or disproving theories or studies. It's science's "natural of the beast".

 

[Dr Grump]

Oh, cool. I see how this works. One scientist gets boned for falsifying data, therefore your logic dictates that all science is hogwash. What great 'scientific' methodology you have used to make your point Allie.

Using your 'logic' David Koresh and Fred Phelps represent Christianity. <insert loonie tune smilie here>

 

[geauxtohell]

This allows a well worn path for certain conservatives to explain how they arrived at the conclusion they have been at for a long-long time: that all scientific studies are flawed and should be ignored in deference to "faith" and "common sense".

 

[rdean]

The worst science is more "real" than the best "magic" and "supernatural".

 

[westwall]

The worst science is more "real" than the best "magic" and "supernatural".

It is? Bad science leads to more bad science, which leads to more bad science. Magic is entertaining at the very least and the supernatural lives in the minds of people. Put another way, at least if you pay for the magic act you are at least entertained for your money, bad science you might as well burn the money because you get nothing out of it...in fact you go backwards.

 

[PoliticalChic]

There are people who lie for money and career everywhere... even people of the cloth.... Human nature is human nature. Remember Jimmy Swaggart who cried "Lord, I have sinned against you"(after he was caught)... How about Jim Baker?

I mean, I understand... we must take things with a grain of salt when we hear them. To blindly believe in things without questioning them is folly.

In fact, Thomas Jefferson once wrote this to his Nephew about religion..."Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because, if there be one, he must more approve the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear."

Good words... Question everything...even the existence of a God.

Now personally, I believe there is a God.... what I question is his intolerance. I have doubts about him being the boogeyman who wants to send us hopelessly flawed humans to hell for making our mistakes and never seeming to truly repent.... because repenting means not to sin again. I know I am unable to do that. I can and do easily confess my failings and ask for forgiveness... but I always fall short in the "not sinning again" part.

A reasonable and well-tempered post....

....but I don't believe that it hits the mark.
If I can presume to speak for koshergrl and the OP, it seems to me that it is geared toward those who use 'science' and 'scientists' as some sort of cudgel against religious folk, and theology.

The point is, as you suggest, scientists are merely people. Further, science itself uses faith and belief at its hightest levels to advance theories and hypotheses.

I've yet to see an actual explanation or reasoning for this, besides stretching the definition of faith to mean several words it does not.



Ah yes, you chose one of the most speculative parts of theoretical physics and apply it to all of science. It's hardly representative of theoretical physics, let alone the rest of science. So his point, and you're larger point about science being built on the same belief as religion falls flat.

It seems, unfortunately, that there are those who are chagrined that others believe, have faith, but mistakenly attribute an undeserved greatness to science.
Thus the OP.

Why is the greatness attributed to science undeserved? No one views their findings as being set in stone, any scientist or even a mere look into the history of science will show you that.

Most of us who are religious are not offended by those who are not...but there are those on the other side who never miss an opportunity to insult the community of faith.

Such generalized statements are retarded. It is very easily just as true that religious people never miss an opportunity to insult atheists and/or science.

As you plead for same, I'd be remiss in failing to educate you....

The premise here is that at the highest levels, science is based on the same kind of faith and belief as religion.

1. The Standard Model of particle physics is a theory concerning the electromagnetic, weak, and strong nuclear interactions, which mediate the dynamics of the known subatomic particles. Standard Model - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
2. By the 1960’s, physicists understood that there were four forces that dominate the material world:
a. the force of gravitation
b. the electromagnetic force
c. and d. the weak and strong nuclear forces.

In addition, there were a large number of elementary particles. The Standard Model was considered to partially explain the forces, and, therefore partially unified the concepts of physics.

3. The model is comprised of three parts:
a. Quantum electodynamics, a successful quantum theory of the electromagnetic field, one with satisfying principles of both quantum mechanics and special relativity.
b. The electroweak theory of Abdus Salam, Sheldon Glashow and Steven Weinberg, posited if the universe is hot enough (approximately 1015 K, a temperature exceeded until shortly after the Big Bang) then the electromagnetic force and weak force will merge into a combined electroweak force. Electroweak interaction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Of course, today, there is very little of said unity, and the two forces are distinct. The ‘proof’ has to be imagined at a time far distant, and, today, nothing more than a form of broken symmetry. “The massless particles should have long range effects, but these effects are not seen in experiments. The idea was set aside until 1960, when the concept of particles acquiring mass through symmetry breaking in massless theories was put forward, initially by Jeffrey Goldstone, Yoichiro Nambu, and Giovanni Jona-Lasinio.” Yang

c. Finally, quantum chromodynamics, a theory of the strong nuclear force. In the theory, Yang and Mills outlined a new physical theory, and predicted particles that no experiments had revealed, and strange new symmetries. Interactions grew stronger as the distance between the particles increased.


Still with me, old timer?


4. Now, here come the problems, and how 'science' accomodates them:
a. The Standard Model cannot explain the transition from the elementary particles to states of matter in which the elementary particles are bound to one another and form complex structures.

b. Further, the Standard Model is arbitrary in that it contains many numerical parameters- at least twenty-one, designating specific numerical properties of the model such that they cannot be derived from theory.

c. Above all, the Standard Model does not incorporate the force of gravity. General relativity stands apart, unreconciled. “While general relativity suggests an orderly and predictable universe at the large level (Einstein was known to say “God does not play dice”) it is unable to explain the unpredictable subatomic environment that quantum physics so accurately describes. Conversely quantum mechanics has trouble explaining the mechanics behind large objects.” Unifying General Relativity and the Standard Model | The Faith of a Heretic

The above, from Berlinski's "The Devil's Delusion," chapter six.


Now, does one abandon the above codified discipline based on the flaws, lacunae, inability to prove outside of mathematical hyperbole and fabrication?

Well, no...not if the above is based on fervent and deeply held conviction....

....also known as faith.


Now, I challenge you to use string theory as a defense.

 

[PoliticalChic]

This allows a well worn path for certain conservatives to explain how they arrived at the conclusion they have been at for a long-long time: that all scientific studies are flawed and should be ignored in deference to "faith" and "common sense".

"...that all scientific studies are flawed and should be ignored in deference to "faith" and "common sense".


Could you list the folks you are referencing, who propound that "all scientific studies are flawed and should be ignored..."?

For, if you cannot, then you have identified yourself as a confused blowhard....

....and I wouldn't want that stain attached to you, would I.

 

[koshergrl]

And thus, the discussion ends when a member of the lib mob is asked to provide real evidence to support a favorite slogan.

 

[Photonic]

I don't understand what this has to do with religion vs. science....

What it does is weaken the argument that when scientists speaketh, it is only truth, facts, that passeth their lips.


There are scientists who lie for money and career, some who will construct bizarre scenarios in the name of science, some who toil lifelong in attempts to benefit humanity.

Some, all three, as in a Venn Diagram.

Fallacy of Equivocation. Try again.

 

[Photonic]

This allows a well worn path for certain conservatives to explain how they arrived at the conclusion they have been at for a long-long time: that all scientific studies are flawed and should be ignored in deference to "faith" and "common sense".

"...that all scientific studies are flawed and should be ignored in deference to "faith" and "common sense".


Could you list the folks you are referencing, who propound that "all scientific studies are flawed and should be ignored..."?

For, if you cannot, then you have identified yourself as a confused blowhard....

....and I wouldn't want that stain attached to you, would I.

Koshrgirl for one.

Speaking of which, when was the last time you lived past the age of 30?

 

[Woyzeck]

A reasonable and well-tempered post....

....but I don't believe that it hits the mark.
If I can presume to speak for koshergrl and the OP, it seems to me that it is geared toward those who use 'science' and 'scientists' as some sort of cudgel against religious folk, and theology.

The point is, as you suggest, scientists are merely people. Further, science itself uses faith and belief at its hightest levels to advance theories and hypotheses.

I've yet to see an actual explanation or reasoning for this, besides stretching the definition of faith to mean several words it does not.



Ah yes, you chose one of the most speculative parts of theoretical physics and apply it to all of science. It's hardly representative of theoretical physics, let alone the rest of science. So his point, and you're larger point about science being built on the same belief as religion falls flat.



Why is the greatness attributed to science undeserved? No one views their findings as being set in stone, any scientist or even a mere look into the history of science will show you that.

Most of us who are religious are not offended by those who are not...but there are those on the other side who never miss an opportunity to insult the community of faith.

Such generalized statements are retarded. It is very easily just as true that religious people never miss an opportunity to insult atheists and/or science.

As you plead for same, I'd be remiss in failing to educate you....

The premise here is that at the highest levels, science is based on the same kind of faith and belief as religion.

It's based on the scientific method and empircal evidence really.

1. The Standard Model of particle physics is a theory concerning the electromagnetic, weak, and strong nuclear interactions, which mediate the dynamics of the known subatomic particles. Standard Model - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
2. By the 1960’s, physicists understood that there were four forces that dominate the material world:
a. the force of gravitation
b. the electromagnetic force
c. and d. the weak and strong nuclear forces.

In addition, there were a large number of elementary particles. The Standard Model was considered to partially explain the forces, and, therefore partially unified the concepts of physics.

3. The model is comprised of three parts:
a. Quantum electodynamics, a successful quantum theory of the electromagnetic field, one with satisfying principles of both quantum mechanics and special relativity.
b. The electroweak theory of Abdus Salam, Sheldon Glashow and Steven Weinberg, posited if the universe is hot enough (approximately 1015 K, a temperature exceeded until shortly after the Big Bang) then the electromagnetic force and weak force will merge into a combined electroweak force. Electroweak interaction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Of course, today, there is very little of said unity, and the two forces are distinct. The ‘proof’ has to be imagined at a time far distant, and, today, nothing more than a form of broken symmetry. “The massless particles should have long range effects, but these effects are not seen in experiments. The idea was set aside until 1960, when the concept of particles acquiring mass through symmetry breaking in massless theories was put forward, initially by Jeffrey Goldstone, Yoichiro Nambu, and Giovanni Jona-Lasinio.” Yang

c. Finally, quantum chromodynamics, a theory of the strong nuclear force. In the theory, Yang and Mills outlined a new physical theory, and predicted particles that no experiments had revealed, and strange new symmetries. Interactions grew stronger as the distance between the particles increased.


Still with me, old timer?


4. Now, here come the problems, and how 'science' accomodates them:
a. The Standard Model cannot explain the transition from the elementary particles to states of matter in which the elementary particles are bound to one another and form complex structures.

b. Further, the Standard Model is arbitrary in that it contains many numerical parameters- at least twenty-one, designating specific numerical properties of the model such that they cannot be derived from theory.

c. Above all, the Standard Model does not incorporate the force of gravity. General relativity stands apart, unreconciled. “While general relativity suggests an orderly and predictable universe at the large level (Einstein was known to say “God does not play dice”) it is unable to explain the unpredictable subatomic environment that quantum physics so accurately describes. Conversely quantum mechanics has trouble explaining the mechanics behind large objects.” Unifying General Relativity and the Standard Model | The Faith of a Heretic

The above, from Berlinski's "The Devil's Delusion," chapter six.[/quote]

Oh, from you're new favorite book of the week. So, where does the faith equivalent to religious faith come in?

Now, does one abandon the above codified discipline based on the flaws, lacunae, inability to prove outside of mathematical hyperbole and fabrication?

Oh, it's because it's not perfect, therefore for all its flaws scientists must have great faith in the model to describe everything? They still have faith, even though they try to find solutions to the gaps in our knowledge?

Except here's the problem, you don't understand why they aren't dropping it. You think it's because they have religious faith in it. If there was a superior theory out there to explain it, scientists would pick it up pretty handily. They don't drop the standard model right now because the standard model still has it's valid parts. You don't throw the baby out with the bathwater, when you still can learn things from the bathwater. Another reason is many of the issues surrounding the standard model concern things we don't have a significant knowledge on like dark matter or the existence of the Higgs Boson.

Well, no...not if the above is based on fervent and deeply held conviction....

....also known as faith.

Now, I challenge you to use string theory as a defense.

Why? There's really no reason here, this isn't a debate of science, more so what faith can be construed in in science, and why certain theories are still held as valid despite all their flaws.

A much more better challenge to you would be to try and show me where faith is in the rest of science, and not where it is in the frontiers of physics.