R.I.P. Science and Journalism.

[Old Rocks]

I don't know if those industries have died, but certainly both have fallen prey to intense politicism. It is difficult to gain consensus on science when there are cottage industries on both sides determined to deny such consensus when there are policy implications.

Meanwhile, the scientific community continues to work towards consensus on a wide range of issues that do not have policy implications. It rarely achieves that consensus, but over time certain theories are confirmed to be true and others are tossed aside.

I have always been a fan of science, medical science being my chosen profession. More and more you cannot believe anything that "scientists" say these days. Scientists say that there is no debatwe that global warming is occuring yet they ignore the growing number of scientists who in fact say that it isn't. Who do you trust? there's a couple of websites that tout a large number of scientists who say that things happened the way the Bible says it did. i know who i trust on that score but why are these scientists out there? Who do you trust. And if you know who you trust, why do you trust them?

Well, since I have seen the regression of the glaciers in several mountain ranges in the US over the past nearly 70 years, I will go with scientists that present actual evidence.

And anyone can look at the fossil record, in situ, for themselves. When you have something like 95% plus scientists in a given specialty stating a certain thing is happening, you can be pretty sure it is happening.

When you give credance to certain sites, such as OISM, then one can be pretty certain that you are one gullible newbie to science.

Look to peer reviewed journals in the scientific field of question. That will be the most accurate scientific assessment of the matter in question.

 

[Old Rocks]

As a scientist myself, I'm slightly disgusted by the overall negative tone of several members towards the scientific community. Insinuating that all scientific progress in the past few years has been the result of greedy scientists looking for a cheap way to pocket as much money as they can from whatever political party can gain leverage over their wallet.

I would like you all to take a look at a site I will link for a while. I want you to see what you are accusing before you continue to spout your political propaganda in your crusade against what you perceive threatens your world view. (science)


arxiv.org

I dare you to go through this massive database of research papers and find a single instance of a politically biased paper.

The people here will not do that. Particularly those that are 'Conservative' and claim a scientific background. Sad fact is they have traded in their scientific credentials for a political outlook, and have no longer any scientific credibility. You can see that in their constant denigration of other scientists.

 

[Ringel05]

As a scientist myself, I'm slightly disgusted by the overall negative tone of several members towards the scientific community. Insinuating that all scientific progress in the past few years has been the result of greedy scientists looking for a cheap way to pocket as much money as they can from whatever political party can gain leverage over their wallet.

I would like you all to take a look at a site I will link for a while. I want you to see what you are accusing before you continue to spout your political propaganda in your crusade against what you perceive threatens your world view. (science)


arxiv.org

I dare you to go through this massive database of research papers and find a single instance of a politically biased paper.

Politically biased, probably not, agenda and/or financially biased...... in some instances possibly yes. Human nature and statistics........

 

[8537]

I have always been a fan of science, medical science being my chosen profession. More and more you cannot believe anything that "scientists" say these days. Scientists say that there is no debatwe that global warming is occuring yet they ignore the growing number of scientists who in fact say that it isn't. Who do you trust?

I don't hear many scientists claiming there is no debate. On the other hand, the wide majority of scientists believe that global warming is occurring. There is slightly more debate about its cause, but the wide majority agree that humans play a role.

Are there scientists who genuinely disagree? Sure. There are also scientists paid by industry etc...to disagree and cause doubt about the emerging consensus.

there's a couple of websites that tout a large number of scientists who say that things happened the way the Bible says it did. i know who i trust on that score but why are these scientists out there? Who do you trust. And if you know who you trust, why do you trust them?

In those cases, I think you'll find that the people defending biblical interpretations related t o science are few and far between, and in any case are not using the scientific method to arrive at those conclusions - which is fine, they are free to rely on faith, but faith isn't part of the methodology of science.

If you havn't heard that there is a debate about AGW it's because you have ignored it. There are far more scientists who feel the AGW theory to be wrong then support it. Far more.

No, this is where the ignorance comes in. Among the scientific community in relevant sciences, there are relatively few who believe that AGW is not happening. It's a small minority that the right has done a nice job of propping up with megaphones and money.

 

[8537]

"The politicization of some scientific theory in order to exploit it for political gain and increase their base of power is ALWAYS -as in ALWAYS -done by the left. (And don't bother with the creationism bullshit -that is in response to the politicization of the theory of evolution. Creationism has no place in a science class though and most people recognize the Bible was never intended to be a science book. Now the theory of intelligent design is NOT the same thing although the left in particular likes to pretend these are the same thing -and some creationists like to grab that title to try and gussy up their creationism religious stuff. There are a LOT of scientists who believe the theory of intelligent design is the most scientifically sound answer to explain very specific phenomena in the natural world. But ONLY those specific phenomena. Scientists in nearly every single field of science have proposed the theory as the most scientifically sound answer to very specific phenomena within their field of science and why. Ministers and preachers offer up creationism -but the theory of intelligent design was proposed and supported by scientists themselves as a result of their work only. The fact it HAPPENS to very superficially be consistent with some religious beliefs is COMPLETELY irrelevant.

Wow. That's some interesting sauce. Can you please tell me which scientists in which fields have concluded, based on scientific method, that ID is the most sound answer to some phenomena?

Some details would be helpful.

 

[PredFan]

Cry me a river, bitch.

How can something you never believed in die?

I see as usual you were incapable of formulating an intelligent articulate response to the topic.

I can and will formulate proper responses to threads that deserve them. This just seems to be another thread about how scientists are evil and can't be trusted... and how the "liberal mainstream media" is ruining America.

To believe that science is somehow failing us as we move forward as a species because of political(and sometimes religious views) of what the scientists are telling us is astronomically deceptive. If anything it's not the scientists being political, it's the layman consumer of scientific news. It's the person who thinks it's a giant government conspiracy to say that dumping massive amounts of pollutants into the environment is somehow changing it.

Derp.

Yeah you got nothing.

 

[PredFan]

This election Obama will have to run against whomever the GOP nominee is, but the GOP nominee will have to run against Obama, the mainstrwam media, all of the newspapers and magazines in the US, and against Hollywood. All of them are solidly in Obama's camp and determined to get him re-elected.

Nonsense.

The media are only interested in profit; they couldn’t care less who wins the election. Indeed, they’d love an Obama defeat – it would be great for circulation and ratings.

You haven't been paying attention.

 

[PredFan]

I accepted Liberal Media Bias a long time ago. Most of the MSM does lean Left/Democrat. That's just reality. Now i just accept it and hope people go around the MSM and find alternative media sources like i do. They're harder to find but definitely worth the hunt once you find them. It is sad & frustrating watching what the MSM has become though. And Science has unfortunately been infected with the Politics bug too. You see this most in the 'Global Warming' craze. Lots of junk science out there now. So i do feel your pain and you are spot on. Thanks.

The frustrating thing is when you look for other sources, how do you know you can trust them?

You just have to take it all in from both sides and try as best you can to sort through the trash.

I'm just disappointed in both journalism and science in that we should be able to trust them and we can't.

 

[PredFan]

It wouldn't matter if 99.9999% of all scientists agreed. If one scientist has convincing evidence that so-called "consensus" is wrong, then it's wrong.

But they don't.

It happens in the present, it happened in the past, and will happen in the future.

Correct. And we are powerless to stop it or even effect it.

 

[PredFan]

Creation Science and see how many scientists support creationism.

What the fuck is "creation science"?

The number of "scientists" who believe that are so minscule they can be ignored. In fact, the most notable of them, like Kent Hovind, aren't even scientists. They are propagandists.

Maybe you never even knew the thing you think has left you.......

"Creation Science" is a word that you can type into Google to get the results. You can type something else if that bothers you.

If you had done that you would find that there are mopre than one or two. Personally i believe that creation is a myth completely, but that isn't the point. the point is that scientists are for sale, not all of them but many are.

 

[Si modo]

I don't hear many scientists claiming there is no debate. On the other hand, the wide majority of scientists believe that global warming is occurring. There is slightly more debate about its cause, but the wide majority agree that humans play a role.

Are there scientists who genuinely disagree? Sure. There are also scientists paid by industry etc...to disagree and cause doubt about the emerging consensus.



In those cases, I think you'll find that the people defending biblical interpretations related t o science are few and far between, and in any case are not using the scientific method to arrive at those conclusions - which is fine, they are free to rely on faith, but faith isn't part of the methodology of science.

If you havn't heard that there is a debate about AGW it's because you have ignored it. There are far more scientists who feel the AGW theory to be wrong then support it. Far more.

No, this is where the ignorance comes in. Among the scientific community in relevant sciences, there are relatively few who believe that AGW is not happening. It's a small minority that the right has done a nice job of propping up with megaphones and money.

Even the biggest names in the field know there is little that is solid about the science, at least solid enough to make any conclusion one way or the other. You should see what they talk about to each other pertaining to that - very different than their public rhetoric.

The rest of us already knew that, though.

 

[PredFan]

In my lifetime, I have seen the death of two honorable professions; science and journalism.

Growing up, I was taught that the free press was objective and impartial. Up until recently, I didn't see any evidence to the contrary, perhaps i was naive but I don't think so. Now, ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, The Tribunce Corporation and almost every single news source not connected to FOX is a wholely owned subsidiary of the Democrat party. FOX of course is a wholely owned subsidiary of the GOP. This election Obama will have to run against whomever the GOP nominee is, but the GOP nominee will have to run against Obama, the mainstrwam media, all of the newspapers and magazines in the US, and against Hollywood. All of them are solidly in Obama's camp and determined to get him re-elected.

R.I.P. Journalism.

Science used to also be impartial. "Just the facts ma'am!" like they said on Dragnet. Now of course scientists are for sale. They are hired by either corporations or political interest groups to use science to prove whatever benifits the entity paying the bills, wether it's government (climate change), corporations (too many things to count) or even Creation Science). Just google Creation Science and see how many scientists support creationism.

R.I.P. Science.

It is sad that all scientific progress has been halted, yes indeed.

CERN Narrows Search For Higgs Boson - Science News - redOrbit

Is that what you got from my post?

The Romper Room is that way====>

 

[8537]

If you havn't heard that there is a debate about AGW it's because you have ignored it. There are far more scientists who feel the AGW theory to be wrong then support it. Far more.

No, this is where the ignorance comes in. Among the scientific community in relevant sciences, there are relatively few who believe that AGW is not happening. It's a small minority that the right has done a nice job of propping up with megaphones and money.

Even the biggest names in the field know there is nothing solid about the science, at least solid enough to make any conclusion one way or the other. You should see what they talk about to each other pertaining to that - very different than their public rhetoric.

The rest of us already knew that, though.

No, that's simply not true Si Modo. The idea that warming is occurring is established and agreed upon by almost every scientist in relevant fields.

There is more debate about the causes, but even then the people who claim humans play a role far outnumber those who claim humans don't play a role. Like any good scientific inquiry, they certainly challenge each others assumptions and look for holes in their own theory - but that doesn't mean they are wrong. In fact, it's how they go about confirming they are right.

 

[PredFan]

As a scientist myself, I'm slightly disgusted by the overall negative tone of several members towards the scientific community. Insinuating that all scientific progress in the past few years has been the result of greedy scientists looking for a cheap way to pocket as much money as they can from whatever political party can gain leverage over their wallet.

I would like you all to take a look at a site I will link for a while. I want you to see what you are accusing before you continue to spout your political propaganda in your crusade against what you perceive threatens your world view. (science)


arxiv.org

I dare you to go through this massive database of research papers and find a single instance of a politically biased paper.

You are over reacting quite a bit.

Methinks you do protest too much.

 

[PredFan]

I'm not at all sure that either journalism or science has ever been the bastions of noble independent thinking and ethical integrity that your posts suggests, but I certainly agree that elements in both industries have pretty much given up even TRYING to PRETEND to be objective.

I agree, many here have adequately pointed this out to me.

 

[Si modo]

No, this is where the ignorance comes in. Among the scientific community in relevant sciences, there are relatively few who believe that AGW is not happening. It's a small minority that the right has done a nice job of propping up with megaphones and money.

Even the biggest names in the field know there is nothing solid about the science, at least solid enough to make any conclusion one way or the other. You should see what they talk about to each other pertaining to that - very different than their public rhetoric.

The rest of us already knew that, though.

No, that's simply not true Si Modo. The idea that warming is occurring is established and agreed upon by almost every scientist in relevant fields.

There is more debate about the causes, but even then the people who claim humans play a role far outnumber those who claim humans don't play a role.

Warming? Not what I am talking about. There is little that is solid about the science, at least solid enough to make any conclusion about the causation of any warming, one way or the other. And, even they - the big names in that area - know that.

 

[8537]

Even the biggest names in the field know there is nothing solid about the science, at least solid enough to make any conclusion one way or the other. You should see what they talk about to each other pertaining to that - very different than their public rhetoric.

The rest of us already knew that, though.

No, that's simply not true Si Modo. The idea that warming is occurring is established and agreed upon by almost every scientist in relevant fields.

There is more debate about the causes, but even then the people who claim humans play a role far outnumber those who claim humans don't play a role.

Warming? Not what I am talking about. There is little that is solid about the science, at least solid enough to make any conclusion about the causation of any warming, one way or the other. And, even they - the big names in that area - know that.

Actually, there's a substantial amount of evidence supporting the idea that human activity has played a role in warming - no, let me rephrase that: There's no question that human activity has played a role.

The question is the extent of that role. It could a negligible impact, according to some, or a significant impact according to others.

 

[naturegirl]

Sadly I do believe most everyone is for sale. The right price will allow some to manipulate data to promulgate the payer's desired results.

To those that still have the integrity to resit, I tip my hat.

I want to believe there are more scientists that won't compromise their values, but it's those few that ruin it for many. How and when do you decide who's right and who's doing the manipulating.

 

[PredFan]

I don't know if those industries have died, but certainly both have fallen prey to intense politicism. It is difficult to gain consensus on science when there are cottage industries on both sides determined to deny such consensus when there are policy implications.

Meanwhile, the scientific community continues to work towards consensus on a wide range of issues that do not have policy implications. It rarely achieves that consensus, but over time certain theories are confirmed to be true and others are tossed aside.

I have always been a fan of science, medical science being my chosen profession. More and more you cannot believe anything that "scientists" say these days. Scientists say that there is no debatwe that global warming is occuring yet they ignore the growing number of scientists who in fact say that it isn't. Who do you trust? there's a couple of websites that tout a large number of scientists who say that things happened the way the Bible says it did. i know who i trust on that score but why are these scientists out there? Who do you trust. And if you know who you trust, why do you trust them?

Well, since I have seen the regression of the glaciers in several mountain ranges in the US over the past nearly 70 years, I will go with scientists that present actual evidence.

Well, I don't want to make this a debate on AGW, that is not the purpose. But I'll just say that while you point out the retreating glaciers, it is a fact that there are advancing glaciers as well. Many of the so-called "deniers" also present evidence when they can,but one must remember that most of the time one cannot prove a negative.

And anyone can look at the fossil record, in situ, for themselves. When you have something like 95% plus scientists in a given specialty stating a certain thing is happening, you can be pretty sure it is happening.

I am sure it's happening and that creation is a myth, but the point is that they ahve scientists on their side, scientists who also claim to have "evidence" and "proof".

When you give credance to certain sites, such as OISM, then one can be pretty certain that you are one gullible newbie to science.

(veiled insult ignored) I don't know what the OISM is and have never been to the site that I know of. If you are trying to shoot down my OP by mentioning ONE site that you know is full of unqualified loonis talking pseudoscience then forget it. It's beside the point.

[Look to peer reviewed journals in the scientific field of question. That will be the most accurate scientific assessment of the matter in question.

You're a bit naive as well, or you think I am.

 

[Si modo]

No, that's simply not true Si Modo. The idea that warming is occurring is established and agreed upon by almost every scientist in relevant fields.

There is more debate about the causes, but even then the people who claim humans play a role far outnumber those who claim humans don't play a role.

Warming? Not what I am talking about. There is little that is solid about the science, at least solid enough to make any conclusion about the causation of any warming, one way or the other. And, even they - the big names in that area - know that.

Actually, there's a substantial amount of evidence supporting the idea that human activity has played a role in warming - no, let me rephrase that: There's no question that human activity has played a role.

....

That is not true. There is no science that can demonstrate the significance of man made CO2 on any warming.

If you believe there is, then perhaps you can show us - show us the science.

I understand that many scientists believe man made CO2 is the cause, but they know the science can't demonstrate that at this point. And, there are just a few scientists who are so driven to convince others, that they sellout their scientific integrity to pad data, conceal data, silence conflicting science, and other misconduct.

That is what the OP is saying. Personally, I am not one to toss out the baby with the bathwater because of a few bad boys. Science has been tainted before, and it was recognized, admonished, and addressed. Its integrity survived.

Let's hope its integrity survives this time.