Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
A good example of what I'm taking about is the steady state vs. expanding universe rivalry that was raging until the mid-1960s.Scientists disagreeing is normal and par for the course. Collusion to marginalize and even destroy the careers of those who disagree is not.
Are you kidding me? Collusion to marginalize other scientists isn't normal?
I'm not saying whether that is the case here or not. However, that is more normal in the scientific community than you think and has been for centuries.
I have no idea which scientific community you are talking about, but it is not normal in the scientific community I know. If that's necessary, then the rhetoric of the science is naturally in question. It is not a normal practice.
A good example of what I'm taking about is the steady state vs. expanding universe rivalry that was raging until the mid-1960s.
Even though the rivalry between the camps was fierce, there isn't any evidence that one side or the other set about to personally destroy the careers of members of the opposing side. Real scientists interested in finding the truth, rather than protecting their cushy research grants, are adult enough to let the facts of science speak for themselves.
I have no idea which scientific community you are talking about, but it is not normal in the scientific community I know. If that's necessary, then the rhetoric of the science is naturally in question. It is not a normal practice.
It is certainly a normal practice. Again, look up the name Rosalind Franklin. Look her up on wikipedia. That is only one major example of what science has always been.
One of anything doesn't prove anything, other than an exception that proves the rule. Actually over a 1000 emails don't prove anything, but there's more than enough smoke to guess the temperature is high.
It is not normal practice. Perhaps as a freshman undergraduate student, not even a student of the sciences, you THINK you know what you're talking about with respect to the scientific community, but you do not.I have no idea which scientific community you are talking about, but it is not normal in the scientific community I know. If that's necessary, then the rhetoric of the science is naturally in question. It is not a normal practice.
It is certainly a normal practice. ....
It is not normal practice. Finding one example or even ten examples of it actually happening does nothing to prove that it IS a normal practice. Look up the definition of normal..... Again, look up the name Rosalind Franklin. Look her up on wikipedia. That is only one major example of what science has always been.
And what of stealing under the auspices of research that turns out to be fraudulent?A good example of what I'm taking about is the steady state vs. expanding universe rivalry that was raging until the mid-1960s.
Even though the rivalry between the camps was fierce, there isn't any evidence that one side or the other set about to personally destroy the careers of members of the opposing side. Real scientists interested in finding the truth, rather than protecting their cushy research grants, are adult enough to let the facts of science speak for themselves.
Stealing work is just as bad as trying to destroy careers. Real scientists are interested in finding the truth, however, many real scientists also realize if they want to do any work, they need those research grants. All those experiments and research isn't cheap.
It is not normal practice. Perhaps as a freshman undergraduate student, not even a student of the sciences, you THINK you know what you're talking about with respect to the scientific community, but you do not.
It is not normal practice. Finding one example or even ten examples of it actually happening does nothing to prove that it IS a normal practice. Look up the definition of normal.
Yes. The rhetoric of the science.A good example of what I'm taking about is the steady state vs. expanding universe rivalry that was raging until the mid-1960s.Scientists disagreeing is normal and par for the course. Collusion to marginalize and even destroy the careers of those who disagree is not.
Are you kidding me? Collusion to marginalize other scientists isn't normal?
I'm not saying whether that is the case here or not. However, that is more normal in the scientific community than you think and has been for centuries.
Even though the rivalry between the camps was fierce, there isn't any evidence that one side or the other set about to personally destroy the careers of members of the opposing side. Real scientists interested in finding the truth, rather than protecting their cushy research grants, are adult enough to let the facts of science speak for themselves.
And what of stealing under the auspices of research that turns out to be fraudulent?
Of which you clearly have none - no knowledge of what is normal practice in the scientific community.It is not normal practice. Perhaps as a freshman undergraduate student, not even a student of the sciences, you THINK you know what you're talking about with respect to the scientific community, but you do not.
It is not normal practice. Finding one example or even ten examples of it actually happening does nothing to prove that it IS a normal practice. Look up the definition of normal.
My age in this case has no foundation and for you to try to use that against me is dishonest. What matters is the knowledge on the subject. ....
It is beyond hubris and into just plain stupidity that one who is not even a student of the sciences thinks that he has any credibility in making any claims at all about the scientific community and the sciences..... What I'm saying is that this sort of behavior being exhibited in this case supposedly is not uncommon. So while you and others may like to act like it is, it is an ugly truth of Science at times. ....
And anyone who knows a thing about how science is done knows that you are now speaking of something different than marginalization..... Why do you think scientists have to be so protective and secretive of their work until they finish it? If everyone was hunky dory and so honest, why hide anything?
It is not normal practice. Perhaps as a freshman undergraduate student, not even a student of the sciences, you THINK you know what you're talking about with respect to the scientific community, but you do not.
It is not normal practice. Finding one example or even ten examples of it actually happening does nothing to prove that it IS a normal practice. Look up the definition of normal.
My age in this case has no foundation and for you to try to use that against me is dishonest. What matters is the knowledge on the subject.
What I'm saying is that this sort of behavior being exhibited in this case supposedly is not uncommon. So while you and others may like to act like it is, it is an ugly truth of Science at times.
Why do you think scientists have to be so protective and secretive of their work until they finish it? If everyone was hunky dory and so honest, why hide anything?
And anyone who know a thing about how science is done knows that you are now speaking of something different than marginalization.
There would have been no discovery of HIV, by anyone, if others hadn't made breakthroughs before them. The roles of science is to seek the truth, wherever that may lie in the field of endeavor. Formulate a question, hypothesis, test, observe, record, make conclusion. May be done many times before finding something worth sharing, until then competitive folks keep it quiet, otherwise bragging might get it stolen.
In this case, over nearly 2 decades it seems that there was one 'group' that gained control of universities, government grants and ears, then publications of 'Standard.' They were preventing other sides to even submit; meanwhile passing off their papers as 'peer reviewed' even when their numbers, conclusions, etc., were questioned. They refused government requests for FOI materials, it appears they destroyed emails and 'lost' data.
Robert, you are really defending that?
And two examples of marginalization does nothing at all to support your erroneous claim that marginalization of other scientists is normal practice in the scientific community.And anyone who know a thing about how science is done knows that you are now speaking of something different than marginalization.
Marginalization exists in many forms. I gave you two major examples in recent history where it has occurred. Especially in the Double Helix case. ....
You are saying that marginalization of other scientists is normal practice. You have done NOTHING to support that claim..... I'm not saying all scientists are liars, cheats, or evil people. .....
Which has nothing to do with your unsupported claim that marginalization of other scientists is normal practice in the scientific community..... I'm saying many of them are dedicated people who are sometimes too dedicated and do dishonest things. Science is a rough and tumble world where you have to have results, otherwise you lose all your funding, and then you're out of a job. ....
Which still has nothing to do with your unsupported claim that marginalization of other scientists is normal practice in the scientific community..... We may not like that fact, but that's the way it is. Somebody has to foot the bill for these guys to do the research.
And anyone who know a thing about how science is done knows that you are now speaking of something different than marginalization.
Marginalization exists in many forms. I gave you two major examples in recent history where it has occurred. Especially in the Double Helix case.
I'm not saying all scientists are liars, cheats, or evil people. I'm saying many of them are dedicated people who are sometimes too dedicated and do dishonest things. Science is a rough and tumble world where you have to have results, otherwise you lose all your funding, and then you're out of a job.
We may not like that fact, but that's the way it is. Somebody has to foot the bill for these guys to do the research.
There would have been no discovery of HIV, by anyone, if others hadn't made breakthroughs before them. The roles of science is to seek the truth, wherever that may lie in the field of endeavor. Formulate a question, hypothesis, test, observe, record, make conclusion. May be done many times before finding something worth sharing, until then competitive folks keep it quiet, otherwise bragging might get it stolen.
In this case, over nearly 2 decades it seems that there was one 'group' that gained control of universities, government grants and ears, then publications of 'Standard.' They were preventing other sides to even submit; meanwhile passing off their papers as 'peer reviewed' even when their numbers, conclusions, etc., were questioned. They refused government requests for FOI materials, it appears they destroyed emails and 'lost' data.
Robert, you are really defending that?
You obviously missed one of my earlier posts. As for this current situation, I have made my opinion known on it. However, I would recommend waiting a bit for making a conclusion. I relearned that lesson lately as we all did with the FED guy up in those mountains who committed suicide. The same thing could very well occur here leaving some of you with a heaping of crow to eat.
What I'm saying in this case is the situation you've drawn out in summary, is nothing new in Science. It may of never had happened at this level before supposedly but it has occurred. That is what I see being denied in this thread.
Why? I don't know. Maybe because some people don't want to face the truth of science sometimes. Others just want to make this situation look more special for their outrage.
I have made my point I do believe. Whatever the conclusion, I don't support liars.
Most scientists certainly do NOT act in the manner that a freshman undergrad student of the liberal arts claims.And anyone who know a thing about how science is done knows that you are now speaking of something different than marginalization.
Marginalization exists in many forms. I gave you two major examples in recent history where it has occurred. Especially in the Double Helix case.
I'm not saying all scientists are liars, cheats, or evil people. I'm saying many of them are dedicated people who are sometimes too dedicated and do dishonest things. Science is a rough and tumble world where you have to have results, otherwise you lose all your funding, and then you're out of a job.
We may not like that fact, but that's the way it is. Somebody has to foot the bill for these guys to do the research.
Then kill all the scientists! Seriously. Do you see that funding is coming from taxes and charitable contributions; if most are acting as you purport to KNOW, do NOT deserve 1 cent of money through US grants, nor would I give 1 cent more to American Heart Assn; American Cancer Assn; Muscular Dystrophy... See where this goes? THAT is how they would really lose $$$.
Then kill all the scientists! Seriously. Do you see that funding is coming from taxes and charitable contributions; if most are acting as you purport to KNOW, do NOT deserve 1 cent of money through US grants, nor would I give 1 cent more to American Heart Assn; American Cancer Assn; Muscular Dystrophy... See where this goes? THAT is how they would really lose $$$.
