How To Define "Scientist"?

[rdean]

We are not discussing facts, we are discussing science and how it works. Science relies on belief, and questions facts.

I'm sorry but that isn't how science works.

It's based on Observation and repeat-ability. One who does anything else is no longer being a scientist.

Is it?

What repeatability do we have to support the Big Bang Theory? Evolution? Astrophysics?

I love it when people who barely understand grade school science try to educate me about how science works.

There is plenty of "repeatability" in evolution. You should know that.

 

[Iridescence]

Some of our Left-leaning friends love to claim that their side is the one allied with science, and imply that such cannot be wrong.
And the corollary…the Right is based on ignorance and anti-science. After all, only “6% of scientists are Republicans.

Of course, such a view ascribes a certain honor and repute to the word ‘scientists’ and neglects to remember that scientists are, in reality, merely other folks.

Scientists have families to feed, and face the same temptation to cheat as anybody else.
Our Left-leaning colleagues are simply naïve.
Either that, or lacking in self-esteem, and imagine that their definition of scientist somehow applies to themselves. Pathetic.

Which brings me to this expose from Nature Magazine.

1. Research programmes of the European Commission (EC) have notoriously cumbersome procedures and rigid control mechanisms that have apparently not prevented a criminal syndicate from conducting a brazen fraud that has siphoned off millions in EC grant funds.

2. Italian authorities and the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) in Brussels, Belgium, have confirmed that they are prosecuting members of a large network accused of pocketing more than €50 million (US$72 million) in EC grants for fake research projects.

3. The EC has terminated four collaborative projects in information technology, and excluded more than 30 grant-winners from participation in around 20 ongoing projects. Investigations are still under way in the United Kingdom, France, Greece, Austria, Sweden, Slovenia and Poland.

4. The fraud has been conducted in a "highly sophisticated manner, resembling money laundering", by means of a cross-border network of fictitious companies and subcontractors… having claimed inflated costs, or expenses for non-existent research activities and services, he says.

5. Concerned about the burden of Brussels bureaucracy, several thousand European scientists signed a petition this year (Trust Researchers - A declaration to the attention of the European Council and Parliament) calling for the framework to be "based on mutual trust and responsible partnering". Some now fear that the fraud could hamper efforts to cut red tape. Europe tackles huge fraud : Nature News

Rumor has it that only 6% of the crooks were Republicans…..

And….

“The strange part of this story is that it offers no details about what specific areas of government research funding were pilfered, or what "results" may have come of the fraudulent research projects they supported. Could it have been in the climate science domain, where the most government research money seems to be sloshing around? We know that there has been organized fraud in the European carbon trading market. Trading had to be halted back in January when it was discovered that millions of dollars of carbon allowances had been stolen and cashed on the spot market, so this wouldn't be the first time that organized crime had fixed on the climate circus as an easy mark. And one of the overlooked e-mails in the "Climategate" scandal involving the East Anglia University Climate Research Unit two years ago was a message from one of the scientists suggesting that a particular grant be routed through a Russian organization as a means of tax evasion.” Doing Advance Work: EU gave $72 million taxpayer dollars for fake 'science' research grants-Nature Magazine

'Scientists' are....???

And….

And one of the overlooked e-mails in the “Climategate” scandal involving the East Anglia University Climate Research Unit two years ago was a message from one of the scientists suggesting that a particular grant be routed through a Russian organization as a means of tax evasion.
Seems like this story needs some follow up. What

So, so some 'scientists' cheat?

And what is it they cheat about?

Clearly my definition isn't in a book but it is referenced within 'the book' I love most...

A scientist is an individual who 'tests the signs'. Signs of what? Of whom? Well, there seems to always be the higher orders, so I suppose the answers would depend on what level within which the individual has chosen to be bound within. And the cheats? Ironically, the cheats seem to be the very scientific laws that have become most common.

Of course, I am not formally educated and my thoughts are formed from those things given to us most freely ATM.

 

[PoliticalChic]

So instead of admitting you're wrong (Obviously impossible, right?), you've debased yourself and your entire political party by claiming that scientists aren't really scientists.

How low can you go.

Welcome to the board.

Unfortunately, you've begun your career here with a truly stupid post.

1. Since the OP suggests that 'scientists' is a term misused if one wishes to suggest that such folks are above lying or cheating...and said indiviuals have the same motivations as the population in general... my position is hardly in error.

2. Now, if you are one of the dolts who chooses to claim that 'scientists' are above it all, and their word is gospel...

...then, I'd like to see you try to defend that position.

Therefore, I look forward to you "admitting you're wrong ."

3. Now, as far as 'debasing' myself, it stresses credulity to believe that having an opinion different from another would in any way lower my moral character...which is the meaning of 'debase.' Did you know that?
Education is a wonderful thing.

...or have you simply attempted to use a word that you cannot define?

And, on this basis as well, I look forward to you "admitting you're wrong ."


4. And- one more?
If my 'political party' is 'debased' in believing that there are many 'scientists' who cheat and lie, could you identify the 'political party' that has the obverse doctrine?

No?

Well, then...three strikes and you're out.

I should ignore you on the name-calling alone. Responding to a supposedly stupid post with insane drivel like the introductory statement in your response is a good way to begin, no?

I'll give you a pass on that, because you actually bring up a good point. Scientists are not infallible, I sure as hell am not. In matters of science however, no ideals should come first to the science itself, ever. To put forth ones own personal bias over that of the truth is as close as you can come to scientific blasphemy. One ceases to be a scientist by definition at that point.

I won't defend human fallacy. I will defend science itself though, something I am very justified in doing.

Also, if your first post didn't lower your moral character, insulting me instead of reasoning certainly did!

1. Bravo!

A much better tone this time.

2. "Scientists are not infallible, I sure as hell am not. In matters of science however, no ideals should come first to the science itself, ever."

Nor have I suggested that I am infallible...contrary to the charge in your original post.

3. The subtext here is that the global warming scam is based on 'scientists' who realize that huge amounts of money is available if one were to subscribe to this fraud.

The two ideas, a) scientists are no more nor less honorable than the population at large, and b) a certain percentage of 'scientists' avail themselves of such largesse out of dishonesty, are inseparably related.

4. "I should ignore you on the name-calling alone."
Really?
You still don't understand the term 'debase'?
Well, as Harry Truman said, if you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen.

But if you fear my words, you will miss out on some scintillating repartee.
And, an education, as well.


So let's review.

1. The OP is correct in that the term 'Diogenes' is not usually a synonym for 'scientist.'

2. You accuse me of some sort of attack, yet claim that I have a low moral character. Wrong again.

3. I don't know if my moral character is of the highest....but I do know it is somewhere between the highest, and yours.

4. You will require a few more spankings before I deem you reputable.



See what happens when you don’t send that e-mail chain letter to seven people?

 

[PoliticalChic]

So...'scientist' and businessman are mutually exclusive?


In your case, I see the point...I understand that the Unemployment office named you 'unemployee of the month.'

So instead of admitting you're wrong (Obviously impossible, right?), you've debased yourself and your entire political party by claiming that scientists aren't really scientists.

How low can you go.

Right wingers on this site think scientists are dirty liars with a "Marxist" agenda who sit on their butts collecting undeserved government stipends.

They really get upset when you point to the PEW Research that shows only a measly 6% of scientists are Republican. It's possible that out of those 6% are many that are just cut off from the world and don't realize what being Republican means. I suspect the 6% figure is vastly overstated.

1.Well, deanie, if you wish to broaden this discussion, just say so. But with respect to th OP, the idea is that there are lots of citizens, called 'scientists,' who see the funds that politicians, possibly Marxists, provide as a meal ticket.

2. The OP proves it, doesn't it.

3. "...PEW Research that shows only a measly 6% of scientists are Republican."
Actually, deanie, I usually allow you to keep this misapprehension, but this thread might explain the conundrum....
...if there is a political requirement to receiving 'global warming research' funds...this would go pretty far in explaining why one of the 'scientists' might scribble Democrat, wouldn't it?

Ohhhh....did I rain on your parade?

4. See, now, deanie, you might have to find another fable to boast 'all the smart people agree with me.'


P.S. I'd be happy to document how huge a problem cheating is in what we call 'science.'
Could you handle it?

 

[PoliticalChic]

But is a fact debatable? If it isn't I don't see how belief can enter the equation. I've held that the standard model is still, for all the promising confirmations of various aspects of it over the years, just a theory. It's quite possible that we've been chasing the wrong idea all these years.

We are not discussing facts, we are discussing science and how it works. Science relies on belief, and questions facts.

I'm sorry but that isn't how science works.

It's based on Observation and repeat-ability. One who does anything else is no longer being a scientist.

"Observation and repeat-ability. One who does anything else is no longer being a scientist."

That's pretty much the OP right there.

So...does that mean that you've debased yourself?

Didn't think so.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I'm sorry but that isn't how science works.

It's based on Observation and repeat-ability. One who does anything else is no longer being a scientist.

Is it?

What repeatability do we have to support the Big Bang Theory? Evolution? Astrophysics?

I love it when people who barely understand grade school science try to educate me about how science works.

There is plenty of "repeatability" in evolution. You should know that.

[Darwin] ruefully conceded: "Nature may almost be said to have guarded against the frequent discovery of her transitional or linking forms."

Paleontologists David Raup and Niles Eldredge say the fossil problem is as serious now as it was then, despite the most determined efforts to find the missinglinks.
Intelligent design creationism and ... - Google Books

Oops! Did I just ruin your day again, deanie?

 

[bobcollum]

We are not discussing facts, we are discussing science and how it works. Science relies on belief, and questions facts.

I'm sorry but that isn't how science works.

It's based on Observation and repeat-ability. One who does anything else is no longer being a scientist.

Is it?

What repeatability do we have to support the Big Bang Theory? Evolution? Astrophysics?

I love it when people who barely understand grade school science try to educate me about how science works.

That's all scientific theory relying on probability, with some of the aforementioned having a higher probability than others. Perhaps the big confusion with many is the difference between theory and fact, and an understanding of what's actually testable.

 

[Woyzeck]

Is it?

What repeatability do we have to support the Big Bang Theory? Evolution? Astrophysics?

I love it when people who barely understand grade school science try to educate me about how science works.

There is plenty of "repeatability" in evolution. You should know that.

[Darwin] ruefully conceded: "Nature may almost be said to have guarded against the frequent discovery of her transitional or linking forms."

Paleontologists David Raup and Niles Eldredge say the fossil problem is as serious now as it was then, despite the most determined efforts to find the missinglinks.
Intelligent design creationism and ... - Google Books

Oops! Did I just ruin your day again, deanie?

Oh. Cute. Missing Links. Tee hee. Next you'll bring up the Piltdown Man.

Luckily, we've found much more fossils since Darwin's time. There really weren't a lot of them around those days.

 

[PoliticalChic]

There is plenty of "repeatability" in evolution. You should know that.

[Darwin] ruefully conceded: "Nature may almost be said to have guarded against the frequent discovery of her transitional or linking forms."

Paleontologists David Raup and Niles Eldredge say the fossil problem is as serious now as it was then, despite the most determined efforts to find the missinglinks.
Intelligent design creationism and ... - Google Books

Oops! Did I just ruin your day again, deanie?

Oh. Cute. Missing Links. Tee hee. Next you'll bring up the Piltdown Man.

Luckily, we've found much more fossils since Darwin's time. There really weren't a lot of them around those days.

Now why would you ignore "Paleontologists David Raup and Niles Eldredge say the fossil problem is as serious now as it was then, despite the most determined efforts to find the missinglinks."

Better wipe off those specs, old timer.

 

[Woyzeck]

[Darwin] ruefully conceded: "Nature may almost be said to have guarded against the frequent discovery of her transitional or linking forms."

Paleontologists David Raup and Niles Eldredge say the fossil problem is as serious now as it was then, despite the most determined efforts to find the missinglinks.
Intelligent design creationism and ... - Google Books

Oops! Did I just ruin your day again, deanie?

Oh. Cute. Missing Links. Tee hee. Next you'll bring up the Piltdown Man.

Luckily, we've found much more fossils since Darwin's time. There really weren't a lot of them around those days.

Now why would you ignore "Paleontologists David Raup and Niles Eldredge say the fossil problem is as serious now as it was then, despite the most determined efforts to find the missinglinks."

Better wipe off those specs, old timer.

Better get thee to a library instead of concerning yourself over glasses.

The fossil record isn't perfect, but we have a whole host of examples of transitional species. Which is what makes their claim cute, especially when they call it 'missing links.' Evolution still stands regardless.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Oh. Cute. Missing Links. Tee hee. Next you'll bring up the Piltdown Man.

Luckily, we've found much more fossils since Darwin's time. There really weren't a lot of them around those days.

Now why would you ignore "Paleontologists David Raup and Niles Eldredge say the fossil problem is as serious now as it was then, despite the most determined efforts to find the missinglinks."

Better wipe off those specs, old timer.

Better get thee to a library instead of concerning yourself over glasses.

The fossil record isn't perfect, but we have a whole host of examples of transitional species. Which is what makes their claim cute, especially when they call it 'missing links.' Evolution still stands regardless.

Not only would Darwin call your post nonsense...

...but so would contemporary paleontologists, such as the experts referenced.

But rather than merely skewer your idea, as I just did, I'd rather consider the basis for your ideology.

Evolution is a theory....yet the ideologues such as yourself pretend that it is fact.

You do know the difference between theory and fact, don't you? 'else you need to get thee to a library.

There must be some burning desire to shut your eyes tightly, cover your ears, and stamp your little feet....

Could it be your view that man is a self-creator, that there is no God, and you folks will protest any view that suggests that there is a Divine, Nature's God, a Creator, a Supreme Judge of the World, and Divine Providence....you know, the terms used in the Declaration of Independence?

Is that what you are protesting???

Why?

I don't mind if you have some secular belief, but why pretend that there is profusion of 'missing links'?

'Cause, there isn't.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Clearly this is about "businessmen" and NOT scientists. Hilarious.

Especially because Republicans trust businessmen above all others.

Are you trying to claim scientists are not human?

Are you saying only businessmen are human?

No, but you seem to think scientists never do anything wrong. That makes you the idiot here, not me.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I'm sorry but that isn't how science works.

It's based on Observation and repeat-ability. One who does anything else is no longer being a scientist.

Is it?

What repeatability do we have to support the Big Bang Theory? Evolution? Astrophysics?

I love it when people who barely understand grade school science try to educate me about how science works.

There is plenty of "repeatability" in evolution. You should know that.

Do you know what repeatability means?

Sorry, I forgot, you believe in public schools, you don't know what anything means.

Repeatability - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I'm sorry but that isn't how science works.

It's based on Observation and repeat-ability. One who does anything else is no longer being a scientist.

Is it?

What repeatability do we have to support the Big Bang Theory? Evolution? Astrophysics?

I love it when people who barely understand grade school science try to educate me about how science works.

That's all scientific theory relying on probability, with some of the aforementioned having a higher probability than others. Perhaps the big confusion with many is the difference between theory and fact, and an understanding of what's actually testable.

Science does not rely on probability.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Oh. Cute. Missing Links. Tee hee. Next you'll bring up the Piltdown Man.

Luckily, we've found much more fossils since Darwin's time. There really weren't a lot of them around those days.

Now why would you ignore "Paleontologists David Raup and Niles Eldredge say the fossil problem is as serious now as it was then, despite the most determined efforts to find the missinglinks."

Better wipe off those specs, old timer.

Better get thee to a library instead of concerning yourself over glasses.

The fossil record isn't perfect, but we have a whole host of examples of transitional species. Which is what makes their claim cute, especially when they call it 'missing links.' Evolution still stands regardless.

Evolution stands as a theory for one reason, it works. When it no longer works as an explanation it will stop being a theory.

 

[bobcollum]

Is it?

What repeatability do we have to support the Big Bang Theory? Evolution? Astrophysics?

I love it when people who barely understand grade school science try to educate me about how science works.

That's all scientific theory relying on probability, with some of the aforementioned having a higher probability than others. Perhaps the big confusion with many is the difference between theory and fact, and an understanding of what's actually testable.

Science does not rely on probability.

Scientific theories do.

 

[Photonic]

Is it?

What repeatability do we have to support the Big Bang Theory? Evolution? Astrophysics?

I love it when people who barely understand grade school science try to educate me about how science works.

There is plenty of "repeatability" in evolution. You should know that.

Do you know what repeatability means?

Sorry, I forgot, you believe in public schools, you don't know what anything means.

Repeatability - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I love it when people who don't even understand science at a high school level attempt to educate a professional Physicist on what science is.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

There is plenty of "repeatability" in evolution. You should know that.

Do you know what repeatability means?

Sorry, I forgot, you believe in public schools, you don't know what anything means.

Repeatability - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I love it when people who don't even understand science at a high school level attempt to educate a professional Physicist on what science is.

Rdean is not a professional physicist. He is not even an amateur physicist.

If you are, or want to pretend you are, feel free to point to anything I have wrong.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

That's all scientific theory relying on probability, with some of the aforementioned having a higher probability than others. Perhaps the big confusion with many is the difference between theory and fact, and an understanding of what's actually testable.

Science does not rely on probability.

Scientific theories do.

No they do not.

They rely on observation. If all you have is probable all you have is statistics.

 

[Woyzeck]

Now why would you ignore "Paleontologists David Raup and Niles Eldredge say the fossil problem is as serious now as it was then, despite the most determined efforts to find the missinglinks."

Better wipe off those specs, old timer.

Better get thee to a library instead of concerning yourself over glasses.

The fossil record isn't perfect, but we have a whole host of examples of transitional species. Which is what makes their claim cute, especially when they call it 'missing links.' Evolution still stands regardless.

Not only would Darwin call your post nonsense...

Darwin would be floored on the amount of evidence we have today, and not just the fossils.

...but so would contemporary paleontologists, such as the experts referenced.

I stand by what I said. You haven't given me any reason to not like the fossil record except going "Ooooh look! Paleontologists!"

But rather than merely skewer your idea, as I just did, I'd rather consider the basis for your ideology.

Scientific literacy and political ideology are not intimately tied.

Evolution is a theory....yet the ideologues such as yourself pretend that it is fact.

No, it's quite factual. Evolution has gone under rigorous experiments and examination of evidence since Darwin's time. I could name a few experiments and scientists if you like, they're quite fascinating.

You do know the difference between theory and fact, don't you? 'else you need to get thee to a library.

Scientific theory is different from the theory you are using in this context.

You and this thing called a library should still meet up. I'd think you'd get along great.

There must be some burning desire to shut your eyes tightly, cover your ears, and stamp your little feet....

Do you have actual points against evolution, or are you just going to ramble about bullshit and hope it sticks?

Could it be your view that man is a self-creator, that there is no God, and you folks will protest any view that suggests that there is a Divine, Nature's God, a Creator, a Supreme Judge of the World, and Divine Providence....you know, the terms used in the Declaration of Independence?

You don't have to be an atheist to accept evolution.

Is that what you are protesting???

Why?

Hrm, I accept because its the basis of my ideology, because I'm an atheist. You'll do anything to not actually discuss the merits of evolution won't you?

I don't mind if you have some secular belief, but why pretend that there is profusion of 'missing links'?

'Cause, there isn't.

They're called transitional species. And we have quite a lot of them. I'm not sure why you continue to claim there isn't, or why you continue to call them 'missing links.'