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

[SillyWabbit]

OMG...this just proved that ALL Science is fake

I guess it also shows that if Priests, Rabbis, Pastors and Televangelists engage in unethical activities then God must be fake too

So you're saying science is just as fake as god?

Yes, kosher girl settled that

We can't trust in science and we can't trust in god

"According to the laws of science, the bumble be should not be able to fly--but the bumble bee doesn't know this."

Benny Hill (?)

 

[Uncensored2008]

? WTF ?

Early in the day to start drinking don't you think?

Wouldn't know.

That you didn't grasp my post is no surprise though.

Don't worry, others will.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Yes, kosher girl settled that

We can't trust in science and we can't trust in god

What you can't trust in is men.

You of the left often mistake people with process.

A researcher is not science. Science doesn't say anything. Science is a process of discovery, not discoveries or conclusions themselves.

The sciences are full of frauds. Those who blindly follow every charlatan claiming to speak for science are no different than those sending there SS check to Benny Hinn.

 

[koshergrl]

bingo.
and this board is full of semi-literate imbeciles who spend WAAAAY too much time watching Discovery Channel and old re-runs of History's Mysteries, and think that can substitute as true scholarship and understanding of the things on which they seem compelled to opine.

 

[Trajan]

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

paper...plastic, paper, back plastic ....neither.

butter, margarine....butter, back to margarine....

food pyramid....food plate....in 5 years we'll be back to the pyramid...bet on it.

You confuse science with the media.

really? did you rad the OP?

are you inferring that science via the fda etc. did not push a butter margarine flip flop?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

paper...plastic, paper, back plastic ....neither.

butter, margarine....butter, back to margarine....

food pyramid....food plate....in 5 years we'll be back to the pyramid...bet on it.

You confuse science with the media.

really? did you rad the OP?

are you inferring that science via the fda etc. did not push a butter margarine flip flop?

Dude, what flip flop?

Talking About Trans Fat: What You Need to Know

Choose vegetable oils (except coconut and palm kernel oils) and soft margarines (liquid, tub, or spray) more often. The combined amount of saturated and trans fats in these products is lower than the amount in solid shortenings, hard margarines, and animal fats, including butter.

Seriously get your facts straight. Science found out that margarine is better than butter - but then it found out not all margarines are created equal, and that some forms of it are better than others.

Wow - how surprising - that science would refine something it already did.

 

[Photonic]

Yes, kosher girl settled that

We can't trust in science and we can't trust in god

What you can't trust in is men.

You of the left often mistake people with process.

A researcher is not science. Science doesn't say anything. Science is a process of discovery, not discoveries or conclusions themselves.

The sciences are full of frauds. Those who blindly follow every charlatan claiming to speak for science are no different than those sending there SS check to Benny Hinn.

The fact that you are even communicating to us is evidence enough that it clearly works. Do go on though, every letter you type, every web page you open, is just more and more hypocracy.

 

[amrchaos]

Are you guys saying that " faith never lead to the wrong conclusions"?

 

[koshergrl]

Don't worry, I'm sure the next time a preacher lies Kosher will be on here talking about religion as a fraud and how nobody should be listening to any preachers.

Oh and it put a ear to ear smile on my face the way she said faith and common sense are interchangeable.

I think you have me mixed up with somebody else.

And I've no doubt that those around you are used to your insane and illogical fits of giggling.

You made the connection of one scientist lying as to why everyone with common sense should deny science.

Emotional diatribe, it's as if that's all your keybroad is capable of letting you type.

Per usual, you're confused.
And inaccruate...or flat out lying. Either or, it doesn't matter, the result is the same.

 

[koshergrl]

Are you guys saying that " faith never lead to the wrong conclusions"?

If we were stating that, I think someone would have actually stated it.

Continue to flail, though.

 

[amrchaos]

Are you guys saying that " faith never lead to the wrong conclusions"?

If we were stating that, I think someone would have actually stated it.

Continue to flail, though.

But the op suggested that "scientist believe that science is infalliable". But science only grows through challenges to long held theory that are validatible through natural observances and/or experiments.

On the other hand, religion is founded on assumptions without any true method of validation.

So would that then suggest that religion is probably more failable than science?

How is my flailing, by the way?

 

[Photonic]

Are you guys saying that " faith never lead to the wrong conclusions"?

If we were stating that, I think someone would have actually stated it.

Continue to flail, though.

But the op suggested that "scientist believe that science is infalliable". But science only grows through challenges to long held theory that are validatible through natural observances and/or experiments.

On the other hand, religion is founded on assumptions without any true method of validation.

So would that then suggest that religion is probably more failable than science?

How is my flailing, by the way?

Flailing like a .50 Barrett.

 

[Uncensored2008]

The fact that you are even communicating to us is evidence enough that it clearly works. Do go on though, every letter you type, every web page you open, is just more and more hypocracy.

You use a LOT of drugs, don't you?

 

[Photonic]

The fact that you are even communicating to us is evidence enough that it clearly works. Do go on though, every letter you type, every web page you open, is just more and more hypocracy.

You use a LOT of drugs, don't you?

Altering ones mental state with the use of chemicals is a crime against intelligence.

Of course, since you don't have any to speak of, one might posit that you have done a significant amount of mental alteration in your time.

 

[Uncensored2008]

But the op suggested that "scientist believe that science is infalliable".

No, the OP suggests that the public has been conditioned by the media and the educational cesspool that Scientists are infallible, the new priest class to never be questioned.

Idiots like Mullah Photo have simply substituted blind faith in the new priests for blind faith in the old ones. Nothing has changed, there is no thought nor intellectual curiosity, it's still unwavering adherence to dogma.

But science only grows through challenges to long held theory that are validatible through natural observances and/or experiments.

Ergo the observation that science is a process, not a result.

On the other hand, religion is founded on assumptions without any true method of validation.

When a malleable public is conditioned to accept that which they are told, it is religion.

So would that then suggest that religion is probably more failable than science?

What is passed for science in this nation is mostly religion.

How is my flailing, by the way?

It's wild, man.

 

[Photonic]

But the op suggested that "scientist believe that science is infalliable".

No, the OP suggests that the public has been conditioned by the media and the educational cesspool that Scientists are infallible, the new priest class to never be questioned.

Idiots like Mullah Photo have simply substituted blind faith in the new priests for blind faith in the old ones. Nothing has changed, there is no thought nor intellectual curiosity, it's still unwavering adherence to dogma.

But science only grows through challenges to long held theory that are validatible through natural observances and/or experiments.

Ergo the observation that science is a process, not a result.



When a malleable public is conditioned to accept that which they are told, it is religion.

So would that then suggest that religion is probably more failable than science?

What is passed for science in this nation is mostly religion.

How is my flailing, by the way?

It's wild, man.

And yet, with every letter you type, you become more and more a hypocrite.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Altering ones mental state with the use of chemicals is a crime against intelligence.

So in your case, there would be no crime committed....

Of course, since you don't have any to speak of, one miht posit that you have done a significant amount of mental alteration in your time.

Son, if that's your idea of wit, you merely confirm that you're about as bright as a quantum singularity.

 

[PoliticalChic]

But the op suggested that "scientist believe that science is infalliable".

No, the OP suggests that the public has been conditioned by the media and the educational cesspool that Scientists are infallible, the new priest class to never be questioned.

Idiots like Mullah Photo have simply substituted blind faith in the new priests for blind faith in the old ones. Nothing has changed, there is no thought nor intellectual curiosity, it's still unwavering adherence to dogma.

But science only grows through challenges to long held theory that are validatible through natural observances and/or experiments.

Ergo the observation that science is a process, not a result.



When a malleable public is conditioned to accept that which they are told, it is religion.

So would that then suggest that religion is probably more failable than science?

What is passed for science in this nation is mostly religion.

How is my flailing, by the way?

It's wild, man.

Excellent, insightful post.

 

[Uncensored2008]

And yet, with every letter you type, you become more and more a hypocrite.

So, are you currently in Jr. High, or is that just the extent of your education?

Enquiring minds want to know!


Standard Disclaimer: Watch the doofus try to correct the spelling....

 

[Photonic]

Altering ones mental state with the use of chemicals is a crime against intelligence.

So in your case, there would be no crime committed....

Of course, since you don't have any to speak of, one miht posit that you have done a significant amount of mental alteration in your time.

Son, if that's your idea of wit, you merely confirm that you're about as bright as a quantum singularity.

Oh well, one cannot reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into.

Enjoy your brainwashed state, I bid you adieu.