Criminally Careless Use of Science, Without Knowledge
POSTED BY: 6ixStringJack
UPDATED: Wednesday, March 19, 2008 15:19
VIEWED: 5291
PAGE 4 of 4
Quote:I'm just going to say it once. People who arrive at conclusions about how to live their lives (or how YOU should live your life) as the result of some study or another ARE NOT SCIENTISTS.
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
I blame all of the gullible little idiots who idolize science and scientists as the end all be all to any conclusion they make about their own life decisions and in turn force their views about how others should live and behave on everyone else.
Those folks, usually with MDs after their names, ARE NOT SCIENTISTS.
People who do that are called junk scientists or pseudo-scientists. Please, there is a difference between real science and junk science. Please do not confuse the two. If you need more info on how to distinguish, just let me know.
Not everyone who comes out with a study is a scientist, ok?
Thank you.
--------------------------
The real purpose of the scientific method is to make sure Nature hasn't misled you into thinking you know something you don't actually know.
-- Robert M. Pirsig, Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:My husband is a professional research scientist (or was until recently). I ask him that all the time. Why don't you chemists stand up and let the rest of us know that fluorine is poisonous and shouldn't be in drinking water? Why don't you tell the rest of the world that mercury is a bad thing to put in things you inject into children? Why don't you expose medical research for the scientific fraud that it is?
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Why don't those pesky research scientists start standing up to Big Pharma instead of takin the money to nod, smile and look the other way ?
He hems and haws, but it comes down to this. They are usually so focused on their specific esoteric fields of research that they don't actually make the connection of general information they know to the real world. Scientists are people who are just as susceptible to the Religion of the State and Religion of Medicine as anyone else, despite their expertise and objectivity in their own fields.
Here is an example. He showed an eminent mechanical engineer he knew a video of WTC7 falling, then commented, "Doesn't that look like a demolition job?" They discuss various technical aspects of that job, after which the engineer says, "Yep. That sure looks like a demolition job. Do you want to go to lunch?" Then he goes on to vote for Bush. Serious disconnect between technical knowledge and political / religious beliefs.
He's had similar experiences with scientists after showing them medical research. They will admit, yep, that's crap, then go on and take whatever their docs prescribe.
My husband personally doesn't shout warnings from the mountaintop because he thinks that usually ends as well as telling people not to pay taxes. Nuff said.
--------------------------
Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect.
--Mark Twain
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
If you need more info on how to distinguish, just let me know.
http://www.quackwatch.com/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/pseudo.html
http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Science/Pseudoscience.html
http://www.mydigitallife.co.za/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&
id=1035182&Itemid=43
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I'm sorry Fred. None of these websites provide criteria for distinguishing between pseudoscience and science. Mostly, they provide criteria for identify sheer bullcrap or claims that may be true, but have no real evidence to substantiate them. You don't need criteria for that. Just use common sense.
Originally posted by fredgiblet:
http://www.quackwatch.com/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/pseudo.html
http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Science/Pseudoscience.html
http://www.mydigitallife.co.za/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&
id=1035182&Itemid=43
Moreover, they want to label something as pseudoscience simply for being different. All these authors cite being inconsistent with mainstream literature or "established fact" as a characteristic of pseudoscience. If that is the case, then Copernicus, Galileo, and Darwin would be pseudoscientists right off the bat.
Right now, most of the literature out there on pseudoscience is name calling. "Science" is a label everyone wants to slap onto his own position for status and credibility, and "Pseudoscience" is the label people slap on to the positions of everyone who disagrees with them.
Both sides are full of shit. If someone is trying to use "science" to convince you to support a position of "truth" (whether mainstream or alternative), as in the "true" and "right" way to live, they are already practicing junk science.
Science is an equal opportunity skeptic. So if someone says, this study proves mercury causes autism, science would poke holes in the study. If someone says, this study proves mercury *doesn't* cause autism, science would poke holes in *that* study. There is no such thing is "established fact" in science, and anyone who tells you otherwise is a junk scientist.
Maybe I will write my own list of criteria after all.
--------------------------
Religion is a culture of faith; science is a culture of doubt.
-- Richard Feynman
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Speaking of science, this is funny.
http://www.xkcd.com/397/
--------------------------
An education isn't how much you have committed to memory, or even how much you know. It's being able to differentiate between what you know and what you don't.
-- Anatole France
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME