First  Prev  1  2  3  Next  Last
Is Science Corrupt?
571 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / F
Offline
Posted 1/20/10

DerfelCadarn wrote:


madlibbs wrote:




It is no longer politically correct to use the word "retarded". If someone has a mental or intellectual disability, that is what you call it, whereas if you believe that someone is being ignorant or stupid, those are the words you use.


If you want to impliedly insult someone, it is encouraged that you use a word with a pejorative connotation. :D


If you want to insult someone, that's all well and good (provided there is sufficient cause), but it is insulting to those with disabilities to be compared to people that you consider worth insulting.

8742 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Scotland, Aberdeen
Offline
Posted 1/20/10

madlibbs wrote:


DerfelCadarn wrote:


madlibbs wrote:




It is no longer politically correct to use the word "retarded". If someone has a mental or intellectual disability, that is what you call it, whereas if you believe that someone is being ignorant or stupid, those are the words you use.


If you want to impliedly insult someone, it is encouraged that you use a word with a pejorative connotation. :D


If you want to insult someone, that's all well and good (provided there is sufficient cause), but it is insulting to those with disabilities to be compared to people that you consider worth insulting.



No it isn't. It is merely an insult used because the target would presumably take offence. It is evident that the people in question are not mentally impaired and we all know it. It is merely an exeggeration.
571 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / F
Offline
Posted 1/20/10

DerfelCadarn wrote:


madlibbs wrote:


DerfelCadarn wrote:


madlibbs wrote:




It is no longer politically correct to use the word "retarded". If someone has a mental or intellectual disability, that is what you call it, whereas if you believe that someone is being ignorant or stupid, those are the words you use.


If you want to impliedly insult someone, it is encouraged that you use a word with a pejorative connotation. :D


If you want to insult someone, that's all well and good (provided there is sufficient cause), but it is insulting to those with disabilities to be compared to people that you consider worth insulting.



No it isn't. It is merely an insult used because the target would presumably take offence. It is evident that the people in question are not mentally impaired and we all know it. It is merely an exeggeration.


It is nevertheless not a very tactful thing to say, because it is insulting to people who legitimately have disabilities, even if it is not intended as such.
571 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / F
Offline
Posted 1/20/10
As for the topic of this thread:

Human beings are not only fallible, but corruptible, and I daresay scientists fall within the category of human beings. There have been many instances in which they have been proven right, and many in which they have been proven wrong. The best way to figure out which is which is, unfortunately, hindsight.

Scientists can be wrong for several reasons. One reason is lack of information. For example, the Rutherford atomic model was considered quite advanced and entirely true until it was replaced by the Bohr model, which was discovered to be more accurate.

Another reason is stubbornness. They can be so attached to previous theories that they refuse to acknowledge new ones. For example, many scientists once believed that life could be created from inorganic matter, and believed that maggots appeared on meat due to a vital force that needed air to be transmitted.

A third reason is fear of public wrath, and perhaps even losing their jobs because of this. For example, many people believe that 1 in 3 women will be victims of rape/attempted rape, when in fact it is really more like 1 in 8. But of course, publicly declaring such a discrepancy would be considered callous and disrespectful to rape victims.

Having said that, scientists are also right a decent percentage of the time. I believe that global warming is true, but even if it isn't, recycling and conserving energy and other resources aren't going to kill anyone. I also believe in evolution, as I've found arguments in favor of it to be more convincing than arguments against it. I also believe that scientists will be proven wrong about at least a few things that they assert now, I just don't know which.
4302 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
forgot where
Offline
Posted 1/21/10

digs wrote:

We all know of the corruption within politics, but what about within the scientific community?

Science says it deals with facts and what we find can be proven, but at the same time is conducted by individuals who may be corrupt and say whatever someone wants to here.

Recently emails from East Anglia University in the UK were leaked and the contents of these emails expose the corruption within climate science and global warming. Here is a nice article on some of that http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017393/climategate-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-anthropogenic-global-warming/ There is admitted fraud and corrupted science that is exposed.

When I see the scientific community I see many scientists being fueled by governments or associations that want them to give them an answer they want to hear. Science depends on grants, and grants come from the government and other organizations. Typically it isn't wanting independent research and real answers, but instead seeks to hear a scientist tell them what they want to hear. Science is fueled by political agendas and philosophical movements. Not all scientists are skeptics, most are sell outs and achieve the high positions they reach because they have given the higher ups what they want to hear.

Within peer review journals there is censorship. In regards to global warming, skeptics are laughed and and not listened too. They are put down and treated as like garbage. Looking at the UN and the IPPC I don't see any skeptics, or any that are allowed to voice their opinions. They tell people that global warming is proven fact and anyone who challenges it is ignorant of the science behind it. In regards to evolution (probably the most corrupt field), there is very little consensus as to how things evolved, but the one thing they all say is that evolution is proven fact. When looking at many evolutionists they blatantly just call intelligent designers and creationists hacks with no science. That intelligent design isn't science and to accept that evolution is proven fact (when it isn't). Their arrogance is disgusting, and what's even more disgraceful is the outright name calling and refusal to listen to anyone that doesn't believe as they do. How do we learn? How do we reach a better understanding of truth? By having many scientists from many view points present data and critique it. What is going on is people of differing view points are demonized and refused entry into peer review. Science has been hijacked by the naturalists philosophy. What is evolution is true, but that it is proven that something beyond the natural had to bring it about (theistic evolution), do you think science would accept this? No, they would reject it and put blind faith in research hoping one day they can muddle an "explanation" as to how their truth may be represented. What if evolution was proven wrong blatantly? What if it was without a doubt proven that organisms cannot evolve into a new species. Would science accept this? I highly doubt it. There is blind faith in science and suppositions that are treated as true simply because it must have happened in order for their beliefs to hold fast. A prime example is the planet Mercury. Mercury has a high density, and it's high density contradicts current models in regards to planetary formation. It was also discovered that Mercury has a magnetic field. The most accepted answer given to these problems is that Mercury has hit by something that stripped away less dense material and thus we have the planet we have today. There no proof of this, but it is the most accepted answer because we already know without a doubt that planets formed billions of years ago with the current models we have... they make suppositions because they aren't willing to let the facts challenge what we know. Uranus also poses a problem to current models. Science says Uranus formed as other planets did, but was hit by an object that tilted it the way it is now... Answers are given without any sound evidence so that current theories may be appeased.

My main point is that science is not out for answers, but out for pushing ideology. The scientific community is very corrupted and arrogant. It pushes things that haven't been proven true as undoubtedly true and they say anyone who disagrees is ignorant... Global warming is true without a doubt and anyone that says otherwise is ignorant. Evolution and naturalism are proven true without a doubt, anyone who says otherwise is an ignorant theist. Many scientists believe we already know the truth, and things we don't know yet will align with current models. This is blind faith, believing that because we know naturalism and a billions of years old universe is true, answers supporting this theory will and must follow. If answers no contradict the accepted views then that research is flawed or some event occurred (like meteors striking an object) that would fit the models. Science is very corrupt, more so than politics. We are fed like sheep to put our faith in the "experts" and not think or do research for ourselves. The scientific community should be ashamed of itself, it needs serious reform and equality. My advice is to not trust an expert because they simply say so, but to examine the evidence yourself and find truth. Experts are paid to say what they say, and they say it to appease those who pay them.


To be the ONLY guy here staying on topic, let me state this. You are making a huge mistake, the same mistake people make about other "currupt" ideologies. No ideology (religion, martial arts, science, history,politics, ect.) is intrinsicly currupt. there r only currupt people that do currupt things with the ideology. That being said, yes, there r currupt scienctist out therem doing unscientific things. This is the USA, its to be expected. But that doesnt mean science it's self is currupt, its basic goal is to understand the natural world.

If some idiot comes along and turns that into some type of religion/cult/politics, it becomes just that, an idiots religion/cult/politics, and it becomes unscientific.peace over war
4302 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
forgot where
Offline
Posted 1/21/10

Jiggalo wrote:

You'll find corruption everywhere. Illegitimacy runs rampant since so many people don't want to put in the effort to make something really official. A good scientist doesn't push his views on people just as a good religious person would do the same. Science and religion will always be at odds. It will be a war waged between minds and what I think will prevail is sheer logic. Science seeks proof while religion goes by faith. Coming along and speaking of science as being corrupt is an attempt to counter what has been observed in corrupt religious people firsthand. Most people would do whatever it takes to defend their beliefs, even if it so happens to be quite laughable. Often times, people need government grants for a project. No one just creates large sums of money out of thin air to fund anything. I am neither for nor against some things, but one thing I will say is this; if you think without any reasonable doubt that your claims are true while not having the concrete evidence to back them up, you will be pushed off into a corner to sit with a dunce hat on your head.

Most will say that religion is the old way of explaining things without the real knowledge of how they work. There are endless possibilities in people's minds as to how everything works. Naturally, I opt for an explanation which can be seen and comprehended by people instead of telling everyone that the way everything works is governed by celestial entities in ways which we can never understand. It is unforgivably insulting to disallow people from finding things out for themselves. Intelligent people throughout history have been treated like malefactors simply because they were right. Beliefs run so deep that people can't allow anything new into that system they already have. It causes a disruption which they aren't able to deal with. In other words; change is often feared greatly by people who believe in something instead of really knowing it. It will be observed as only a waste of time when all this true and wholesome dedication to faith yields nothing to no one. You can pray all you want because religion is shielded by laws against discrimination. Without those protective laws, religion would have been burnt to the ground ages ago. Think of all the wonderful advancements we would have made. It would have been nice. Really fucking nice. But nooooooooooo we can't have that "decadence" because we will burn in Hell for it.

Corruption belongs where people feel it has its most potent effect and that is in defiling something sacred. Science isn't necessarily sacred, it is a handbook to the universe. Use it!


im only saying this to you because u were the only person in the entire thread to at least stay half way on topic,but i want everyone in this thread to read and reply to this- what does religion have to do with this?

Why does every scienctific thread have to turn into some religious rant? Religion has nothing to do with the topic at hand.Religion has nothing to do with science or the scientific community period. And i know the other 99.9% of the other people here just went on a rant about religion or insulting digs and didnt even bother answering the thread.Was it that difficult to answer?

The theme of the topic was curruption within the scientific community.There is no need to quadriple post about insults, scientific thoeries, or opinions on religion.

srry for my rant, but i was really hoping for an enlighting discussion, not some bait for trolls...peace over war
55941 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
56 / F / Midwest, rural Am...
Offline
Posted 1/21/10
Elitist mentality is by no means limited to any one ideology. We see this proven time & time again among these threads on CR.
I may sympathize (a tiny bit) with the frustrations which may have prompted this topic, but after glancing thru the posts, I'm inclined to agree this topic, as presented, even in it's sincerity, only fans the flame for trolls & perpetuates division & angst.
Let's use the intellect we share for more proactive topics & positive thought processes.
2633 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / New York City, NY
Offline
Posted 1/22/10 , edited 1/22/10
1. Without an ideological system, we could not describe anything beyond "This exists".
2. You cannot prove "truth" without such a system, therefore your comparison is moot and circular logic.
3. It is well-known to most people that scientists come into conflict when they depend on funding from outside sources.
4. I'm sorry if this is insulting, but your whole rant shows little to no knowledge of what falls under "philosophy of science", "scientific procedures", "scientific theories", and "scientific explanations".
2121 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / Usa
Offline
Posted 1/27/10

shinto-male wrote:

if the earth in 6000 years old we should not be seeing light from distant stars and galaxies millions of light years away. if you want respect stop posting false information stop peddling ancient bronze age myths


Fantastic lol thats a great point. Kudos my friend
181 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
37 / M / Seattle, WA
Offline
Posted 3/28/10
There can certainly be corrupt scientists, because amazingly enough they're human just like anyone else. The key question you want to ask yourself is whether or not the scientific method itself is corrupt, and I'd have to say no.

Science is a self-correcting, empirical process that by nature weeds out bad information and bad practices. Peer review in the scientific world is brutal.

In regard to the stolen climate science emails, 99% of them were completely fine and only a few of them represent what the media was having a field day with. Didn't anyone notice that every single news report on networks like Fox were reporting on the same exact email? It was pretty hilarious. The media also misunderstood some of language contained within those emails.

The scientific community isn't being "unfair" to Intelligent Design "science", flat Earth supporters, expanding Earth supporters, Waterside hypothesis supporters, or any other fringe idea that you can think of; They look down on ID proponents and the rest because of their methods, not because of who they are.

Honestly, if ID was able to do a better job explaining the full body of explanatory work that the Theory of Evolution does, as well as being equally testable in the lab then I am sure the scientific community would welcome it with open arms. The problem is, ID and other YEC ideas are non-answers that don't play by the rules. Ideas like "irreducible complexity" are basically the same as concluding, "we don't see how this can be created by natural means so God did it" which is an unacceptable conclusion in Science because you've failed to explain anything.
Even some of the most radical ideas in Science, such as virtual particle mass contributions, can still be tested because they provide astonishingly accurate results when used in calculations. It's not that hard, but YEC ID people refuse to play by the rules.

Here's a few great videos on this stuff for those that would rather watch something:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zcavPAFiG14 The Scientific Method made easy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eUB4j0n2UDU Baloney Detection Kit.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xO7IT81h200 Creation "science" made easy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nnVQ2fROOg Those hacked climate emails
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uXesBhYwdRo Climate emails 2
http://www.youtube.com/user/AronRa#g/c/126AFB53A6F002CC AaronRa's excellent "Foundational Falsehoods of Creationism" series. I strongly recommend people watch this. For deeply religious people, it would be a good test of faith. lol





55254 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
52 / F / Atlanta GA
Online
Posted 3/28/10
I am far from being able engage some body on the value of string theory. To me the best results achieved in government run science is for the military. In the end they have to show results. Our biggest jumps have come through this kind of funding. weather good or bad uses for it is up to Politicians/ society on its use. Other wise let the privet sector do it and keep corporations/government monopolies from the cycle of advancement. Funding by government in most case is pork spending. If NASA was turned over to the privet sector we already would have a station on the moon. The bureaucracy is a python strangling this part of science. To me Is to keep it simple stupid,(KISS) If some one has money and thinks it a good thing to invest in that there thing, and awards or downfall is there problem.
4095 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Los Angeles, Cali...
Offline
Posted 3/29/10

JJT2 wrote:

To be the ONLY guy here staying on topic, let me state this. You are making a huge mistake, the same mistake people make about other "currupt" ideologies. No ideology (religion, martial arts, science, history,politics, ect.) is intrinsicly currupt. there r only currupt people that do currupt things with the ideology. That being said, yes, there r currupt scienctist out therem doing unscientific things. This is the USA, its to be expected. But that doesnt mean science it's self is currupt, its basic goal is to understand the natural world.

If some idiot comes along and turns that into some type of religion/cult/politics, it becomes just that, an idiots religion/cult/politics, and it becomes unscientific.peace over war


this.

there are corrupt politicians, generals, cops, and priests. that doesn't mean politics, the army, the police, or the church is corrupt in its entirety. the same is true with science. there are individuals in the community who will distort information to push their own agenda, but that does not mean all scientists are corrupt and therefore all scientific discoveries should be rejected.

this also does not close the climate change debate by any means. its true that it might not be as severe as we were told, and it is still unclear how much of a hand human activity has in it, but there is still some undeniable evidence of change, like the disappearance of glaciers across the planet and changing weather patterns like increased hurricanes in the carribean, increased cold and snowfall in the east and europe, and severe drought in the west (which may or may not be a sign of climate change. its possible that world weather patterns are just hitting a rough patch, which happens often across the centuries)
69 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
41 / M / Ossining, NY
Offline
Posted 3/30/10
Trying to stay on topic. Of course you have corrupt scientists. The only difference now is that the ones doing "pure" research have been shown to have an agenda of their own. They want global warming to be true so they can sell carbon offsets and make a mint, or they want to use it as an excuse to push through socialist policies like cap and trade which will kill our economy. The fact that the other side works for the fossil fuel industry does not make it less trust worthy than some of the blasted hippies pushing this drek. Who is more dangerous right now in an economic downturn? When people have jobs again then we can contemplate all this hippie BS we can't afford.
55254 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
52 / F / Atlanta GA
Online
Posted 5/23/10
If the scientist get a pay check to prove something more than likely it is corrupt. Cutting off your income is kinda silly is it not. Grants should be made to prove or disprove hypothesis and given a current amount of time the the money runs out. the old way of doing withing not open end grants from the government. Another word a PHD in a science will corrupt the data to keep a job.
1288 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
A small place in...
Offline
Posted 5/24/10

digs wrote:

We all know of the corruption within politics, but what about within the scientific community?

Science says it deals with facts and what we find can be proven, but at the same time is conducted by individuals who may be corrupt and say whatever someone wants to here.

Recently emails from East Anglia University in the UK were leaked and the contents of these emails expose the corruption within climate science and global warming. Here is a nice article on some of that http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017393/climategate-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-anthropogenic-global-warming/ There is admitted fraud and corrupted science that is exposed.



In some ways, there is corruption in Science, as sure as there is corruption in government, news, morality, business and even religion. If you expect perfection from Science, then I am afraid you will be mightily disappointed.

Science works both ways, remember when the powerful tobacco industry funded scientists who claimed that smoking wasn't addictive or harmful to health. Remember the KKK, a white supremacist group who also claimed to be following christian values and beliefs. Remember the security company, Halliburton/KBR, whose employees gang-rape a woman employee and imprison her and then work to deny the victim to seek justice. Remember Sean Hannity Fox News who was spotted using fake footage. Does this make Science, Religion or News Media on a whole corrupt based on these actions of a select few?

Sen. Franken Questions an Arbitration Lawyer about Binding Arbitration-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y6kiZIlMFto

Sean Hannity Uses Glenn Beck's Protest Footage-
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-november-10-2009/sean-hannity-uses-glenn-beck-s-protest-footage
First  Prev  1  2  3  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.