A good example of science at work

[shira]

I find it frustrating and infuriating when those with ideological agendas claim that par for the course among scientists is fraud and self-interest. I don't want to sidetrack my own thread getting into specifics about that point, but I think we all know what I'm referring to. Instead, I wanted to give a perfect example of just how messy science is, in this case where science is dealing with a topic (cosmic inflation) for which almost no one would claim that there's a "conspiracy" to push a particular viewpoint.

The point is, when a study has even the possibility of potential flaws in its design, its results, or its explanations, other scientists will pounce like ravenous beasts to question the study. And in order for a scientific theory to reach a "consensus" stage, it needs to successfully surmount all significant challenges, because there's even more "glory" to be had by any scientist who can make a cogent challenge to a widely-supported theory than in merely being one more voice saying "I agree."

Maybe it's only dust

In essence, the study's authors claim that they measured a particular type of light polarization that they say was caused by gravity waves that originated at the instant the universe began to expand. If their claim is true, that's convincing evidence for the truth of the theory of Cosmic Inflation (that the Big Bang occurred as a spectacularly-rapid expansion in an infinitesimal time period) as opposed to the idea that Big Bang proceeded as a rapid but far more orderly expansion. Not necessarily so says a cadre of scientists who ask whether the measurements might have been corrupted by dust particles within our Milky Way.

A couple of telling quotations from the article above:

. . . this is simply a case of science doing what science does best: pressing a new finding through the fine filter of skepticism.

and

“Scientists are human, and humans are competitive,” Brian Greene said. “That’s true whether you’re a scientist or you play on the Yankees.”

But for those whose rational thought is blinded by ideology, we can't trust science when it focuses on topics that might have real-world financial consequences.

 

[Greenman]

You left money out of the equation. When large sums of money are involved, the veneer of integrity gets worn down pretty fast.

 

[MasterOfUsers]

You left money out of the equation. When large sums of money are involved, the veneer of integrity gets worn down pretty fast.

Except when multiple sciences converge with scientists all over the world finding the same result.

You do realize that grants are not based on results in most of the world, right?

Of course you don't, knowing that would mean you would have to read up on anything but the talking points of the people you agree with.

None of this US propaganda against climate change research is actually true while the only opposition IS sponsored by the oil companies (much like every single study ever made about soy was sponsored by the milk industry and thus some Americans still believe that the phytoestrogens in soy can attatch at the hormone site in human beings (it cannot, it's well known that it has no effect what so ever in all nations except the US where it's known as the "truth")) and that has been destroyed by peer review.

I don't get this, you don't trust science but you'd see a doctor if you were sick? How the fuck do you figure?

 

[Retro Rob]

Except when multiple sciences converge with scientists all over the world finding the same result.

You do realize that grants are not based on results in most of the world, right?

Of course you don't, knowing that would mean you would have to read up on anything but the talking points of the people you agree with.

None of this US propaganda against climate change research is actually true while the only opposition IS sponsored by the oil companies (much like every single study ever made about soy was sponsored by the milk industry and thus some Americans still believe that the phytoestrogens in soy can attatch at the hormone site in human beings (it cannot, it's well known that it has no effect what so ever in all nations except the US where it's known as the "truth")) and that has been destroyed by peer review.

I don't get this, you don't trust science but you'd see a doctor if you were sick? How the fuck do you figure?

So you are we only allowed to see a doctor if we agree with climate change? Should we now have US citizens fill out a questionnaire asking if you accept climate change, and if they say "no", turn them away?

Have you always been this stupid?

 

[MasterOfUsers]

So you are we only allowed to see a doctor if we agree with climate change? Should be we now have US citizens fill out a questionnaire asking if you accept climate change, and if they say "no", turn them away?

Have you always been this stupid?

Of course not but if you dismiss science why on earth would you want to someone who uses science to treat you?

it would make sense to NOT see someone who uses a method you do not trust, does it not?

And... your entire argument is a strawman.

You have yet to make a coherent argument free of logical fallacies.

 

[Retro Rob]

Of course not but if you dismiss science why on earth would you want to someone who uses science to treat you?

it would make sense to NOT see someone who uses a method you do not trust, does it not?

And... your entire argument is a strawman.

You have yet to make a coherent argument free of logical fallacies.

Questioning climate change is not dismissing science no more than questioning your boss means to hate his money.

People like you make science something it's not; a religious doctrine, which cannot be questioned, nor denied.

You're hurting science, more than you think.

 

[MasterOfUsers]

Questioning climate change is not dismissing science nor more than questioning your boss means to hate his money.

People like you make science something it's not; a religious doctrine, which cannot be questioned, nor denied.

You're hurting science, more than you think.

I absolutely agree but it should be done in the arena where science is done, not in the political arena or by people who have no fucking clue and if they watched the results would still deny them as they are bound to their opinion as if it was mandated by god himself.

That was my point, which you would know if you had read what i wrote instead of going off on a tangent and rambling incoherently as you always do.

 

[Greenman]

Except when multiple sciences converge with scientists all over the world finding the same result.

You do realize that grants are not based on results in most of the world, right?

Of course you don't, knowing that would mean you would have to read up on anything but the talking points of the people you agree with.

None of this US propaganda against climate change research is actually true while the only opposition IS sponsored by the oil companies (much like every single study ever made about soy was sponsored by the milk industry and thus some Americans still believe that the phytoestrogens in soy can attatch at the hormone site in human beings (it cannot, it's well known that it has no effect what so ever in all nations except the US where it's known as the "truth")) and that has been destroyed by peer review.

I don't get this, you don't trust science but you'd see a doctor if you were sick? How the fuck do you figure?

You've made incorrect assumptions, reached conclusions based on your personal agenda, accused me not trusting science, and being a blind follower, all based on facts not in evidence, and statements I didn't make. You're an idiot. The world doesn't revolve around the six little bits of "science" you've learned to parrot, and having a tantrum when you think someone disagrees with you is juvenile.