Posted on 12/10/2009 4:24:15 PM PST by GodGunsGuts
Anyone can do science and thus be a scientist and letting it become like an elitist priesthood has been a mistake as the Global Warming scam has demonstrated.
“You are not a scientist” is just a way of intimidating others into accepting the so-called “magisterium” of an elitist science.
Excellent......
Bears repeating......
God is Great...
“I was blinded by science!”
-Thomas Dolby
Poignant remarks, you will be resoundingly demeaned, but certainly not by me.
There is no unbiased science because there are no unbiased scientists.
Your failure to recognize that is demonstrating bias in itself.
What Metmom said!
Interesting the keywords spammed into the keyword list on a topic that does not address religion from a source that is not religious.
Then why does someone think that it *belongsinreligion*?
Or that it’s *notasciencetopic*?
Or whatever........
I beg to differ. Make and *all* instead of the *vast bulk*.
Seems to me that science worked pretty well for a long time before the government grant money provided the living.
You extremist you! J/K. The only reason I said “vast bulk” is because of national security related science. But then again, I suppose most of that could be contracted out as well!
But how many us would pull out our check books for a Super-Duper Collision Collector? Not very many just to provide jobs and prestige for the users and not even a hadron for our money.
I have researched 100's of things never once did I manipulate the data. In fact, on my masters thesis the facts actually disproved my original hypothesis (I actually found that interesting). Never once was I tempted to manipulate the data to make it turn out how I expected it to before hand.
” There is no unbiased science because there are no unbiased scientists.
Your failure to recognize that is demonstrating bias in itself. “
That is precisely why you judge the credibility of the science by what is published - it’s methods, means, and data, as well as any relevant disclosures on funding. That way everyone can look at it through the lens of their own biases - and if the science is good more often than not the conclusions are validated despite biases inherent in the human condition.
This is precisely why “creation science” is just like “global warming science” neither publish their full methods means and data, nor do they disclose other relevant facts - like pre-determined conclusions.
Your anti-science bias is clearly visible, thank you for making it so apparent so we may judge your comments accordingly.
BUT, that is not the same as taking raw data and secretly changing it to meet an end (destroying the original data that was painstakingly collected) and then distributing that knowingly false manipulated data to others who think they are getting original data. Who then do research based on the falsified data that reinforces a falsehood and perpetuates a lie.
Manipulating data in that way is akin to scientific heresy, and those responsible should be thrown out of the scientific community, lose their teaching and research positions, have all of their grants retracted, and be shunned for life from the scientific community.
That’s because you have integrity. It speaks well of you.
Unfortunately that is not a universal practice.
Studies examine withholding of scientific data among researchers, trainees
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1565120/posts
It May Look Authentic; Here’s How to Tell It Isn’t
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1563746/posts
Most scientific papers are probably wrong
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1473528/posts
Most Science Studies Appear to Be Tainted By Sloppy Analysis
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1896333/posts
Why Most Published Research Findings Are False
http://medicine.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124&ct=1
One in seven scientists say colleagues fake data
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2264439/posts
You Can Trust a Scientist – Can’t You?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2262237/posts
I worked for an environmental consulting firm. Several people had “environmental scientist” on their business cards. I always got a laugh out of that. They collected samples for laboratory analysis, and mapped plumes of groundwater contamination, but conducted no real research. They had bachelor degrees, and one of them had no degree.
What profit hath a man of all his labour which he take under the sun?
One generation passeth away, and another generation cometh: but the earth abideth for ever.
The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose.
The wind goeth toward the south, and turneth about unto the north; it whirleth about continually, and the wind returneth again according to his circuits.
All the rivers run into the sea; yet the sea is not full; unto the place from whence the rivers come, thither they return again.
All things are full of labour; man cannot utter it: the eye is not satisfied with seeing, nor the ear filled with hearing.
The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun.
Is there any thing whereof it may be said, 'See, this is new?' it has been already of *old* time, which was before us.
There is no remembrance of former things; neither shall there be any remembrance of things that are to come with those that shall come after.
Ecclesiastes 1:2-11
I’d consider the national security stuff more technology related.
There is, however, the meteorology related stuff. :)
The NWS was started during the war to provide information for the military and has expanded due to the impact weather has on the citizenry.
Very useful information, that weather stuff. Even then, the research on storm development could be contracted out.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.