Posted on 06/01/2009 9:56:17 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
You Can Trust a Scientist – Can’t You?
May 31, 2009 — After the flap over the “missing link” Ida last week (05/19/2009), paleontologist Christopher Beard warned about how such stunts damage scientific credibility. “The only thing we have going for us that Hollywood and politicians don’t is objectivity,” he told Science magazine.[1] Can the public trust the objectivity of scientists as a class? Do they get more credibility points than other groups of professionals? Do the processes of scientific publication warrant a higher level of trust?
A study reported on Science Daily may shake that trust...
(Excerpt) Read more at creationsafaris.com ...
Wow.......built up a big fat strawman to kick around? I never said there wasn’t good or valid science published ON Plosonline.....just that it is not a real journal.....it will get all kinds of decent science that is unworthy of real journal publication.
Happens all the time.
....and not all journals are equal.
Kick it around.....
What a joke. It would be meaningless without a rigorously controlled experiment and you know it.
Maybe YOU can point out the Bible passage in which God tells Noah to allow to drown in the Great Flood, EVERY dinosaur “kind” in existence at the time. I know I only read it through once and skimmed it a few more times.....but somehow I missed that part.
If it's not there, you can't miss it. Why would you ASSUME something like that?
Oh yeah, since evos don't take it as literal, they think that they can add anything they want to Scripture.
Is building strawmen and knocking them down the only way evos think they can win an argument?
And why can't evos courtesy ping someone when talking about then just as they demand others do for them?
No, your argument was that PLoSOne isn't peer-reviewed.
Which isn't true.
Further, your argument was that something published in PLoSOne wasn't real science.
Which, again, isn't true.
Sorry, but there's no straw man here. You simply got caught making an idiotic argument, and are now trying to spin your way out of it.
I have an idea - how about you back up your assertion that PloSOne isn't a "real" journal with some argumentation that extends beyond the childish? For instance, you could start by explaining - with supporting evidence, why you think it is that publishing in PLoSOne is necessarily less demanding than publishing in another journal that's on dead tree. Further, you could explain why it is - beyond personal prejudice - that you think that the science that's published in PLoSOne is "unworthy" of "real" journal publication.
LOL, ES is also trying to argue that PLoSOne - where the Fanelli article was originally published - isn't a "real" journal. Since, after all, it published something he disagrees with.
Careful, you may be putting your foot where your mouth is.
For your statement to be true there could not be anyone who is HIV positive that does not go on to AIDS. Is that the case 100% of the time or are there some HIV ‘carriers’ that never develop AIDS?
You and others that try to lay claim to some “objectivity” are doing very well at demonstrating quite the opposite:
“but I’m sure I’m not as uber-science-wicked-smaht as you are, only having been in it in a professional track for a mere 12 years now.”
Evidently argumentation and logic are not stations on that professional track or you wouldn't ask:
“Maybe YOU can point out the Bible passage in which God tells Noah to allow to drown in the Great Flood, EVERY dinosaur “kind” in existence at the time”
God didn't tell Noah to let any “kind” drown. What sort of dinosaur “kind” were there at the time? Which of their “kind” would e considered representative by God?
Alligators, crocodiles? Who knows which member of a “kind” was preserved?
You miss a lot of things by ‘skimming’, you see.
The other issue, is that if someone who is HIV negative, develops the kind of opportunistic infections that HIV patients get, they are not considered to have AIDS because they are not HIV positive.
Nice little Catch 22, isn't it?
Yes it is. But therein is one of the problems, trying to define what is AIDS. I know there are official descriptions and the subject is best on its own thread but the silliness of the statement I quoted was just a bit much to let pass.
AIDS long ago ceased being a problem to dealt with and became a football to score points with in that game of Catch 22.
“You ran out of patience the SECOND you pinned yourself to the notion that the dinosaurs all died during the Great Flood....” [excerpt, bold emphasis mine]Got a link to back up that accusation?
Interesting, is it not, how the evos have again changed the topic of the thread to take the focus off their exposed deficiencies, shall we say.
So, in keeping with the original topic of the thread, here again are some links to other threads and articles which address this allegedly inaccurate report of fraud in science....
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
No, it isn’t. Autoimmune disorders have many sources beyond retro viruses. None of them are pretty.
You are one wierd cat. I didn’t pin myself to anything. I merely answered YOUR question...namely, there is no verse that I know of in the Bible where God tells Noah not to bring dinos on board. So again, what’s your point?
That’s not the point.
When someone has an autoimmune disorder that is the same kind as someone who is HIV positive, that person is not considered to have AIDS.
The diagnosis of AIDS is if someone is HIV positive AND had some of the certain auto-immune disorders considered part of AIDS.
HIV alone or auto-immune disorders alone, don’t get the label of AIDS even when the auto-immune disorders are exactly the same.
If the auto-immune disorders can occur in someone who is not HIV positive, then you can’t blame them on the HIV.
Back to our regularly scheduled topic of scientists lack of credibility....
http://www.labtestsonline.org/understanding/conditions/autoimmune.html
“Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS) is a disease and not a syndrome. A syndrome is commonly used to refer to collections of symptoms that do not have an easily identifiable cause. This name was more appropriate 13 years ago, when doctors were only aware of the late stages of the disease and did not fully understand its mechanisms. A more current name for the condition, regardless of an AIDS diagnosis, is HIV Disease. This name is more accurate because it refers to the pathogen that causes AIDS and encompasses all the condition’s stages, from infection to the deterioration of the immune system and the onset of opportunistic diseases. However, AIDS is still the name that most people use to refer to the immune deficiency caused by HIV.”
“Autoimmune disorders are diseases caused by the body producing an inappropriate immune response against its own tissues. Sometimes the immune system will cease to recognize one or more of the body’s normal constituents as “self” and will create autoantibodies – antibodies that attack its own cells, tissues, and/or organs. This causes inflammation and damage and it leads to autoimmune disorders.
The cause of autoimmune diseases is unknown, but it appears that there is an inherited predisposition to develop autoimmune disease in many cases. In a few types of autoimmune disease (such as rheumatic fever), a bacteria or virus triggers an immune response, and the antibodies or T-cells attack normal cells because they have some part of their structure that resembles a part of the structure of the infecting microorganism.
Autoimmune disorders fall into two general types: those that damage many organs (systemic autoimmune diseases) and those where only a single organ or tissue is directly damaged by the autoimmune process (localized). However, the distinctions become blurred as the effect of localized autoimmune disorders frequently extends beyond the targeted tissues, indirectly affecting other body organs and systems. “
Sorry, but it was your sidebar about AIDS and HIV that brought me in. There hasn’t been a post about scientific integrity in the last 50.
It's just the extrapolation of that into speiciation that creationists don't accept.
DId I say I disagreed with Danny’s research?
No?
Kick it....kick it....
Why would you ASSUME something like that?
..........because this is what happens when you jump into stuff between TWO OTHER PEOPLE without knowing WTH they're talking about. GGG believes that all the dinosaurs were killed during the Great Flood. SOOOOOO.....I'd LOVE to know what passage in the Bible either says that God told Noah to collect 7 pairs of clean animal "kinds", one pair of unclean animal "kinds"....but not ONE dinosaur "kind".......or the part where Noah directly disobeyed the orders from God telling him to collect dinosaur "kinds" but he had other better things to do so he didn't do it. GGG believes all the dinosaurs were alive when Man was alive....that they all died in the flood....so it MUST be somewhere in the Bible.
Going on and on about non-existant strawmen built due to your ignorance of what GGG believes and your jumping into something that did not concern you.....well....continue.....
Making it up as you go, eh?
You USED TO BE better than that.
My entire argument...verbatim....
Why can’t Dr. Daniele Fanelli get his research published in a REAL journal?
Who said anything about peer-reviewed vs not? YOU DID.
Continue the manufacturing process....
Got link??
First, you have to know WTH is being talked about.....and that is GGG’s belief that the dinosaurs were alive when the Great Flood happened......all some time in the last 6000 years.
SO, knowing that.....you’d know that GGG believes that all the dinosaurs died during the Great Flood.
Who needs a link for THAT?
About the dinosaurs......the belief of GGG is that they were ALL alive when the Great Flood killed them all.
THAT means that either......God told Noah to not collect dinosaurs for the Ark.....OR....that God did tell him to collect dinosaurs, and Noah ignored the will of God.
Helps if you know what's being discussed and what GGGs beliefs are.
“First, you have to know WTH is being talked about.....and that is GGG’s belief that the dinosaurs were alive when the Great Flood happened......all some time in the last 6000 years.” [excerpt]Yes, I'm aware.
“SO, knowing that.....you’d know that GGG believes that all the dinosaurs died during the Great Flood.” [excerpt]Do you have a link where he said exactly that?
“Who needs a link for THAT?” [excerpt]I do.
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.