Posted on 06/08/2005 1:55:46 PM PDT by mlc9852
Your post would make sense if an earnest devotion to truth and honesty were the only thing that drives scientists. It's not.
There's also something called "funding," which Must Be Assured Above All Else. To go for the kill on, say, Global Warming, would risk the funding of everybody else. Best to be quiet, when one's own livelihood is at stake.
There's also that other little item, called "politics," which we saw most clearly during the "Star Wars can't possibly work, and it will cost trillions" festival of the mid-80s.
We cannot pretend that scientists are not also driven by those sorts of things.
" How would such research be conducted?"
The same way Darwin and others like him did. Formulate a conclusion and then converge the evidence toward it.
Sure, they are still trying to ignore Goedel out of existence. The Blue Brain project continues anyway.
That a bit of a stretch, RW. When a scientist characterizes nascent (embryonic aged) life with words like 'pre-embryo' or 'merely a blob of undifferentiated cells', knowing the assertions are false and meaning to deceive, it doesn't take a math Wiz to call it lying.
Being somewhat critical here might help see what is going on. Dedicated to finding The Truth is not the same as being truthful and honest.
I have known top rate scientists who had the most outrageously trogish opinions on matters even slightly outside their specialization. So have you.
Interesting, but a sure way to end one's career and one's place in history of science, except in the unlikely event that the guess is correct.
You're ignoring that sociologists, anthropologists, and psychologists call themselves scientists.
My training being in physics, I do view social sciences and behavioral sciences as somewhat lacking in the concrete.
Exactly.. the estimates of hanky panky with facts must be much WORSE..
Yes, one of my favs, Stephen Hawking, is just such a person ... leftist to the core.
Not to burst your bubble, but I know a Chem professor or two who would view "physics" as less than concrete as well.
Given the apparent arbitrary characteristics that certain molecules (and even numbers of molecules) display, they give solid reasoning to state that any focus in science is as good as any school of philosophy. (And science BEING a philosophy is even easier to understand)
From the article:
This group is not known for it's command of mathematics.
Would plastic surgeons taking money for trying to make Michael Jackson white fall into this sort of category?
But, some philosophers might regard science as unfortunate and ultimately futile, something some of the more reflective and mature scientists might do as well.
Biology is still taxonomy to a great degree. But, biophysics and biochem use some math, so are tending to be in the arena of modern science, which is able to use modelling computers for insight or at least entertainment.
Considering the incidence of Creationists committing misconduct is 100%, I'll stick with the scientists.
You are right on the money there!
I think every generation would have had a mind-warp if they were able to do things like jump ahead 300 years and soak in the changes in thought, let alone advances in technology. The thoughts and logic are what I want to see.
Misconduct with Creationists is one who doesn't read the Bible properly. Grounds for asking him to study more.
Misconduct with a "scientist" is grounds for dismissing his entire methodology.
And BTW: Creationists aren't commiting "misconduct" if they aren't trying to be scientific. Just truthful.
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.