Posted on 06/08/2005 1:55:46 PM PDT by mlc9852
NEW YORK - It's not the stuff of headlines, like fraud. But more mundane misbehavior by scientists is common enough that it may pose an even greater threat to the integrity of science, a new report asserts.
One-third of scientists surveyed said that within the previous three years, they'd engaged in at least one practice that would probably get them into trouble, the report said. Examples included circumventing minor aspects of rules for doing research on people and overlooking a colleague's use of flawed data or questionable interpretation of data.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
bttt again.
Liberals pervert everything they touch.
Science is the most recent casualty.
Is this evolutionary? Like stick bugs?
Smilling BOB, I think the only thing those pills did for him is inlarge his mouth.
Clumps of small numbers of molecules or atoms often have radically different chemical and physical properties than the mega-numbers assumed in the CRC for solids, liquids and gases.
For example tire traction. It should not be possible for a car to have a lateral acceleration greater than 1 gee. Or for a drag racer to have an acceleration greater than one gee. But they do it. Friction is apparently not so simple as it is in mechanics class.
A brief recap: Pepper moths were evidence of natural selection. Then some college professor had the kids to do the same research, as a hands on type thing. They found that pepper moth don't rest on tree trunks. So they went back to the original photo's, (they were in the UK.) It turns out they were glued down for the photo's.
It's actually allot more involved than my summary, but it is now a well known hoax.
Your summary is indeed a simplfied version of Creationisy dishonesty.
Then some college professor had the kids to do the same research, as a hands on type thing.
Creationst Urban myth appealing to "ordinary people can prove pointy head evolutionists wrong" yokel school
They found that pepper moth don't rest on tree trunks
When baking a lie, Creationists add a levnening of truth to make the lie rise.
Science is more complicated than the Creationist misrepresentation
First, Wells argues that the story is seriously flawed because "peppered moths in the wild don't even rest on tree trunks" (Wells, 2000:138). He repeats this point throughout the chapter. However, it is both false and irrelevant, and only serves as a distraction to lead the reader away from the actual story of the moths. Contrary to Wells's assertions, data given by Majerus (1998:123) indicate that the moths do indeed rest on the trunks of trees 25% of the time. The rest of the time moths rest in branches (25%) or at branch-trunk junctions (50%). The facts have been pointed out repeatedly to Wells; his response has been mostly to claim that moths don't rest on "exposed" tree trunks (Wells, 2002 web posting). But this is not what he said in the text of Icons, which remains flatly wrong. Moths are found all over trees, which is not a surprise (Clarke et al., 1994) and it is mentioned in the references that Wells cites. To clear up any confusion, no researcher doubts that the peppered moth rests in trees (Clarke et al. 1994; Majerus 1998), which means that the resting substrate is bark. Entire trees are stained by pollution -- the leaves, twigs, branches, trunks, and the surrounding ground (Kettlewell, 1973) -- and so the colors of the moths are relevant no matter where on the tree they rest -- trunks, trunk-branch junctions, branches, twigs, and even the leaves. Wells's argument implies that predatory birds can only see moths that are on exposed trunks. By making this argument, however, Wells shows an apparent ignorance of the ecology of birds and woodland ecosystems. If you walk into any forest, you can see that the birds fly from tree to tree, branch to branch, and hunt at all levels of the forest. Woodland species of birds that prey on moths and other insects live and hunt in the canopy (the leafy part of the trees). These birds are not hunting from outside, soaring above the trees like hawks, as Wells's argument would require. In the scientific literature, there is extensive discussion of the hunting behavior of birds, including those that hunt peppered moths. Ornithologists have shown the woodland ecosystem to be vertically stratified by competition between different bird species. This zonation means that there are skilled predators patrolling all levels of the forest: the trunks, trunk-branch joints, branches, and higher canopy (Colquhoun and Morley 1943; Hartley 1953). Further, birds learn to distinguish their prey against various backgrounds and preferentially hunt prey in locations where they have found it in the past and that birds selectively prey on the more visible moths (Pietrewitz and Kamil 1977, 1981). In other words, birds hunt the prey they can see and hunt it where it is, not where it isn't. Therefore, no matter where the moth rests in the tree, it is visible to predatory birds, and thus its differential camouflage is important. The purpose of Wells's distraction is to put the actual experiments into question and make it sound as if the textbook authors are either mistaken, or intentionally trying to fool students. The insinuation is that because Kettlewell released the moths during the day, they did not find "normal" resting places. Whether or not this is so, the release and capture experiments took place over a number of days, so the moths were able to take up positions of their choosing, even if the first day was not perfectly "natural" (Kettlewell, 1955, 1956, 1973). Kettlewell's experiments were not perfect -- few field experiments are -- and they may have magnified the degree of selection, but all serious researchers in the field agree that they were certainly not so flawed as to invalidate his conclusion.
The story of the peppered moth
I'll note you changed your tagline.
Do you enjoy playing the ass? I would prefer to talk to you in a less hostile manner, as would most of us.
That "Lord of Lies" you speak of happens to also be the revelation of 5000+ years of human philosophy. And yes, science IS a philosophy. A mighty young one at that (so young, it hasn't even dared to approach the question "Why" yet)
You're spoiling the party with facts.
Yeah, but they're right.
So you say....but it is inconsistent of so-called amoral science to claim others are moral or honest or immoral or dishonest when science itself can not speak to or against moral absolutes...it can only deal with data and its "posited" meaning!
Similarly, scientists cheat when they attempt to use the morality of Creationists against Creationists. Honesty is a moral trait that science can not speak to. It is gibberish to hear so called secular minded scientists to speak of the morality of those Creationists they posit as dishonest in their intent since science can not speak as to the tautologous absolutes that undergird much of Judeo-Christian morality. It might be argued that religion knows nothing about morality,then the converse is also true!
In the end, Science is going to have to prove creationists wrong by reason and logic(and by inventing a time machine that can go back and actually observe what happened in the "beginning"), not by nit-picky put down comments about Creationists using "God" to "fudge" the data. For as the posted article implies, many secular minded scientists aren't above "fudging" their own data to make their "hypotheses" workable, many of whom I'm sure who have scoffed at the "Creationists"!
The ultimate horror to science is that some of these hypotheses may actually lead to real life workable solutions and products despite some of the data being "made up" or "guessed at"... in that case science has something completely different to grapple with...the notion of hunches or "inspirations" that lie completely beyond the scientific method!
"It might be argued that religion knows nothing about morality,then the converse is also true!"
That line should read "It might be argued that Morality knows nothing of science, then the converse can also be argued as true that science knows nothing of morality"
My apologies!
Math itself is amoral having no say in the moral tusslings of men... Math is the cousin of Reason. Two sides to an arguement may use Math to bolster their cause, but what can Math do when one side shouts..."ahh you dishonest curr, you have used the math wrongly, you have omitted certain facts to which the other replies "Nay but those facts are not germaine to this arguement"
Math looks over towards her cousin Reason and both shrug their shoulders...neither arguers have been honest regarding their core beliefs that they have appied A priori when Math was appealed too as well to settle the dispute!
And Reason chuckles to her cousin, "they have not "done the math"...they have "DONE IT TO THE MATH"!
Indeed, sighs Math, "I've a very sore bum indeed!"
That's too bad because while I have problems with evolution per se...I am not generally anti-science. The scientific method when applied to the personal self can be breath taking efficient in helping one cut thru ones own personal garbage...though I think of the scientific method applied in this regard as more like the socratic method of self inquiry. Logic and experience made lead one to a climactic personal decision...but they still only go so far...a mature personal morality is one that finds its clarity in the truth and its humility in the wisdom of finally understanding that one knows that one knows nothing of what he really ought! There is still that leap to be made!
You follow the caterpillar and you always come to the crysalis!
There's another irony meter smoldering and smoking! The typical creationist argument is a strawman of evolution. Depending upon how you interpret the situation, it either 1) betrays complete ignorance of the actual theory of evolution on the part of the person making the argument or 2) hopes the target of the argument is completely ignorant.
Selective quoting. Now where have we seen that before?
-Jonathan Wells, Ph.D. Department of Molecular & Cell Biology University of California, Berkeley, California, USA
I may have got the story a little screwed up, but the gist of it is that the old peppered moth story is not very accurate either. And the facts don't prove what they said they did.
I love this statement. I love it because of what the subsequent conversation tends to reveal. Poster after poster has made exactly such a statement on these threads, only to eventually reveal that there would be nothing left of science as we know it today if all the parts rejected by said poster were discredited.
The typical FR creationist who happily says he only rejects evolution in fact rejects geology (supports Old Earth and contains the fossil record), paleontology (full of people saying transitional forms exist when the talking points clearly say they don't), astronomy (supports an Old Universe), the Big Bang (Old Universe Cosmology) and nuclear chemistry (supports an Old Earth via radiometric dating). It turns out all of those things are covered by the term "evolution" in Creo-Speak. That's why you can find a web page with a title like "50 Questions for Evolutionists" and read ten questions before there's anything remotely connected to biology. (Example: "Where did all the matter in the universe come from?")
Take those subjects out of science and you're back to Phlogiston Theory.
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.