Thanks for the reply. I am much more skeptical than you when it comes to this stuff. I just "know" there's politics behind the "findings" after all, there is behind most everything. Data that doesn't point towards the target result is open to be revised, rejected, fudged or ignored. This most certainly went on with the EPA study of 2nd hand smoke. I'm sure Global Warming is another. Innate homosexuality another. It's a long list. How about Attention Deficit Disorder Syndrome? Do you buy into that one? Dan Rather and his minions are not limited to the newsroom you know. Academia has its share of liars, grandstanders, and phonies.
So I gathered.
Data that doesn't point towards the target result is open to be revised, rejected, fudged or ignored
That's always a possibility, and it has occasionally happened in science.
But once you're caught, you're out. No more fun in the labs, no more grants, looking forward to work you aren't trained for...
That's a pretty stiff penalty, and there really don't appear to be that many willing to risk it. (It will be interesting to follow the career of the Korean cloner).
Keep in mind, I'm talking faked results, not honest error.
It's much more forgiving in a lot of other fields: preaching, lawyering, being Marion Barry (I'm in DC), anyplace really where you can get by on BS sometimes.
This most certainly went on with the EPA study of 2nd hand smoke. I'm sure Global Warming is another
EPA scientists don't typically have the penalty facing them like real scientists do. They have lifetime employment, like any other civil servant, and they don't have to publish or perish.
There is evidence of global warming, both here and on Mars. This seems to make the cause the Sun rather than fossil fuels. The computerized models aren't impressive to me.
Innate homosexuality another. It's a long list. How about Attention Deficit Disorder Syndrome?
I wouldn't be a bit surprised if some combination of recessive genes was associated with a higher percentage of homosexuality; but I agree that the "gay gene" is a bunch of hooey. ADD is over-diagnosed by public school teachers, but it does exist.
Academia has its share of liars, grandstanders, and phonies.
True everywhere. But my gut feel is that scientists, as a whole, value honesty more than most people do. It makes their work much easier to trust their colleagues, and they get mad wasting time trying to reproduce fraudulent results.
I think that's part of the reason the Evo side gets so enraged by the constant stream of lies, (including quote mining) from the creos.
Evidently that sort of behavior is common and accepted in the circles that a lot of creationists/IDers inhabit.