Is Science Really Self-Correcting?

Discussion in 'General Science & Technology' started by sculptor, Apr 12, 2016.

  1. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,527
    original sin?
    most likely "science" ain't an entity?
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. rpenner Fully Wired Staff Member

    Messages:
    4,833
    Then you found lies. It wasn't Nature, it was Science and Nature and Physical Review Letters. It wasn't a brush off, it was a serious investigation.
    [Citation required]
    According to a 2002 Salon article, the concerns originated at Bell Labs and the seriousness of the investigation proceeded much faster than typical publishing rates:
    http://www.salon.com/2002/09/16/physics

    The result of the Bell Labs investigation and Schön’s firing happened on September 25, 2002. Nature reported it the next day. All papers have been retracted at the request of all co-authors except Schön.

    [Citation required.] Most of the evidence for older human habitation in the Americas than the Clovis culture appears to have appeared in the 21st century. So your claim that you bested this professor "long ago" does not show that 1) you made a credible claim backed by credible research, and 2) said research was available "long ago." Am I just old? I thought "long ago" still means prior to 2001-09-11.

    [Citation required.] How do you know that stuff is fabricated? Why have you not demonstrated these claims to the appropriate ethics panels? Even granting for the sake of argument that you can divine scientific misconduct by looking at it, how are we supposed to judge your claims of being able to attribute it to specific motivation?

    [Citation required.] This appears to be a very specific claim in a specific field, while the forum is one of General science.
    That fault largely lies with sculptor. It was his burden to make articulate, well-supported points for the enlightenment of his potential audience. Also, what was the point of reporting a post without a cogent argument for why the post merited any moderator action? Just because you view the post through rose-tinted glasses doesn't make your love's beauty as blindingly obvious to the rest of us as your report would have us believe.
    Except the period from the concerns being raised to the firing was April-September, so more like 6 months for consequences or two years if you count from the beginning of the flood, as Russ_Waters does. Other consequences, like his Ph.D. being revoked, happened later. The Salon article I quoted above came out even before the Bell Labs review was completed.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. dumbest man on earth Real Eyes Realize Real Lies Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,856
    Quite an assumption, considering that I reported nothing about any " love's beauty "...
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,107
    Post # 48, 49. And I do have to make a correction. Your compliment was for *exchemist*, but Russ voiced his agreement.

    @ exchemist, please accept my apology. I also enjoy your posts and learn from your knowledge and insights.
     
  8. river

    Messages:
    9,793
    Science cannot be self correcting ; since there is to much politics ; for funds ; which guided by a bunch of old foggies thinking ; egos and fear of old theories being outdated and wrong.

    Science ; is no longer science ; it has become ; plain.
     
  9. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,107
    And that has prevented us from extraordinary discoveries and new methods of observing our natural environment? IMO, science is progressing at an exponential rate.
     
  10. river

    Messages:
    9,793
    Arrogance
     
    Last edited: Apr 14, 2016
  11. dumbest man on earth Real Eyes Realize Real Lies Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,856
    So...did you read the first page of the Thread?
     
  12. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,624
    Thanks, yes indeed, I had misread the article insofar as the timeline was concerned - in fact the unmasking and corrective action took place with commendable speed, it seems to me. Hence my lack of respect for the journalist, who I think was reporting in bad faith, to suit a preconceived agenda.
     
  13. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,624
    Well thanks for this, Write4U. As you know, I disagree with you about Tegmark/Shapiro, but otherwise I enjoy your contributions too.

    And isn't it something to get a compliment from DMOE?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  14. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,107
    Yes I did, twice now. It did not tell me anything new about human behavior.
     
  15. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,107
    deleted for duplication.
     
  16. dumbest man on earth Real Eyes Realize Real Lies Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,856
    Oh, even more most perfect puerile near almost kneel before as to paddo(err UNIVERSAL PERFECT)boy and more HAPPY HAPPY childish "EMOTICON"...so perfected of respectful to 20/20 hindsight of conspiracy of preconceived to denigrate all most perfect of science(KNEEL KNEEL)...
    May I please oh near almost as perfect one wear ROSE COLORED GLASSES to see awesomeness of reporting conspiracy against near perfect of see all most not me perfect COMPLIMENT...
    Genuflect before you and bow to your perfection oh great and almost near perfect exchemist

    No ...CLICK... please oh super member of almostest perfectest except the one mostest perfectest, even more
     
  17. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,107
    • Can you give me an example where I acted arrogantly or do you just see my ghost (MNN image) as arrogant?
     
    Last edited: Apr 14, 2016
  18. river

    Messages:
    9,793
    Post # 67
     
  19. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,107
    Post 67 is your post. Do you consider calling someone arrogant an arrogant statement?
     
  20. river

    Messages:
    9,793
    Sophist ; thinking
     
  21. river

    Messages:
    9,793

    Expotential rate....hmmmm....
     
  22. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,107
    The term I used was *exponential*. If you are not familiar with that term, you may want to have a look at this lecture by Professor Emeritus Dr Albert Bartlett: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4JRVijo65W0

    If science has a growth of 1% per year, in 70 years we will have more than doubled our entire knowledge of scientific subjects.
     
  23. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,527
    Some times, parts of the discipline are very scientific.
    However archaeology is an ever changing "science". One never knows what the next find, the next shovel, will turn up.
    But very much not like physics and chemistry-------We have very little evidence of the distant past. Imagine trying to speculate the periodic table with only 25 known elements, then finding another one or two every decade or so.

    He published under that title, and, I think, coined the phrase in 1923.

    Yes, makes sense, I would hazard the guess that that is why it remained a strong paradigm for 9 decades.
    However, one does not nee agriculture to have very large gatherings. eg: the Tsetsehese-staestse would gather together in winter camps numbering 4000(or more?)of the people.

    If memory serves, Klaus dated the site by comparing tools found there to other tools found nearby in sites that had been radiocarbon dated.
    Tricky that.

    That is a constant bias within the science. Many tend to see our forebears as not just primitive, but stupid. We doubt their art, architecture, and inventive natures. I suspect that when this bias prevails, we blind ourselves to the "truth".

    Lots more digging to do there, but Klaus is dead.

    As I posted above: option B).

    Much is a guess, and some guesses are better than others.

    (a little prayer)
    May the funders keep funding, and the diggers keep digging and publishing.
     

Share This Page