Science is not a perfect institution

I guess I did limit my answer to what you asked/ commented. You did not just expect me to say "I believe heterosexuality is imposed on people".

Or are you just looking for 'yes' and 'no' as an answer.

I'm not discussing homosexuality! Where have I discussed homosexuality?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Here we go again!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Aww, don't be so touchy. 'Western' is not a racist reply. There are all kinds of races in the west. It is a cultural term. And if my country were to go and invade your homes forcibly and seek to change your ways with our technological or economic power, you wouldn't be darn happy about the 'east' too!

On the contrary I oppose 'homosexuality' and 'heterosexuality'.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

It's about sharing the truth that I have found. Including the hordes of lies spread by the modern (do you like the term better than western)/ heterosexual society.

We all seek the truth, especially when we discuss here, don't we?

Or we are content with living the lie?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

define western
yes you did when you ask me what homosexual meant

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

you might be living a lie.

remember this phrase buddha "in truth there is no truth"

 

What you have to recognise is that my post was obliquely directed at Bhudda1. I hoped to give him pause; to recognise that he may have facts, but that he is untrained in their use. What was superficially an appeal for calm was in truth designed to sitr up, and to guide, Bhudda1, a little. I also wanted to see what sort of reaction, if any it induced in Spurious.
If you aren't reading the lines between the lines in my posts, you are missing the best bits.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

You are quoting the news report. Not the scientific article on which the news report is based. I know how it works. I once had the nature news lady on the other line of the phone. They are not interested in boring science. They want to hear something spectacular.

Pretending a news report is science is a farce.

 

Science is a craft allowing folks, who's made "it" in science and their corporate masters, to make good $. Frequently (if not always), $ are made using dubious means to achieve dubious goals (from ethic stand point). It's all about money. Surprisingly, quite a few scientists are puting themselves on higher moral grounds (relative to society). Even though not a shred of evidence supports their bloated "holier than though" ego.

 

So, all you are saying Dixon, is that scientists are humans, prone to all the usual human failings. In short, your criticism is a valid one against some scientists, but has bugger all to do with science. If I may anticipate claims that I am adopting the "bloated holier-than-thou" attitude you described: yes, I am, but it stems from my natural superiority not to my scientific training.
If you want to have a serious discussion, rather than spout drivel, perhaps you would care to cite reliable sources for any of your claims.

 

Most scientists I know dont earn very much; less at the moment than you can get for teaching, or selling, or being a middle level manager. Yet they keep on doing it. I wonder why?

What are these higher moral grounds you prate on about?

 

I would say scientists are more like some religious zealots than an average human. Yes, believers do realize they have failings. However, in their mind, the act of belief cleanse them of all "sins", eventually

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

. Same with an average scientist. He may do worthless research all his life (and even sense that), he may be less than honest in his grant applications and papers, he may drive a lab like a Chinese sweatshop full of dispensable, no life/little future grad students and postdocs, he may do all kind of nasty, backstabbing sand box internal politics, etc., etc., etc. He may even feel bad about all that. However, the sheer act of doing those things while being employed as a "scientists" cleanse him of all sins. Cause, as we all know

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

, there is no futile/bad research and "one person's garbage is another's person's treasure". I would strongly argue against those premises, which are less and less true considering modern result publishing practices. However, most scientists would disagree with me on that.

How come, care elaborate? However, one of the goal of science in the modern corporate world is to be a tool of social legimization. A tool expressing the same thought in various ways: " the system (scientifical establishment in particular) is fundamentally the best we can get in the imperfect world, it's all about individual and "personal responsibility", etc., all abberations are not because of the system but because of an individual. Again, science and religion serve to corporate masters together by redirecting anger from the system (and its owners) to an individual.

Whatever makes you happy

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

. If it's holier than though stance, so be it.

Scientists without sources is like a hooker without lipstick. Personally, I am more interested to hear personal thoughts and drivel without references. I'll sort them out somehow. After all, we are old enough to fill our memory "matrix" with lots of stuff by now. And yes, we are still humans with our experiences, knowledge, thoughts, which could be interesting by itself. We are not "expert systems" yet.

 

scientists are a community. where one scientist makes a claim and the rest beat it until it dies or survives.

if you knew the scientific process you would not make a claim like the above.

about scientists fakeing their data, all scientists realize that. that is why they beat on each others claims. you will hear time after time on this board "show us the evidence". how in the hell can a fraud escape that?

 

I clearly stated in my post, scientists who've made "it". There are those. For one who's made "it", there are dozens who didn't. Made "it" does not necessarily mean to become the second Bill G. It means having an income at least 3-4 times of an average, it's as I see it .

One of the reasons: by getting a Ph.D. in sciences one dramatically limits his employment opportunities. Who would think? For some reasons, real world does not like to hire "scientists" for any position except lab rats and lab rat support personal. For example, in most of states a Ph.D. cannot teach in high schools without going back to school for 1-2 years more! A "fresh" assistant professor of engineering will never be hired as an engineer (if he had no previous engineering experience), gee, he can't even get an entry level engineering slot (without heavy insider help, I guess). So, if scientists (with a job, of course) would wish to quit, it's not easy. He's essentially unemployable outside of his narrow field.

Another reason: modern science training and selection system is designed NOT to select the most imaginative, well rounded individuals, with broad interests. It's designed to select narrow minded zombies, capable of concentrated digging in the narrow fields, capable and content with having no life, etc. Obviously, these folk will never quit voluntarily, even if their research isn't really saving humanity

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Another reason: lots and lots of scientists, grad students, postdocs are foreign born for whom quitting is not an option - Green card application is pending

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Every, well almost every, scientist has its own high moral ground. Few examples, I've met. Bleeding heart liberal, flaming on corporations, Wal-Mart, etc. treats his postdocs as dispensable garbage. Another bleeding heart liberal, doing absolute ridiculous minimum of work and getting his 100k/year for doing essentially nothing (having wife as a department head helps), bleeds heart for poor and homeless he indirectly stole money from. A Christian conservative scientists developed mental disorder (at least, it looked liked one) as a way to avoid sad truth - he's lied on grant application, made undeliverable promises to get a cool mil. Last time, I've seen him his was standing on the high ground of being nearly a genius whose slaves botched his grand vision. It's much more pleasant to be a genius than crook

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

"Show me evidences" may work on this board. However, you rarely if ever will meet this attitude in the real science world. Because, it's darn dangerous (for an everage scientist's) career. Very few ones can afford that attitude. After all, you never know who's reviewer on your/boss's paper/grant application etc. More than that, going out of science mainstreem is dangerous for career per se, even without face to face critique. It's an indirrect insult to the pillars

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Let's face it, science is alike a flock of competitive, backstabbing, office politics wise sheep running for a carrot of funding. A flock which is guided by $ funding agencies clerks and hype. Science is more and more about making a living than about comprehending the world. It's understandable, because science became a mass bread winning profession (for some it's dry bread, for some it's bread and butter). What is not understandable is scientists' denial.

 

Well, you have a smidgen of a point about well rounded and narrow training, but even as we speak, there are scientists crossing boundaries, mixing everything from biology to mathematics, to engineering, all doing imaginative interesting research. For every boring fool in a paper mill, turning out academic papers that tell you nothing interesting, theres another doing exciting research into how some cells signal each other, or the interaction of quantum dots and different light wavelengths.

Hey look! Scientists being human! Well fancy that!

So what exactly have these scientists moral confusion got to do with their science? Nothing. Its humans all the way down Dixon. If your after gods, you wont find them in scientists.
So, tell me again, what is this high moral ground to do with science?

 

Sure sure, and your fancy new computer, anti-cancer treatments, car that does more than 40mpg, aluminium magnesium airplane alloys, energy efficient light bulbs, speakers, detailed ecological information, data on climate change, better sticking plaster, etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc,
all just magically appeared, or were made up by some precocious 15 year old kid in his dads shed.

Right.

 

what exactly is science denying? are you a scientist? if you have a point to make then make it so we can beat on it.do you you have a startling new discovery that isn't being accepted? if so what is it?

 

Anyway, to add a little more, science has been a bread winning profession since ohhhh, the mid 19th century at least. In fact, in the uK just know, if you want to earn a decent amount of bread, your probably best not doing science at all. Yet we still have some pretty good universities and research labs. Not as good as I;d like though.

 

dixon
scientists are not philosophers, some of the most heated arguements result from the interaction of the two.

 

WEll, thats an interesting little thread all by itself. As far as I understand it so far, the whole philosophy of science question is not totally settled. I prefer to view philosophy as sciences uncle or great aunt or something; someone older and more experienced but not directly linked. Or something like that.

Hey, 3,000 posts!

 

OK, to summarize. Science is human. 90% of what humans do is garbage. 10% of what is not garbage probably could not have been done without mountains of garbage. Garbage is inevitable. However, I perceive (and perception, as we all know, is reality) that the current system produce way too much garbage, waste too many talants and lives all for the sake of its holyness mighty buck(nothing else). This is not to mention that science is scaring off lots of talanted youth, who cared to research the career before jumping into the boat. Current system doesn't encourage cooperation, it's built on competition (which I believe is not good for science in the long run). It's too bad, cause human needs science breakthroughs (not technological tweakings) today as never before. Humanity, cant afford 90/10 ratio in science(another perception).

Cared to read/watch media recently? Cause I didn't. In most of the cases, when "science" is envoked in media, it's to back something by the sheer moral authority of the name of "science", "scientists" as supposedly something unbiased, objective, etc. Steadily diminishing veneration before science is still alive in the masses. It's left from those old times when most of population was not so literate and educated, times when carriers of advanced knowledge were much more respected (unless they were evolutionists

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

) Let's face it, average Joe just want to live his life and have "experts" to settle thing down and, on very rare occasions, to explain things to Joe. Corporate masters, feel and exploit this human propensity to keep their power. With the help of media, in the modern world, Science took some functions of religion as moral authority and social legitimation tool. Science serves masters not just by inventing weapons and stuff. Science is a tool in an arsenal of mind control weapons plutocracy uses. It's true that an indiviual scientist will rather feel intellectual arrogance towards commoners, he doesnot feel superior cause of some superb moral qualities he possesses. However, as a collective, science is perceived as something having moral authority in the modern world. That's perception masters cultivate. It's irrelevant how correct it's.