The Dangers Of Junk Science
- Thread starter Brutus1964
- Start date
I'll be scientific: When someone complains that a particular notion is symptomatic of the existence of, or of someone being a member of, the loony left, that person reveals by that statement a very striking resemblence to the posterior end of that member of the equine family popularly referred to as "the horse."
extrasense
Registered Senior Member
Brutus1964 said:
Deranged environmentalists are running NASA. Did you hear what she-commander said in interview while their fate is being decided? That she saw environmental damage from the orbit!
I hate to think that this piece of .... will be back in two days
ES
Reprinted From Ablogatory Anecdotes.
Scientists tell us that global warming is a proven fact, and if the United States does not ratify the Kyoto Protocols that the sky will fall. We are told that practically everything we enjoy eating will kill us, and our American way of life is destroying the planet. Products such as Freon, aerosol cans, Styrofoam, and a host of other products must be banned because they harm the ozone layer. We are told that it is better for millions of third world people to die than use DDT because it hurts bird eggs. The latest miracle drug must be pulled from the market because a study linked it to some kind of malady.
Well a new study has come out in the New Scientist that calls in to question the validity of at least half of all scientific studies.
Most published scientific research papers are wrong,
according to a new analysis. Assuming that the new
paper is itself correct, problems with experimental
and statistical methods mean that there is less than
a 50% chance that the results of any randomly chosen
scientific paper are true.
John Ioannidis, an epidemiologist at the University
of Ioannina School of Medicine in Greece, says that small
sample sizes, poor study design, researcher bias, and
elective reporting and other problems combine to make
most research findings false. But even large, well-designed
studies are not always right, meaning that scientists and the
public have to be wary of reported findings.
It is interesting to note that the paper sites researcher bias as a cause for frequent errors. Particularly with global warming and other scientific theories that have become politicized. Many researchers are forced either by peer pressure or prejudice to automatically accept that global warming is a fact. Therefore they will only look for evidence that supports their preconceived theories. Any evidence to the contrary will be discounted or suppressed. This dogmatic approach to science has been the greatest cause of the proliferation of junk science, and has cost our economy billions not to mention the waste of perfectly good products that have had to be recalled. Thousands of jobs have been lost, and good companies forced into bankruptcy because of bogus scientific studies.
There is a doctrine in science called the Precautionary Principle that states that unless something can be proven absolutely safe it is better to ban it and keep it off the market.
Maybe it is time to apply this same standard to scientists themselves?
Scientists tell us that global warming is a proven fact, and if the United States does not ratify the Kyoto Protocols that the sky will fall. We are told that practically everything we enjoy eating will kill us, and our American way of life is destroying the planet. Products such as Freon, aerosol cans, Styrofoam, and a host of other products must be banned because they harm the ozone layer. We are told that it is better for millions of third world people to die than use DDT because it hurts bird eggs. The latest miracle drug must be pulled from the market because a study linked it to some kind of malady.
Well a new study has come out in the New Scientist that calls in to question the validity of at least half of all scientific studies.
Most published scientific research papers are wrong,
according to a new analysis. Assuming that the new
paper is itself correct, problems with experimental
and statistical methods mean that there is less than
a 50% chance that the results of any randomly chosen
scientific paper are true.
John Ioannidis, an epidemiologist at the University
of Ioannina School of Medicine in Greece, says that small
sample sizes, poor study design, researcher bias, and
elective reporting and other problems combine to make
most research findings false. But even large, well-designed
studies are not always right, meaning that scientists and the
public have to be wary of reported findings.
It is interesting to note that the paper sites researcher bias as a cause for frequent errors. Particularly with global warming and other scientific theories that have become politicized. Many researchers are forced either by peer pressure or prejudice to automatically accept that global warming is a fact. Therefore they will only look for evidence that supports their preconceived theories. Any evidence to the contrary will be discounted or suppressed. This dogmatic approach to science has been the greatest cause of the proliferation of junk science, and has cost our economy billions not to mention the waste of perfectly good products that have had to be recalled. Thousands of jobs have been lost, and good companies forced into bankruptcy because of bogus scientific studies.
There is a doctrine in science called the Precautionary Principle that states that unless something can be proven absolutely safe it is better to ban it and keep it off the market.
Maybe it is time to apply this same standard to scientists themselves?
Last edited:
Statistics is not a flawless resource.
Specially when we are talking about capitalism and the market.....
Specially when we are talking about capitalism and the market.....
Brutus, I think it's very clear that you missed the mark in your continued attempts to paint a negative picture of science. You use pejorative buzz words like "junk science" in misapplied manner then quote a study that says studies can only be 50% correct. I don't miss the irony that the New Scientist study itself falls into the same category of being "50% correct" by chance.
But this isn't a problem for science. Its the reason for the peer-reviewed process. The New Scientist article fails to explore the author's methodolgy. What was the data set? Was it peer-reviewed journals only? If so, how did they choose which journals from which to gather data? By circulation numbers? Did they include low as well as high circulating journals? What fields did they include? How many studies/journals were examined? How did they determine the "wrongness" of the studies that were determined to be "wrong?"
Its that last question that the critical thinker will key in on. Logically, the only ways the author of the study, Ioannidis, could have determined the "wrongness" of other studies would be to test their methodologies himself or rely on the tests of others. This is called peer-review.
Now. Since we've established that science is self-correcting, perhaps you can get past the political pejoritives (i.e. "junk science") and move on to point-by-point refutation of that which you disagree with in science. You need not test the hypotheses yourself, you can simply cite the tests of others.
But instead, we get "junk rants" like, "We are told that it is better for millions of third world people to die than use DDT because it hurts bird eggs."
Who has told us this? I point you to my refutation of this point in your own blog. Yet rather than provide a counter-refute, you simply restate it. DDT isn't banned in the "third world." It can still be used in regions where malaria is a risk, but the problem is mosquitos are now resistant to DDT. Other, more effective pesticides are used if the people of peripheral nations can afford the chemicals.
Rather than resort to pseudoscientific methodologies of shouting down the "establishment" of science, try to actually find the data and the works which refute studies that claim results that run counter to your political ideologies.
But the pejorative term of "junk science" is a misused one by those that seek to make political influences and obstruct critical thought and reason that is counter to it. Nothing more.
But this isn't a problem for science. Its the reason for the peer-reviewed process. The New Scientist article fails to explore the author's methodolgy. What was the data set? Was it peer-reviewed journals only? If so, how did they choose which journals from which to gather data? By circulation numbers? Did they include low as well as high circulating journals? What fields did they include? How many studies/journals were examined? How did they determine the "wrongness" of the studies that were determined to be "wrong?"
Its that last question that the critical thinker will key in on. Logically, the only ways the author of the study, Ioannidis, could have determined the "wrongness" of other studies would be to test their methodologies himself or rely on the tests of others. This is called peer-review.
Now. Since we've established that science is self-correcting, perhaps you can get past the political pejoritives (i.e. "junk science") and move on to point-by-point refutation of that which you disagree with in science. You need not test the hypotheses yourself, you can simply cite the tests of others.
But instead, we get "junk rants" like, "We are told that it is better for millions of third world people to die than use DDT because it hurts bird eggs."
Who has told us this? I point you to my refutation of this point in your own blog. Yet rather than provide a counter-refute, you simply restate it. DDT isn't banned in the "third world." It can still be used in regions where malaria is a risk, but the problem is mosquitos are now resistant to DDT. Other, more effective pesticides are used if the people of peripheral nations can afford the chemicals.
Rather than resort to pseudoscientific methodologies of shouting down the "establishment" of science, try to actually find the data and the works which refute studies that claim results that run counter to your political ideologies.
But the pejorative term of "junk science" is a misused one by those that seek to make political influences and obstruct critical thought and reason that is counter to it. Nothing more.
Skin Walker
I have been anxiously waiting for you to responed. I am not against Science. I love science and all manner of learning. Believe me if I got some absolute proof that there was global warming and man was responsible then I would accept it, but so far no absolute proof has come forward. They have been talking about this since the 80's and none of the predictions have come true. Even if we are in a warming trend it could be a natural occurance. We simply do not know what real effect human activity has on the environment.
I am against dogmatic science. Glogal warming has become a dogma that to question it is a kin to herassy. Scientists have a responsiblity to question it and weigh all sides. If they go into it with preconcieved ideas or feel peer pressure to come up with a certain result then that is exactly what they will find. Science should be about finding facts not about trying to prove peoples pet theories. Anything else is scientific malpractise.
I also have my post in my blog . Feel free to comment in there too. It would be fun to get another debate started.
I have been anxiously waiting for you to responed. I am not against Science. I love science and all manner of learning. Believe me if I got some absolute proof that there was global warming and man was responsible then I would accept it, but so far no absolute proof has come forward. They have been talking about this since the 80's and none of the predictions have come true. Even if we are in a warming trend it could be a natural occurance. We simply do not know what real effect human activity has on the environment.
I am against dogmatic science. Glogal warming has become a dogma that to question it is a kin to herassy. Scientists have a responsiblity to question it and weigh all sides. If they go into it with preconcieved ideas or feel peer pressure to come up with a certain result then that is exactly what they will find. Science should be about finding facts not about trying to prove peoples pet theories. Anything else is scientific malpractise.
I also have my post in my blog . Feel free to comment in there too. It would be fun to get another debate started.
Global warming caused by human activity is as certain as anything known in science. Since there is always some uncertainty in science, as it is based on statistical evidence. It is the nature of statistical evidence that the only kind of conclusions you can make is that something is more or less likely to be happening. In this case, the likelyhood is very, very good that humans are the cause of global warming.
Brutus, you have been the victim of an insidious propaganda campaign financed by energy industries with the intention to muddle the argument to such a degree that the best you can say is we don't know. This is the goal. This achieves an atmosphere where they can continue to make money and not change. The time is over when anyone can say legitimately that the data is inconclusive.
Brutus, you have been the victim of an insidious propaganda campaign financed by energy industries with the intention to muddle the argument to such a degree that the best you can say is we don't know. This is the goal. This achieves an atmosphere where they can continue to make money and not change. The time is over when anyone can say legitimately that the data is inconclusive.
Imperfectionist
Your post illistrates my point perfectly. You say global warming is a proven fact then you also say there is always some uncertainty in science. Since you believe in an uncertainty you are relying on faith not science.
Your post illistrates my point perfectly. You say global warming is a proven fact then you also say there is always some uncertainty in science. Since you believe in an uncertainty you are relying on faith not science.
I've noticed this thread to be titled "The Dangers of Junk Science". I'm going to provide a few examples of junk science.
1. Evolution and Supernatural Creationism (God created all life on Earth). We did not evolve from primates, nor were we created by a supernatural god. All life on Earth was created by scientists from another planet.
Evolution states "survival of the fittest". Does that mean we should eradicate physically weak people. Also, evolution states that organisms (including us) need to spread our genes by any means possible. Does that include rape? So it seems that the theory of Evolution states it's okay to be violent among one another. Talk about the dangers of junk science.
Also, Supernatural Creationism creates a caste system like we have all over the world with rich getting richer and poor getting poorer. Women are treated as inferiors based on this concept of junk science. And the concept of God-fearing makes sheep out of people. Talk about the dangers of junk science.
2. The Big Bang. The universe is infinite in space and time but the Big Bang states that there was nothing before then. Well I can't think of anything dangerous about the Big Bang but it's still junk science.
3. (National) Patrtiotism. Having patriotism for your country can revert to fascism. With brainhole terrorists like Bush brainwashing people into patriotism, innocent people are being killed in Iraq and Afghanistan. What we need is "world patriotism" for lack of a better term. We need to view our planet as a whole rather than as separate countries. That way we can truly be humanitarian towards the world and achieve world peace.
1. Evolution and Supernatural Creationism (God created all life on Earth). We did not evolve from primates, nor were we created by a supernatural god. All life on Earth was created by scientists from another planet.
Evolution states "survival of the fittest". Does that mean we should eradicate physically weak people. Also, evolution states that organisms (including us) need to spread our genes by any means possible. Does that include rape? So it seems that the theory of Evolution states it's okay to be violent among one another. Talk about the dangers of junk science.
Also, Supernatural Creationism creates a caste system like we have all over the world with rich getting richer and poor getting poorer. Women are treated as inferiors based on this concept of junk science. And the concept of God-fearing makes sheep out of people. Talk about the dangers of junk science.
2. The Big Bang. The universe is infinite in space and time but the Big Bang states that there was nothing before then. Well I can't think of anything dangerous about the Big Bang but it's still junk science.
3. (National) Patrtiotism. Having patriotism for your country can revert to fascism. With brainhole terrorists like Bush brainwashing people into patriotism, innocent people are being killed in Iraq and Afghanistan. What we need is "world patriotism" for lack of a better term. We need to view our planet as a whole rather than as separate countries. That way we can truly be humanitarian towards the world and achieve world peace.
Raelian1 said:
There is an abundance of evidence for evolution; none for creation; and none for this ufo-nutter shit. The placement fo the term, "junk science" is clear with this regard.
Raelian1 said:
An obvious fallacy of the undereducated. Evolution simply implies gradual changes over time. It is Natural Selection, one of the four evolutionary forces that concerns itself with "fitness." But even in this instance, it is more concerned with an organism's ability to take advantage of a niche rather than its strength over other organisms. Get an education and stop reading that raelian shit.
Raelian1 said:
More like, "talk about the dangers of ignorance and lack of education." Get off the internet and go to school.
Raelian1 said:
Translation, "I'm ignorant, and undereducated, so big bang must be stupid."
Obviously I'm responding to a sock-puppet and not a genuine new-member to scifoolems. Nobody's that stupid, so I don't feel bad about being harsh.
SkinWalker the brainhole said:
No there's not. Everytime someone "observes" evolution, it's merely a misinterpretation. This observation is nothing more than a mutation of the "original design". A genetic defect but still the same species.
You keep mentioning education. Just because it's taught in school doesn't mean it happened that way. An example, The Big Bang is junk science because the universe in infinite in time and space. A lot of "circumstantial evidence" that claims to prove the Big Bang is misinterpreted. The worst misinterpretation is the fact that most physicist think that the constant c (speed of light in a vacuum) is the fastest speed in the universe. Not so. Scientists are just starting to measure things that are faster than light. I don't know where you can find this documentation but I know it's there. Given that as a fact, the Big Bang theory "explodes" pun intended.
I keep mentioning education because it is clear that you lack one.