- Thread starter Oakley
- Start date
Prim0 said:
Being skeptical is good, always, but putting independent scientist funded by arms length funding agencies such as NIH and CIHR that have by law no ability to suppress the results... into the same group as industry funded research that is completely under the control of the industry is simply not fair.
Prim0 said:
I trust the process of independent science.
The very nature of the way science is run makes false reporting difficult.
Basically if you report something that is not true, it will not be replicated.
Replication is at the heart of scientific methodology
NEVER trust a single study; only trust the consensus of multiple studies.
Science is a world wide enterprise; cheaters will be caught.
Recent changes to more openness make it even harder to publish false results.
Industry however pay people to report what they want.
They typically publish it in blogs, not science journals and those blog get repeated by others including the media.
The BS coming from the oil industry that denies climate change is precisely why industry cannot be trusted.
The 3% of the climate change data in journals that attempts to contradict the science is supported by the oil industry and are good examples of why industry cannot be trusted.
Past scandals from the tobacco industry and the sugar industry are also important lessons in why industry cannot be trusted to be honest.
"That's why each person needs to do their research and decide for themselves."
If by research you mean conducting actual scientific original research... that cost thousands and typically require equipment, ethical review, and safety monitoring.
If by research you mean literature review... focus only on the published peer reviewed science journals... blogs are not to be trusted. Go for real science. Also the prestige and history of the journal matters, be wary of new journals (they may be predatory journals that publish anything for a buck). Focus on journals will a long history.
Last edited:
Prim0 said:
Just to be clear that's is not standard peer review journal's... thats predatory journals that publish anything just for the cash, they don't peer review, they don't even read the papers, but take the unsuspecting authors paper and publish is. The problem for the academic is that its a useless publication. those predatory journals do not qualify as peer reviewed journals for academic appointments, grants applications, and job applications. So the unsuspecting researcher has not not only wasted his or her time and money, but has also hurt his reputation.
Here's a list of predatory journals that have been identified... trouble is they keep changing their name... My rule of thumb when I publish is the journal must have an established track records of a few years and have papers related to my area of expertise (I'm a scientist, btw). But I'm lucky, I have grants that cover the cost of publication.
Publish to ones peers,... or perish
Publish to ones peers,... or perish
I think putting any substance in peer reviewing, as to guaranteeing anything, is flawed.
Simply because, studies are reviewed by the publishers peers.
An example of corruption in the "sciences", I remember reading about a "scientist", at I think at the University of Toronto, who got a grant to study how icicles form, for five years, I'm sure that was approved by his peers.
There are 17,000 climatologists/scientists on the planet, that is a sure sign of corruption in that field, if I ever saw one.
Who decides if some is qualified to become a climatologists/scientist, another climatologists/scientist, do they write exams, maybe did some weather reporting on CBC ?
Has Fat Al gone swimming at the South pole yet,... OH wait, its still frozen solid, but that was what we were to believe from climatologists/scientists, 15 years ago.
Publish to ones peers,... or perish
I think putting any substance in peer reviewing, as to guaranteeing anything, is flawed.
Simply because, studies are reviewed by the publishers peers.
An example of corruption in the "sciences", I remember reading about a "scientist", at I think at the University of Toronto, who got a grant to study how icicles form, for five years, I'm sure that was approved by his peers.
There are 17,000 climatologists/scientists on the planet, that is a sure sign of corruption in that field, if I ever saw one.
Who decides if some is qualified to become a climatologists/scientist, another climatologists/scientist, do they write exams, maybe did some weather reporting on CBC ?
Has Fat Al gone swimming at the South pole yet,... OH wait, its still frozen solid, but that was what we were to believe from climatologists/scientists, 15 years ago.
Prim0 said:
Ok sure everyone has their own biases, but to be a scientist is to be always prepared to abandon your pet theories. I've had that experience myself, having to let go of my own theory because I proved it wrong.
There is no echo chamber in science. If you understand how competitive scientists are to outdo each other -- because the rewards for being right and at the forefront of your field are huge -- noble prize, big grants, etc.. You don't get a nobel prize for agreeing with other scientist, you get a noble prize to coming up with the theory that everyone else has failed to disprove and now agrees is right because they've failed to disprove it.
Yes peer review does not guarantee honesty, and replication is the key to find the scientific truth... and the embarrassment of having your data refuted by everyone who tries to replicate it, keeps us honest. You get a taste of that on Big Bang theory TV show when Sheldon had to retract a publication, or the way Sheldon is always putting down Leonard.... in reality its worse -- but still friendly. We actively try to tear apart each other theories (in a respectful manner), and if we fail, we reluctantly accept their study as valid.
That's true skepticism, show me the evidence, and accept only evidence that stands the test of empirical data.
"It only takes one new finding to disrupt even things like the Law of gravity though you can collect data that supports it for a million years."
No, if the findings were 1 million to 1 I'd expect that 1 was an error. but the procedure is to try and replicate the odd finding, or determine if its an error or not.
the more important thing is the exception that proves the rule... the idea is that you have a point of data that does not fit in with the theory. a strong theory will be able to explain that finding after-all.
Things fall at the same same speed according to universal gravity, but a feather doesn't; it floats down slowly compared to other objects. So does this disprove universal gravity? No. the feature is floating on the air, but if you remove the air, the feather should fall at the same rate as any other object. So you set up an experiment where you remove the air and sure enough the feature falls as the same speed (exactly the same speed) as a bowling ball, thus proving the rule.
It took the accumulation of many oddities to finally over turn Newtonian physics... not because Newtonian physics was propped by an echo chamber but because it was consistent with the vast majority of data and the no one could explain the established data as well as those exceptions (until Einstein came along). Newtonian physics still is the approach for most circumstances, but under situations of extreme gravity or speed, Newtonian physics breaks down and Einstein's theory is used.
