Page 1 of 3 [ 35 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next

GoonSquad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 May 2007
Age: 54
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,748
Location: International House of Paincakes...

25 Sep 2014, 7:28 am

Raptor wrote:
Quote:
Fiske and Dupree found that the biggest risk factor for public distrust of scientists was the perception that the main motivation of these researchers is gaining grant funding.
I can empathise with their skepticism here.



Wow, you're actually not wrong for once...

There is a HUGE problem with grant funding these days, and the fact that there's NO MONEY in doing peer reviews or actually checking research. Good science/research doesn't happen without rigorous peer review.


_________________
No man is free who is not master of himself.~Epictetus


Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,997
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

25 Sep 2014, 11:19 am

GoonSquad wrote:
Raptor wrote:
Quote:
Fiske and Dupree found that the biggest risk factor for public distrust of scientists was the perception that the main motivation of these researchers is gaining grant funding.
I can empathise with their skepticism here.



Wow, you're actually not wrong for once...

WOW! I bet that was painful.


_________________
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
- Thomas Jefferson


LoveNotHate
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Oct 2013
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,195
Location: USA

25 Sep 2014, 11:37 am

Lukecash12 wrote:
Let's see: were any of those published through a reputable journal and did any of them undergo a rigorous peer review process? It's not the fault of the legitimate scientist that people who consume such material don't know how to distinguish between critical and mediocre material.


The topic is about Americans making conclusions about science. It makes sense to me that after the public sees tons of "junk science" and fraud scientists, that they would not believe in say a scientist who says that humans evolved from fish, or one that tells you the Earth is warming when you look outside and see abysmal cold.

The "Animal Planet: Mermaids exist" was a hoax by the scientists involved. 3.7 million Americans got to see scientists lie to them.



Last edited by LoveNotHate on 25 Sep 2014, 11:43 am, edited 1 time in total.

ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 18 Jun 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,265

25 Sep 2014, 11:42 am

I don't always trust scientists because I know they are human and humans make mistakes.



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,739
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

25 Sep 2014, 11:51 am

LoveNotHate wrote:
Lukecash12 wrote:
Let's see: were any of those published through a reputable journal and did any of them undergo a rigorous peer review process? It's not the fault of the legitimate scientist that people who consume such material don't know how to distinguish between critical and mediocre material.


The topic is about Americans making conclusions about science. It makes sense to me that after the public sees tons of "junk science" and fraud scientists, that they would not believe in say a scientist who says that humans evolved from fish, or one that tells you the Earth is warming when you look outside and see abysmal cold.

The "Animal Planet: Mermaids exist" was a hoax by the scientists involved. 3.7 million Americans got to see scientists lie to them.


Were those scientists involved in the mermaid mockumentary, as well as in the Megaladon program, or were they just actors working for the entertainment wing of Animal Planet?


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 18 Jun 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,265

25 Sep 2014, 11:54 am

What's really interesting is, people can say anything and have it make sense and seem scientific if they try hard enough. It is easy enough for people to be fooled and to fool themselves.



Janissy
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 May 2009
Age: 57
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,450
Location: x

25 Sep 2014, 11:57 am

LoveNotHate wrote:
Lukecash12 wrote:
Let's see: were any of those published through a reputable journal and did any of them undergo a rigorous peer review process? It's not the fault of the legitimate scientist that people who consume such material don't know how to distinguish between critical and mediocre material.


The topic is about Americans making conclusions about science. It makes sense to me that after the public sees tons of "junk science" and fraud scientists, that they would not believe in say a scientist who says that humans evolved from fish, or one that tells you the Earth is warming when you look outside and see abysmal cold.

The "Animal Planet: Mermaids exist" was a hoax by the scientists involved. 3.7 million Americans got to see scientists lie to them.


That's a problem of confusing the process with the person. There will be individual hoaxers, opportunists and sometimes just plain incompetent scientists. People are already able to differentiate the process from the person in other professions. A corrupt judge doesn't make the entire concept of a judicial system suspect.



LoveNotHate
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Oct 2013
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,195
Location: USA

25 Sep 2014, 12:09 pm

Janissy wrote:

That's a problem of confusing the process with the person. There will be individual hoaxers, opportunists and sometimes just plain incompetent scientists. People are already able to differentiate the process from the person in other professions. A corrupt judge doesn't make the entire concept of a judicial system suspect.


I know what you are saying. However, I do know people that think the entire judicial system is corrupt though, based on the Herrera v. Collins decision:

"Mere factual innocence is no reason not to carry out a death sentence properly reached." --U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia
Herrera v. Collins 506 US 390 1993

In other words, the Constitution permits the states to execute innocent people as long as the legal process is followed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herrera_v._Collins



Last edited by LoveNotHate on 25 Sep 2014, 12:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Janissy
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 May 2009
Age: 57
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,450
Location: x

25 Sep 2014, 12:11 pm

ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo wrote:
What's really interesting is, people can say anything and have it make sense and seem scientific if they try hard enough. It is easy enough for people to be fooled and to fool themselves.


That is often true and it's a problem. It's something traditionally exploited by marketers (putting claims in ads that sound scientific) and more recently exploited by Intelligent Design proponents.

I learned as a child to closely look at claims and not just accept them because they looked science-y ("seems legit" in today's slang). Who taught me this essential skill? MAD magazine. Google tells me that MAD magazine taught this skill to many people.

http://gagaliciousness.files.wordpress. ... -worry.pdf

Maybe it's time to revisit satire to teach critical thinking skills.



LoveNotHate
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Oct 2013
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,195
Location: USA

25 Sep 2014, 12:15 pm

Kraichgauer wrote:
Were those scientists involved in the mermaid mockumentary, as well as in the Megaladon program, or were they just actors working for the entertainment wing of Animal Planet?


The narrator supposedly is a doctor in biology, or perhaps that is a hoax too.



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,739
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

25 Sep 2014, 12:32 pm

LoveNotHate wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Were those scientists involved in the mermaid mockumentary, as well as in the Megaladon program, or were they just actors working for the entertainment wing of Animal Planet?


The narrator supposedly is a doctor in biology, or perhaps that is a hoax too.


I would suspect the latter.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Janissy
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 May 2009
Age: 57
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,450
Location: x

25 Sep 2014, 12:43 pm

LoveNotHate wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Were those scientists involved in the mermaid mockumentary, as well as in the Megaladon program, or were they just actors working for the entertainment wing of Animal Planet?


The narrator supposedly is a doctor in biology, or perhaps that is a hoax too.


Apparently it is. I googled this and the whole thing really did have a "blink and you'll miss it" disclaimer at the end that it was fictional and the "scientists" were actors. It was also the highest rated show the channel has ever had so likely there will be more such silliness in the future. They say they meant it as a humerous spoof of their other documentaries. Unfortunately, they downplayed its fictionality so much that many people believed it.



ZenDen
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 Jul 2013
Age: 81
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,730
Location: On top of the world

25 Sep 2014, 1:28 pm

Kraichgauer wrote:
LoveNotHate wrote:
You can't trust anyone, so yeah you can't trust science .... how far are you willing to go to believe ...

Cigarettes were once ?physician? tested, approved
http://www.healio.com/hematology-oncolo ... d-approved

Vaccines make you gay
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/0 ... 92953.html
Gian Paolo Vanoli, a 70-year-old Italian scientist, claimed that vaccines are causing homosexuality.

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) issued an ominous warning to all expecting mothers.
"The latest scientific evidence shows that the sons of pregnant women who consume chicken are more likely to have smaller penises because of a chemical found in the birds? flesh."
http://www.womenshealthmag.com/health/p ... penis-size

Nigerian Scientist Uses Magnets to Prove Gay Marriage Is Wrong
http://io9.com/nigerian-grad-student-us ... 1326215449
"means that man cannot attract another man because they are the same, and a woman should not attract a woman because they are the same."

Researchers publish Big Foot genome
http://io9.com/5984205/researchers-publ ... es-founded

Animal Planet: Mermaids exist
http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/351217

Do I even need to cite all the times that scientists have claimed to have proven "cold fusion"?


In the case of doctors promoting cigarettes - that had been at one time, but no legitimate physician is going to today with everything we know about health hazards associated with smoking.
Those other examples are the ravings of insane idiots who have absolutely no peer support.
Science still wins.


"In the case of doctors promoting cigarettes - that had been at one time, but no legitimate physician is going to today with everything we know about health hazards associated with smoking."

So you're saying that the doctors that promoted cigarettes were "legitimate?" NO!

They were chosen to (and agreed to) make their statements because people could rely on them being doctors and they made their statements without any medical or scientific reason to do so. They only wanted the money.

In fact, long before the Fed's study was published there was ample evidence of the negative effects of smoking, and many were publicized. These "doctors" knew what they were doing.

But it wasn't until later years that, by law, an actor portraying a physician had to state he was only an actor. So it could have easily been a phony doctor was hired on behalf of the cigarette companies.



ZenDen
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 Jul 2013
Age: 81
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,730
Location: On top of the world

25 Sep 2014, 1:30 pm

ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo wrote:
What's really interesting is, people can say anything and have it make sense and seem scientific if they try hard enough. It is easy enough for people to be fooled and to fool themselves.


Most people don't know the difference between good and bad logic.



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,739
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

25 Sep 2014, 2:10 pm

ZenDen wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
LoveNotHate wrote:
You can't trust anyone, so yeah you can't trust science .... how far are you willing to go to believe ...

Cigarettes were once ?physician? tested, approved
http://www.healio.com/hematology-oncolo ... d-approved

Vaccines make you gay
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/0 ... 92953.html
Gian Paolo Vanoli, a 70-year-old Italian scientist, claimed that vaccines are causing homosexuality.

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) issued an ominous warning to all expecting mothers.
"The latest scientific evidence shows that the sons of pregnant women who consume chicken are more likely to have smaller penises because of a chemical found in the birds? flesh."
http://www.womenshealthmag.com/health/p ... penis-size

Nigerian Scientist Uses Magnets to Prove Gay Marriage Is Wrong
http://io9.com/nigerian-grad-student-us ... 1326215449
"means that man cannot attract another man because they are the same, and a woman should not attract a woman because they are the same."

Researchers publish Big Foot genome
http://io9.com/5984205/researchers-publ ... es-founded

Animal Planet: Mermaids exist
http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/351217

Do I even need to cite all the times that scientists have claimed to have proven "cold fusion"?


In the case of doctors promoting cigarettes - that had been at one time, but no legitimate physician is going to today with everything we know about health hazards associated with smoking.
Those other examples are the ravings of insane idiots who have absolutely no peer support.
Science still wins.


"In the case of doctors promoting cigarettes - that had been at one time, but no legitimate physician is going to today with everything we know about health hazards associated with smoking."

So you're saying that the doctors that promoted cigarettes were "legitimate?" NO!

They were chosen to (and agreed to) make their statements because people could rely on them being doctors and they made their statements without any medical or scientific reason to do so. They only wanted the money.

In fact, long before the Fed's study was published there was ample evidence of the negative effects of smoking, and many were publicized. These "doctors" knew what they were doing.

But it wasn't until later years that, by law, an actor portraying a physician had to state he was only an actor. So it could have easily been a phony doctor was hired on behalf of the cigarette companies.


Ah, I did not know that the guys claiming to be doctors in the old advertisements were not real doctors at all. Thank you for that bit of information. 8)


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


animaster
Tufted Titmouse
Tufted Titmouse

User avatar

Joined: 7 Sep 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 32

25 Sep 2014, 4:40 pm

Tollorin wrote:
Humanaut wrote:
We're heading for a new ice age.

What are your evidences? So far the data show that the opposite is happening.

Image


http://nsidc.org/cryosphere/sotc/sea_ice.html