Which Battleground in the War on Science?

[ViseGrip]

On a somewhat related note..... https://www.yahoo.com/news/study-crashes-main-moon-formation-theory-162207822.html

[RYou]

Vaccinations can lead to autism.  The science to prove or disprove isn't there yet. Same for Zika Virus.  The science of effect on the fetus is there but how it will affect others years into the future is totally unknown.

Same for food allergies in children.  I think 90% of parents are just fearful their kid may come down with a food allergy .

n9531l... have you ever seen a commie drink a glass of water?

Exactly.  Vodka.  Never water.

Russia - Vodka
Italy / France / Spain - wine
Germany / Switzerland - Bier

The water throughout Europe sucked and had to be purified through fermentation.

[Intensity guru]

I really like taking the "traditional" conclusions from one side in these debates, and using the "traditional" other sides reasons behind it, if for no other reason than for the intellectual exercise, and the bafflement/confusion of the other people.

For instance, I like to take a fundamentalist christian argument to show why evolution has to exist.   I also like to take the conclusion that global warming is manmade, and use it as an argument against recycling, reducing, and reusing (and all that jazz). I also like to take the stance that global warming isn't man made, but naturally occurring, and then make a case for why we need to reduce, reuse, recycle (and all that jazz too).

I also am perfectly willing to accept the fact that I am a societal oddball.

I don't really have arguments for all of those topics however, and didn't even realize that some of them were actually debated.

How old were you when you realized you're a serial killer?

[Cougar1]

What "war on science" are you referring to n?

The one you can read about here (March 2015 issue). It includes some interesting ideas about what's behind the historically fairly recent growth of public skepticism in scientific findings, including the way the Internet has made it possible for people to become their own experts and live in a "filter bubble" that lets in only the information they already agree with.

"Science" has its own culpability in this phenomena.  All too often we have seen scientists skew or falsify data to achieve an objective, then when caught complain about  "war on science". Likewise when "science" says we need to "end the debate" it calls into question its impartiality.

That is precisely how it is VG. When you see data skewed for the express purpose of trying to "prove" something they have lost all credibility.

[n9531l]

When you see data skewed for the express purpose of trying to "prove" something they have lost all credibility.

When you say "they" are you referring to scientists in general or to the people who skewed the data?

[n9531l]

All too often we have seen scientists skew or falsify data to achieve an objective, then when caught complain about  "war on science".

I'm curious about how you propose to quantify that claim. There are close to two million scientific papers published each year. In 2016, how many authors complained about "war on science" after being caught falsifying data? Do your figures justify the use of the phrase "all too often"?

[ctc]

All too often we have seen scientists skew or falsify data to achieve an objective, then when caught complain about  "war on science".

I'm curious about how you propose to quantify that claim. There are close to two million scientific papers published each year. In 2016, how many authors complained about "war on science" after being caught falsifying data? Do your figures justify the use of the phrase "all too often"?

Much science is simply operational science.  Developing a better phone or a faster computer doesn't carry with political financial or an agenda.  Weed those out of all those papers and I believe the "war against science " is high.  This phrase is used against creationists all the time and unjustly so.

[ViseGrip]

All too often we have seen scientists skew or falsify data to achieve an objective, then when caught complain about  "war on science".

I'm curious about how you propose to quantify that claim. There are close to two million scientific papers published each year. In 2016, how many authors complained about "war on science" after being caught falsifying data? Do your figures justify the use of the phrase "all too often"?

"All too often" is clearly a subjective opinion, but one that is not unsupported.
Just a very quick google search offers several sources of support
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1182327/
http://phys.org/news/2016-10-scientific-wrong.html
http://reason.com/archives/2016/08/26/most-scientific-results-are-wrong-or-use
http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21588069-scientific-research-has-changed-world-now-it-needs-change-itself-how-science-goes-wrong
https://www.sciencenews.org/article/odds-are-its-wrong
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn7915-most-scientific-papers-are-probably-wrong/

[Cougar1]

When you see data skewed for the express purpose of trying to "prove" something they have lost all credibility.

When you say "they" are you referring to scientists in general or to the people who skewed the data?

Those who were/are complicit in skewing data to prove their point.

[n9531l]

All too often we have seen scientists skew or falsify data to achieve an objective, then when caught complain about  "war on science".

Just a very quick google search offers several sources of support

I checked your sources of support and was not able to find the examples of authors of scientific papers complaining about "war on science" when criticized for either deceptive or sloppy research practices. Let me know if I overlooked such examples. Even if I did, scientists calling out other scientists for bad research would be a different kind of "war on science" than the kind implied by my poll.

[Cougar1]

n, when you have predictions, such as those in this piece, that are totally out of touch with reality (and still being made) how credible can your science be? http://www.aei.org/publication/18-spectacularly-wrong-apocalyptic-predictions-made-around-the-time-of-the-first-earth-day-in-1970-expect-more-this-year-3/

[n9531l]

Actually, those predictions are not related to my science.

[ViseGrip]

All too often we have seen scientists skew or falsify data to achieve an objective, then when caught complain about  "war on science".

Just a very quick google search offers several sources of support

I checked your sources of support and was not able to find the examples of authors of scientific papers complaining about "war on science" when criticized for either deceptive or sloppy research practices. Let me know if I overlooked such examples. Even if I did, scientists calling out other scientists for bad research would be a different kind of "war on science" than the kind implied by my poll.

As you can see in those articles, researchers bias is a significant issue. When challenged about that bias, many in the climate change debates declare a "war on science".

[n9531l]

As you can see in those articles, researchers bias is a significant issue. When challenged about that bias, many in the climate change debates declare a "war on science".

That may be the case. I just overlooked the examples of a scientist declaring a "war on science" in your sources, and don't feel like going back over them.

[Cougar1]

Actually, those predictions are not related to my science.

Your science?