Prejudice, science, etc.

[Tenet Nosce]

Miconduct and fraud. Misconduct means unintentinal messing with the end results (most common is jumping to conclusion and having faulty test equipment (age or lack of fine detail maintanance) (sound familiar anyone,,, lack of maintanance or attention))

Fraud means intentional messing with the end result.

Yes, well you might be surprised to learn that I actually have a degree in science. And what I observed, even at the undergraduate level, was complicity in the tendency to "massage the data" in order to produce the desired result. That's bad news.

Most stuff that science has built like mobile phones have a success rate of assuming its well built intenionally (corporations are fraudsters, but i mean if you built it around the principle of just testing a cellphone as many times as possible) you could get it to maybe 1:1000 connections, your cellphone is less scientific than the peer review process.

Well of course! I think you may have misread my post if you think I was trying to throw the entire group of scientists under the bus. What I was attempting to say is- look at how the misbehavior of a few jack things up for everybody else.

Science cant, by default, be accurate, anyone who says it can is a bad scientist, period.

Well that is what I was talking about earlier. Perhaps you missed it. But what I was discussing was the tendency for unproven theories to be presented to the public as facts, simply because they are the consensus view. And then worse, for policies to be built around them. That's bad science, and IMO anybody who is party to this kind of behavior should not only be ashamed with themselves, but stripped of their credentials.

What science can be, is a method thats used to filter and organize data according to a common language. When you understand science as a language/method not as a "opinion/group" you'll get what i mean.

Yes, I get it. But thanks for clarifying.

to clarify, what people like monsanto do is not fraud data (thats the stupid way) what they do is they have something like 1000 different people do studies on their chosen topic, THEN they corralate all those studies and remove 90%+ and just leave the pro monsanto ones. They can do that with sufficient money without resorting to fraud. If you simply went through all the published studies on GM (the data, not just the conclusion, and recalculated the conclusions based on the data, since its easy to buy the guy who writes the conclusions (IPCC anyone) and not so easy to buy the whole research lab (though possible, but less secure information that way), you would most likely find a strong correlation between GM and Illhealth, but what science needs is people between the method (the massive amount of published material that no one can actually go through anymore) and the person interpreting the world.

Well, fine. Then I stand corrected and its even worse than I thought.

As a scientist myself, what we need in the field is a understanding of the proper "social interactions for specialized field intelligence data distribution" thats a fancy way of saying, the data is now out there, what we need is special interest groups (ra is a good example) that somehow manage to go through all the data and comeup with a scientifically based theory as to why their idea and gnosis is best.

Yes. That sounds like a great solution!

M'kay!

M'kay!

---

Yeah, what Patrick said!

Science is not a democracy, and a consensus view does not "create reality". IMO- Argumentum ad populum is running out-of-control in scientific circles. As is false skepticism.

If the percentage of scientists that engage in these logical fallacies is actually much smaller than what I perceive it to be, then I do heartily apologize. But in that case it is long past due time for the REAL scientists to stand up and speak the truth.