It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: BO XIAN
Anyone with a shred of fair-mindedness and reasonably extensive experience in the Scientific Community would know the absolute truth and validity of most all the assertions made in that article.
The processes of motivated reasoning are a type of inferred justification strategy which is used to mitigate cognitive dissonance. When people form and cling to false beliefs despite overwhelming evidence, the phenomenon is labeled "motivated reasoning". In other words, "rather than search rationally for information that either confirms or disconfirms a particular belief, people actually seek out information that confirms what they already believe." This is "a form of implicit emotion regulation in which the brain converges on judgments that minimize negative and maximize positive affect states associated with threat to or attainment of motives."
originally posted by: rickymouse
Most of the scientific research is done right. Except the fact that the research is designed to confirm something sometimes and by structuring the parameters, a misinterpretation of things can result. I see more misinterpretation and misapplying of the evidence being done in the interpretation of the evidence point. It is interpreted to show what the interpreter wants to show.
Science is missused, misapplied, and misinterpreted all the time. People will give evidence which doesn't apply or is not pertinent to back their statements many times. I see it all the time. Scientific words used to intimidate me so I figured the person was right. Now I know a great deal of the words used and not intimidated by people misapplying evidence. One half of the articles I read in science are being blown out of proportion even by supposed experts. The only thing I trust is reading the evidence and parameters of the evidence myself. You need to research all sides when reading science articles to properly assess if it is pertinent.
Examine why the testing is being done, all parameters of the research, the relevance or narrow mindedness of the research, and who is funding the research. But remember, just because a tobacco company is funding research does not mean we should discount the findings either. Finding anything that goes against the consensus of the time is always harder, but the evidence is usually out there for comparison. I have to agree with the OP. Question all articles till you examine the evidence yourself. That is what we are supposed to be doing here, but some people only back the consensus of the day which has been conditioned over many decades into our minds.
The image of scientists as objective seekers of truth is periodically jeopardized by the discovery of a major scientific fraud. Recent scandals like Hwang Woo-Suk's fake stem-cell lines  or Jan Hendrik Schön's duplicated graphs  showed how easy it can be for a scientist to publish fabricated data in the most prestigious journals, and how this can cause a waste of financial and human resources and might pose a risk to human health. How frequent are scientific frauds? The question is obviously crucial, yet the answer is a matter of great debate , .
originally posted by: BO XIAN
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People
Who said it negated the entire scientific method wholesale? I didn't.
Who is throwing out the baby with the bathwater?
It would be nice to see clean bath water at least every other baby, however!
It is a problem OF SCIENCE in that it is inherently rooted in the SCIENTIFIC ESTABLISHMENT.
You make it sound like some driver or crew cheating wholesale in the INDY 500 would not be a problem OF racing. I'd disagree. What happens under an umbrella . . . is a problem of what's included under that umbrella.