Is Science Bullsh*t? John Oliver Explains The Corruption Behind Scientific Studies

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.

You sound... religious... in your fevor.

"absolute truth"?

"validty"?

Of an unsourced blog post on collective-evolution.com??

Don't be so daft.

There's some serious motivated reasoning going on in your OP:

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."[2] 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."[3]

en.wikipedia.org...

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!

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.

a reply to: BO XIAN
Excellent thread BO XIAN, s&f

a reply to: BO XIAN

Well, I'm convinced. The bold text and All-Caps is what I needed to convince me.

Science as we know it today is a reaction to cockamammy religious nonsense and charlatans purporting to know reality, usually at the expense of our money. The Scientific Method is an attempt to cut the BS and prove definitively whatever theorem you've got going. In some respects you have to say, "Thank God for the Scientific Method."

But the "culture of science" is conservative and though its proponents maintain it is self-correcting, many a career has been broken because a scientist has put forth politically incorrect ideas and been pilloried for it just as sure as the Catholic Church punished heretics. For example, the scientist who came up with "tectonic plates," Alfred Wegner, was hotly rejected. It was only accepted half a century later. Science is filled with examples like this.

Science is extremely biased towards physical reality and has a morbid fear of admitting anything even hinting at the paranormal. It's not that these things CANNOT be studied via the Scientific Method; they can and have been. Indeed, you can find many scientific studies that statistically prove such things as telepathy. But when you get into an after-life, or such concepts as souls and reincarnation, Science just collectively rolls its eyes and treats such subjects with derision and ridicule, particularly since such ideas, in one form or another, are frequently found in religious teachings.

There is a quote, that I am about to mangle, which suggests that after scientists have struggled valiantly to answer the profound questions of the universe, they finally get to that mountaintop only only to find the theologians waiting there for them. The bottom line here is that if science is to advance our understanding any further, it must reconcile itself with studying a very big part of reality that it now rejects as impossible.

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.

ABSOLUTELY INDEED.

Bears repeating with emphasis:

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.

THANKS BIG for such a rational and an authentic scientific mentality response. Excellent.

Of course, we'll always have those who are having anxiety attacks, breaking out in hives etc. because either their sacred cows are being maligned or they are afraid they are going to be sacrificed.

It often gets embarrassing--I'm embarrassed for them--seeing them making such an irrational, uninformed RELIGIOUS vigor-ed spectacle of themselves for no good reason.

a reply to: Leonidas

ok - fair enough - you don't like the source for the article

But many many people have been talking about this very issue for a very very long time.

Lets see if I can easily find a source that you might like better....

how about PLOS ONE

journals.plos.org.../journal.pone.0005738

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 [1] or Jan Hendrik Schön's duplicated graphs [2] 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 [3], [4].

how about the FASB journal

www.fasebj.org...

NOw this article is interesting in the footnotes with very specific examples of scientific fraud and misconduct


now the American Public Health Association - the link provides case studies of scientific fraud


ajph.aphapublications.org...


how many links would you like to have?

Tired of Control Freaks

a reply to: schuyler

EXCELLENT POINTS!

OH, DEAR . . . I'm agreeing with you.

Run, hide!

LOL.

I'm taking bets on what page all pretense will be dropped and this thread will turn into another creation vs. evolution rant. I say page 20.

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

EXCELLENT.

THANKS TONS.

However . . . I wouldn't get my expectations up too much re the Religion of Scientism RELIGIOUS VIGOR naysayers mustering up a shred of respect for solid scientific commentary on the topic.

Carl Sagan himself could rise from the dead telling the non-religious truth, for a change, and they'd still not believe him. Ditto Einstein. Ditto Newton.

Now the Lord Pope Dawkins . . . his trash, they'll swallow hook line and sinker.
LOL.

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!

When you wrote:

It is a problem OF SCIENCE in that it is inherently rooted in the SCIENTIFIC ESTABLISHMENT.

There are people who misuse the scientific method to further their agenda. The problem is the misuse itself, not the scientific method nor is it rooted in the scientific establishment.

"Inherently rooted in the scientific establishment" would mean that the establishment itself are the ones who are misusing and subverting the scientific method. The reality of it is that the scientific establishment (although there really is no governing body who could be considered "the establishment") would be the ones who would attempt to preserve the purity of the scientific method.

Granted, perhaps science needs to do a better job self-correcting bad scientific studies (through more intensive and critical peer reviews), but again, that is a problem WITHIN SCIENCE, not one OF SCIENCE.

Science itself has all the tools it needs to solve the problem -- science itself does not need to be "fixed". However, some problems with the way the scientific method is critically used to promote a hypothesis does need to be fixed.

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.

In that example, I would think that Indy Car Racing itself would have the means and methods to address the issue of cheating without anyone from the outside coming in to first "solve" Indy Car Racing. That would be a problem WITHIN Indy car Racing, not a problem OF the Indy Car Racing establishment.

Science is not bull....

Man is full of ....

Unfortunately it is actually true in many areas of science that there are massive conflict of interest problems. In drug trials for instance its been found half the studies are false and 1/3 can not be replicated when re-reviewed. Meaning up to half of scientific studies pass peer review but when scrutinized don't hold up.

Several studies have been done showing this. Even the NEJM is saying there are massive conflict of interest problems in drug trials.

The same goes with many science studies. The funding requires results which means there will always be levels corruption to dr. The results.

In big pharma they pay ghost writers to infiltrate the press and write editorials and opinions.

www.forbes.com...


www.collective-evolution.com...

www.nejm.org...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

originally posted by: BO XIAN
a reply to: schuyler

OH, DEAR . . . I'm agreeing with you.

Run, hide!

Yeah, that sucks.

One example. Just yesterday I read an article saying scientific studies say that drinking coffee can prevent cancer. TODAY I read a study from the same place that said (hot) coffee can cause cancer. Who knew?

Of course, there are journalists getting in the way of the information here, but it's still kind of funny.

a reply to: Greggers

I'll alert on such posts.

Folks even PRETENDING to value truth and honest dialogue should be able to remain ON TOPIC for the length of a thread.

That is, IF, they are not awash in their emotional religious vigor fresh from their heart-felt prayers to Darwin, or Dawkins or Carl Sagan or whomever they are praying to these days.

The topic is the mangling of the scientific method and its results with corrupt skullduggery & nonsense.

a reply to: schuyler

Interesting. I'd thought I'd heard conflicting stuff re coffee. Thanks.

Yeah, reporters are a problem . . . however . . . their oligarchic agenda are also a serious and important part of the picture that has to be taken into account and considered rationally.

a reply to: GetHyped

That's because "pseudoscientific, anti-intellectual woo woo" has become mainstream within one of the two major political parties. When denying science for the sake of denying science becomes a popular argument, it follows that #ty sourcing won't be far on behind.

a reply to: luthier

WELL PUT.

THANKS for the links.

It amazes me that purportedly rational people would even consider arguing against such massive amounts of evidence.

They must not be very "scientific" after all.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

All sides of the spectrum are used and abused by the oligarchy controlled media

using screwy research, screwy interpretations, screwy reporting.

One can deny such realities and try and twist and distort the facts . . . but the facts will continue to just lay there being . . . uhhhh . . .

facts.

a reply to: BO XIAN

That statement is true (mostly because it is a tautology), but it doesn't give credence to your position that all of science is flawed because some people misuse it.