It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: Krazysh0t
Well to be fair money power is the issue. The agenda of making kids dumb and gullible suits any political party just fine.
.
These fabricated results are an issue if money power corruption. Especially companies that spend millions researching a drug they need sales to Ballance spending.
.
If you use the stats from the nejm and gov websites we are talking 1/3 of the expirements we retested couldn't find the results given in the peer reviewed paper. In a literary review it was even worse 1/2.
Basically half the drugs out there could be total B.S.
.
That ain't science that's capitalism directing science for propaganda.
originally posted by: BO XIAN
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.
originally posted by: rickymouse
a reply to: BO XIAN
I have read so much scientific research that my eyes are going buggy. I learned I need an even better monitor.
Half the scientific research is in direct opposition of the other research but if you examine the parameters and how the research was structured, you can see the reason it does not match sometimes.
Double blind just means the same results are obtained using identical parameters. It does not mean the evidence is relevant to anything or can be used in anything other than the exact reason it was collected.
People quote evidence that is not relevant to the application all the time, even in highly notable journal entries. But still around half of the interpretations are pretty close to right, some being cut with occams razor to make them fit consensus of the science. The other half the time the interpretations are misapplied based on the way the evidence was gathered .
I got used to it, it used to bug me that so much of it was being misapplied but now I just think of it as normal, you just have to look at the evidence yourself to make sure it is saying what it is said to say.
originally posted by: BO XIAN
a reply to: Krazysh0t
TO YOU . . .with your RELIGION OF SCIENTISM SCREAMING BIASES AND FAITH!