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.

 

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

page: 4
31
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 02:43 PM
link   
EXCELLENT POINTS worthy repeating with emphasis. Thanks. Well said. I wholesale agree.


originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: BO XIAN

My wife is a research professor.

It goes even deeper. It's harder and harder to find critical thinkers needed for labwork and research.

Having the internet able to answer all your questions is good in terms of the result but apparently studies are showing is altering the ability for humans to solve physical problems.

Meaning we are getting really good at following directions but very bad at here is object A and Object B study them and report their relationship and ability. Design an expirement to find results.

It's ironic that the equiptment needed to go deeper into subjects is making less people able to think deep enough to use it for its potential. Of coarse still plenty of smart people but as a whole universities are having issues finding good research grad students.

Man corrupted spirituality with most religions as well. I find most of the popular religious opinion to be false as well. When you try and recreate the expirement it doesn't hold up. Thats why the most religious parts of the country are also the poorest, violent, racist etc.

The devil's in the detail. So get you reading glasses out cause it's possibly a hose job.




posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 02:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: crayzeed
a reply to: BO XIANAh, but they wont do that as it would lead to piracy of proposed patents.
You must know where there is new inovations (where a patented product or process could earn billions) secrecy is at the top of the agenda. That's why the public never hear of any scientific finding of any study till after the event.



Agreed. I don't have a solution.

Human flaws get in the way regardless.

We see it on this thread.

An abundance of the rock throwing has no basis logically in the thread. It's a most UNSCIENTIFIC display of wholesale Religion of Scientism bias to the point of irrationality and/or plain lying for an agenda and/or terminal cluelessness and/or virtually 0% personal insight.



posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 02:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Those are nothing compaired to selling the public drugs everyday that don't work and creating studies to falsely your results.


I'd say it is two different heads to the same nasty beast.


All the climate change solutions being proposed are utter BS.

I never said the solutions were sound. I'm referring to the debate on it actually being real or not. Plus solutions are political in nature. Existence is scientific in nature.


Greenhouse gases are a fraction of the environmental disaster we are are creating. They are just basically the gun control equivalent to try and solve a massive problem. Number one the folding of habitats and it's chain reaction in addition to weather change and warming. The political solutions are only that. In some cases like carbon trade actually be competition manipulation. Political corruption is controlling innovation so peoples artifact solutions to some problems are completely stifled.

Oh really? And what evidence are you basing the bolded part on? Your intuition? Scientific models predicting climate change tend to under report, not over report.
edit on 16-6-2016 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 02:47 PM
link   
a reply to: BO XIAN

If you watched his piece about this it isn't science that's he problem, it's the media and their cherry picking. The problem on the science side is funding.



posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 02:50 PM
link   
a reply to: BO XIAN
Lol. Whatever you say. Like I said your words have already exposed you. Anyone who utters the phrase "Church of Scienism" or anything like that is clearly being manipulated by a severe anti-science bias and not to be taken seriously when it comes to criticizing science.

I won't lie, there are faults within some parts of science. Some scientists ARE corrupt (anti-climate change or pro-tobacco studies), will present faulty studies due to agendas (Creationism "science" for example), or some that just present bad information because of their egos. But YOU are the last person I would ever trust to point out things like this within science.



posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 02:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

My opinion is that it's far more under reported how bad polution, population growth, and over fishing have destroyed habitat and species with it. My opinion comes from having a marine biologist brother in law. The ocean has sustained serious damage in some areas and if we don't consider the other living things on the planet sooner or later the whole living system will fail. Regardless of what we put in the air.



posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 02:53 PM
link   
a reply to: luthier

I agree that those effects are under-reported and we don't do enough to track the damages we are doing due to other pollutions, but it is dishonest to let this lapse of judgement mar your opinion of climate science's effects.



posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 03:01 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I get you I don't deny it. I just think it's like a sore throat. It's a symptom of the disease which is the human perception of reality. Its our habits creating all this. Let's adress that. It's hard to do when your supposed to sell a hundred rubber snakes for your bussiness to put food on the table. But the snakes are totally pointless, and take up resources and polute to create.

When the gov gets involved all their buddies either get a free ride to polute , or get contracts to tool up.

The gov and the cronies are the ones stopping the innovative artifacts and cleaner energy production from having fair market opportunity. So to me its just a misdirection of an issue. Cut the head off Medusa before it's too late. Thats the only real change that will happen. If people inventions are allowed to reach the market and start changing consumption habits.



posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 03:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: BO XIAN
Lol. Whatever you say. Like I said your words have already exposed you. Anyone who utters the phrase "Church of Scienism" or anything like that is clearly being manipulated by a severe anti-science bias and not to be taken seriously when it comes to criticizing science.


Ahhhhh wholesale raging RELIGIOUS FERVOR BIAS as the route to truth.

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiigggggggggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhttttttttttttt Very impressive, that.

And by all means, remember to kill the messenger rather than face the facts.



. . . But YOU are the last person I would ever trust to point out things like this within science.


FINALLY, the crux of your flawed perspective is exposed.

I'm sooooooooooooooooo underwhelmed.

I learned a long time ago . . . that I could learn truth from virtually anyone. I don't have to get all tweaked and full of angst because someone doesn't like my religion, my hair, my car, my hobbies or whatever. I can learn from anyone. That's been a rewarding stance virtually all my adult life.

You might try it some time.



posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 03:07 PM
link   
There are definitely problems in science, since humans are involved, and humans have an amazingly consistent way of putting their fingerprints on every institution or process they touch.

Nonetheless, it is important to point out that science in general is not BS. Somehow, through all the perceived problems in science, it manages to be our only tool for understanding and manipulating the physical world, and as a process, has facilitated vast improvements in the basic human condition, in particular in highly developed countries with access to the products of modern science.

Engineering and medical science in particular continue to produce marvels.

The lesson from all this is to be discerning. Learn to actually read scientific studies. Be informed. There is nothing wrong with being skeptical of individual studies. In fact, proper peer review demands it, and even if you're not an active reviewer, applying the same standards is always a wise idea.



posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 03:11 PM
link   
a reply to: BO XIAN

Regardless of who came up with the title, the title remains BS in its own regard, because even the article itself is not strictly about science as a raw discipline and mode of logical discernment (a must, even for a Christian like me), but is instead, an article about how professionals who work with and rely upon science for their bread and butter, are forced to behave in order to make money.

Now, those of you who are familiar with me, will no doubt be unsurprised to find that it is my belief that choosing a career should ONLY be about either what you are best at, or what nourishes your soul most. It should have nothing to do with how much money a person can make doing it. Science, and particularly medicine, contains job roles which should ONLY be filled by those who want to help others, or increase the total knowledge that the species possesses, on the universe and everything in it. Those who want to make a million dollars, should either come up with a money making idea that does not exploit the needy, or go and work at one or another national mint office. Let's face it, if you cannot make a million dollars or pounds for yourself, you might as well go and make some for the whole country.

As for this article specifically, the title is misleading. Science is not BS. The way individual scientists are prepared to bow to pressure to publish, because of pathetic mortal concerns like how many guest lecture spots they get paid for, how much grant money they can amass, and how much clout they have at the annual meeting of whatever professional bodies they might belong to, is BS.

Because there are scientists out there performing real science, not just researching and publishing tranches of clickbait BS for the news networks, we can see that science itself is not BS, but some scientists are.

For example:

Scientists who successfully land a probe on an asteroid. Not BS.

Scientists suggest accidentally licking a plexiglass bus stop is good for you. BS.

There is a vast, yawning gulf between these two sorts of involvement with science. One is purely motivated by money, and the other is motivated by far nobler things, like inventiveness, curiosity, a pioneer spirit, the desire to bring the wonder that can be seen in the universe to the attention of the globe, the ferverent wish to end avoidable deaths, and to make it possible for human beings to survive as both individuals, and as a species, for longer... There are so many positive, and noble things being done with science at the moment, that for anyone to label the entire process BS, is to ignore greater than half of the work that is being done right now, and to insult a huge number of hardworking, dedicated, true lovers of wonderment and fascination.

This article is far more bogus than the thing it complains about.



posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 03:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: Greggers
There are definitely problems in science, since humans are involved, and humans have an amazingly consistent way of putting their fingerprints on every institution or process they touch.

Nonetheless, it is important to point out that science in general is not BS. Somehow, through all the perceived problems in science, it manages to be our only tool for understanding and manipulating the physical world, and as a process, has facilitated vast improvements in the basic human condition, in particular in highly developed countries with access to the products of modern science.

Engineering and medical science in particular continue to produce marvels.

The lesson from all this is to be discerning. Learn to actually read scientific studies. Be informed. There is nothing wrong with being skeptical of individual studies. In fact, proper peer review demands it, and even if you're not an active reviewer, applying the same standards is always a wise idea.


INDEED. WELL PUT. AGREED.

That's the point of the OP.

The author of the OP asked the question in the title.

And, imho, he answered that

TOO MUCH of science IS BS . . . for very corrupt reasons.

That's simply a fact. One corrupt article in the name of science is too much. That it's actually most likely 1/3-1/2 is outrageous.



posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 03:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Greggers

This is very true.

I would argue science could use a little brush up on philosophy like the rest of the public so ethics can be talked about more in depth. As far as when scientists are students.

Science is only as good as the user. It always rubbed me the wrong way when Hawking said philosophy is dead. He may be right but that isn't a good thing.



posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 03:21 PM
link   
a reply to: TrueBrit

I think you are slipping and sliding logically in some of your assertions.

1. The question in the title is reasonable given the huge numbers of corrupt studies, interpretations and reports.

2. That is a problem of the institutions of science--the people running those institutions; propagating those institutions are GUILTY AS CHARGED. And they have not only failed to clean up their acts, they continue to reward corruption and hazard the populace accordingly.

3. Perhaps it depends on your definition of "strictly" but I believe the article IS primarily about the DISCIPLINE of science--actually the LACK of discipline in the discipline of science.

4. I did not read the article as so limited in the scope YOU assigned it.

These items:



Find out, if possible, who is funding the study
Look at their method of testing
Look at the sample size
Were the subjects humans?
What was the duration of the study?
Does the outcome match up with the headline or title?
Was the study a double-blind study?
Has the study been replicated with the same results?
Think critically


are NOT "strictly" about how making money requires corruption in scientific disciplines. These items are about what to check to HELP insure that solid science has been done in a quality & rational way; interpreted in a quality and rational way and reported out in a quality and rational way.

Those items have implications about making money but in and of themselves, the money making aspect is several layers removed from those items and proper consideration of those items even when science is done on a volunteer basis with no money being made on it.



posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 03:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: Greggers

This is very true.

I would argue science could use a little brush up on philosophy like the rest of the public so ethics can be talked about more in depth. As far as when scientists are students.

Science is only as good as the user. It always rubbed me the wrong way when Hawking said philosophy is dead. He may be right but that isn't a good thing.


I agree completely. In fact, I find that schools do a terrible job of even broaching the subject of how science and philosophy are used as basic tools, so that people often mistake philosophical arguments for scientific ones (and vice versa).

This also leads to poor application of scientific observations to non-falisifiable claims.



posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 03:29 PM
link   
a reply to: TrueBrit

NOPE. The article lists solid problems with the WAY science is managed in our culture.

The article offers various 'proof' level factoids and refs. Far fewer than he might have provided but sufficient.

The article is not very extreme at all in the scope it's talking about. The wailing extremes on this thread of those throwing rocks at the article are farrrrr worse and all inclusive in their wording.

I think you unfairly and inaccurately labeled the article worse than the problem it's talking about.



posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 03:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: BO XIAN

My wife is a research professor.

It goes even deeper. It's harder and harder to find critical thinkers needed for labwork and research.

. . .

The devil's in the detail. So get you reading glasses out cause it's possibly a hose job.


Absolutely indeed.

I often had to get literally in the faces of many of my psych 101 students to get them to understand how to think critically about a very . . . uhhh . . . critical issue in life and psychology . . . e.g. divided attention driving with a cell phone . . . I'd often have to get very dramatic and extreme with the examples . . . and very personal . . . or it would just escape them--no comprehension. Clueless.

Sad to watch.

It was one of the factors to my retiring when I did.



posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 03:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Greggers

Bingo.


The method of debate and exposing falacy directly led to the modern scientific aproach with Newton and empericism (realists too).

Science is..

Thats it. It's a directive.

It's like saying grammar is bs

The person doing the science is the issue.

Politics is a huge issue.

Morality around certain areas of profit and information (to me especially illness) there are difficult debates to be had but we just have poor leadership on these national conversations.



posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 03:45 PM
link   
a reply to: BO XIAN

I would have to argue the point here. So here goes.

Pop musicians often write bad music for big money, and the record industry keeps hiring them to do it. Is music dead?

Some clergy persons molest children, and their bishops and higher ups have done little about it. Is Christianity satanism?

Some people in Essex have a reputation for having more STDs than a porn star turned two bit hooker, and their neighbours are ambivalent about it. Is everyone in Essex a giant whore?

Some scientists prefer to make money, than make world changing discoveries with science. Those whose job it is to keep the quality level of information provided by the scientific community to the rest of the world, seem to be ok with that. Is science BS?

The answer to all of the above questions, is a resounding, and utterly comprehensive NO. WHY? Because quality music is still made, because there are still Christians out there who cherish the word and spirit of Christ, and because not every single person in Essex has to have a visit from a HAZMAT team from Porton Down, just to dispose of their prophylactics. In the same way, quality science, done for the right reasons, and in the right way is being done DESPITE the fact that those who administrate its various appendages have all the ethical backbone of a jelly sandwich.

Understand this. Science is a technique of mind. It is not an organisation, it is not a person, or a place, or an item. How poorly it is used, understood, or delivered does not take away from the fact that when used as it ought to be, great things can come about, and that will remain the case no matter what ridiculous schemes and tales are told by those with a qualification in it.

Put another way, as long as gravity continues to act upon me, and every other thing in this universe, science will continue to be a useful tool of the mind, and those who use it descisively and ethically will still have major contributions to make to the future of this species.



posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 03:45 PM
link   
ABSOLUTELY INDEED. EXCELLENT POINTS. AGREED.


originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: Greggers

Bingo.


The method of debate and exposing fallacy directly led to the modern scientific approach with Newton and empiricism (realists too).

Science is..

That's it. It's a directive.

It's like saying grammar is bs

The person doing the science is the issue.

Politics is a huge issue.

Morality around certain areas of profit and information (to me especially illness) there are difficult debates to be had but we just have poor leadership on these national conversations.



It is so refreshing to read a poster awake, rational, fair-minded, discerning, accurate . . . thanks.







 
31
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join