Crawling in my skin...these wouds they will not heal... Dont mind my singing. Anyhow, This is pretty big, if these scientists are too lazy to do this stuff and some are ignorant enough to include there own name or someone else innapropriatly, thats pretty lame.

Schmidt1989

...confusing what is real....singing some more.

Agree

It just highlights the reason that everyone needs to do their own research and take nobody...not even that 'well respected scientist', at his word.

Well it certainly is a shame. But I don't see how the average person has the time, money or resources to do their own research on everything they may have an interest in. Science it would seem is not immune to fraud and knowing whether to believe in science has become as risky as trying to find an honest story in the media. For all we know, we do live in a matrix.

Well if this study is to be believed then this study is useless as well

Originally posted by sardion2000
Well if this study is to be believed then this study is useless as well

Sardion makes an excellant observation here. I concur.

You might also read over (again) what makes for fraud...

For instance (and this is a real issue I'm facing), I am supposed to do some research interviews for a client. In order to do the interviews, I have to get the whole design experiment AND the question approved by the IRB (the research board vetting system.) It takes as long as 3 months to get this done.

I'm supposed to have the results for the client by August. If the IRB doesn't hurry up, I won't be able to start before the results are due.

It is scientific fraud if I do NOT wait for approval -- if I go to the site and ask the questions anyway (they've been reviewed by a number of professionals and gotten the green light.)

If I publish a paper on the recontextualization of a rock art site, it is fraud if I then use the same pictures and measurements to publish a similar paper in a DIFFERENT journal. Yes, reporters and writers can recycle stories all the time... but ethically, scientists can't.

Meanwhile, my academic and professional career demands that I also spend about 3-8 months out of each year doing research in addition to teaching, data compilation, etc, etc.

Yes, there's frauds. There's also faked data (which is usually caught within a year or so.) There's the occasional scandal. But if you compare this with, say, reporters or any other profession you'll find that it's about the same level as anything else... religious leaders included.

Originally posted by sardion2000
Well if this study is to be believed then this study is useless as well

LOL

I thought of that too.

Scientists are as trustable as lawyers it seems

Scientists are as trustable as lawyers it seems

Eh, not necessarily. I grew up around acedemics and scientists, which is where I get most of my morality from(of which it's very very strong btw) They are just human(not Subhuman like most lawyers though )

I should have added after that rather snide comment on my part this.(Eg I never took this "study" serously to begin with) This piece is most likely Anti-Intellectual Propaganda brought to you by the Washington Post, who woulda thunk it

Everyone knows people lie and cheat and steal and .... etc etc etc. Scientists are no exception. Lawyers Lie for a living(at least Defence Lawyers do) Scientists for the most part do not at least in my personal experience they don't so comparing the two is rather silly IMHO. It's like comparing a Politician to a Priest Okay bad example

you straddled the middle pretty good there.
I thought it was odd that called it propaganda on one hand then said it was prolly right because the folks are human and humans do these things.

I would say most people knew it already anyway. At least the thinking group. Surely people had to notice how studies always came out in favor of sponsers of the study.

ON the other hand, there is that group of people who would bet their life on the words of those scientists. To them, this should burst the bubble

Originally posted by Byrd
It is scientific fraud if I do NOT wait for approval -- if I go to the site and ask the questions anyway (they've been reviewed by a number of professionals and gotten the green light.)

Hey Byrd........I was wondering if you could clear this up for me.......it sounds as if you could be cited for fraud, everything consistent, save for the fact of approval..........am I interpreting correctly?

"Scientific Study finds that studies are USELESS"

Sounds like an article that The Onion would post.

I agree with the onion thing. I also see how its a play on the seriousness to those who consider themselves scientists.

I'm a Ph. D chemist, and that article is 100% true. From personal expierence, I can tell you that scientists are BY FAR the best liars around. the entire human genome project was based on a lie (thats another argument).

I'm trying to get out of science mainly for the reasons cited in the article

[edit on 22-6-2005 by KyleChemist]

Thanks for posting then...and for saying that the lying is more then simple academics

You must be one of the Chemistry PhDs who ends up as a bartender.

Nothing I have done in my work has been a lie. If I lied, there'd be no money and no job.

Originally posted by T_Jesus
You must be one of the Chemistry PhDs who ends up as a bartender.

Nothing I have done in my work has been a lie. If I lied, there'd be no money and no job.

The information shows that the system is set up so that lies are rewarded.

The title of this thread reminds me of the jokes you get in Maxis games like the Sims.....

"Loading Llama Coefficient".....

sardion2000sardion2000

posted on 6/12/2005 at 08:24
Well if this study is to be believed then this study is useless as well

That about sums it up for me too.

Is it just me or is this pretty hilarious? How much time on their hands do they have to conduct a study that found that studies are useless. So basically they wasted their time?

I find this oxymoronically funny.

-wD