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.

 

For those who wish to play the science game...

page: 1
13
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 12:08 PM
link   
Right, this is the Science & Technology forum, so there's a natural leaning towards all things "sciencey" (or at least there should be). However, numerous times I have seen people on the one hand dismissing the peer-review process and the scientific establishment as being part of some great ruse to keep the "real" (read: pseudo) science out as part of some global agenda, yet on the other hand they will happily trot out cherry picked scientific terms and concepts and distort them to support their stance. Things like "zero point energy", "maxwell's equations", "quantum foam" and so on.

You want to play the science game, you play by the rules.

If make extraordinary claims and use sciencey-sounding words to support them, then back up your claims by citing peer-reviewed papers from reputable journals of the relevant scientific disciplines. Otherwise, leave the science alone!

I understand that a lot of journals are behind a pay wall so not everyone without institutional credentials will be able to access them, so the next best thing is to cite mainstream pop-sci articles that explicitly support your claim. I don't mean citing a pop-sci article that gives a general overview of quantum foam if you wish to use the concept of quantum foam to support some "over unity" device, I mean citing a pop-sci article that explicitly states in unambiguous terms exactly what you are arguing. Fringe websites and blogs are not good enough, if you have a problem with mainstream sources then stop abusing mainstream science to support your claims!

In future, if anyone either dismisses mainstream science yet distorts it to suite their agenda or simply does the latte, I'm going to redirect them to this thread.

A closing note: this might sound like a rant (and it probably is
) but dissing mainstream science only to cherry pick mainstream science to support your claims is hypocritical. You want to play the science game, play by the rules. If you don't like the rules, don't play the game!




posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 12:51 PM
link   
reply to post by john_bmth
 


Agreed. Keep in mind there are a million articles like this online.

www.timesonline.co.uk...

So, peer reviewed journals might not be the end all perfect scientific reference we like to believe.

Just playing the devil's advocate.



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 12:58 PM
link   
Very well said.


And also can we add in that people are not allowed to us the argument that: because people believed the Earth was flat in the past = magnets can cause holes to be ripped in the fabric of space giving us unlimited energy.

I mean, if magnets can rip holes in the fabric of space and give us unlimited energy, I'm all for it. But citing previous failures in Science and/or previous failures in critical thought, is not justification or validation of some process that has no explanation and no evidence to support.

Some of the arguments are so contradictory they fall into the category of insane:

►All Science is exclusively controlled by "TPTB".
►Peer reviewed journals don't approve any information unless it supports "TPTB".
►Scientists lie.

(So who isn't then lying in this web of oppression that has be spun?)

Then you have the following positions as well:

►Einstein was wrong, and stole all his work from other people.
►Scientists have been wrong so many times in the past why are they right now?
►Science changes (therefore justifying something without evidence?).
►Tesla was right about everything (invented everything known to man) and knew about things that modern day Science does not understand.

Apparently, to some people, Science stops being cumulative when someone out there cries suppression.



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 01:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by john_bmth
If make extraordinary claims and use sciencey-sounding words to support them, then back up your claims by citing peer-reviewed papers from reputable journals of the relevant scientific disciplines. Otherwise, leave the science alone!


I AGREE for the most part with the premise you've outlined but...

What if it is a new topic/solution/discovery etc. Which hasn't been peer-reviewed yet? Should we also leave out theoretically possible scientifically based conjecture and speculation? If Alexander Fleming in 1928 didn't ask what is this mold and then further speculated [Without peer-review] it's possible uses that could have possibly delayed the discovery of Penicillin for years if not decades not to mention all the millions of lives it has helped since then.

Just saying is all.




posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 01:07 PM
link   
Agreed. While some feel the need to put undue doubt on all peer reviewed work it is important to understand that the vast majority of technical scientific research is sound. Technology research fraud is usually committed by conspiracy theorists who believe everything they hear on YouTube or on rense or infowars.

Most people when discussing scientific issues, like the cause of large earthquakes and the tendency to blame everything bad on HAARP, instead of understanding fundamental principles of scientific data gathering, they throw it all out the window and accuse the scientifically minded dissenter of being a 'shill' or whatever.

It may get you stars and flags but it doesn't make it correct, realistic, or remotely scientific.

Good post sir.
edit on 1-6-2011 by projectvxn because: Typing on iPod. Please excuse errors in syntax.



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 01:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by amcdermott20
reply to post by john_bmth
 


Agreed. Keep in mind there are a million articles like this online.

www.timesonline.co.uk...

So, peer reviewed journals might not be the end all perfect scientific reference we like to believe.

Just playing the devil's advocate.



The findings, published in the peer-reviewed journal PLoS One, are based on a review of 21 scientific misconduct surveys carried out between 1986 and 2005. The results paint a picture of a profession in which dishonesty and misrepresentation are widespread.



Which is ironic because the study was also published in a peer-reviewed journal.


There are also different journals and different qualities.

Enter The Chinese Dragon of Science:

While China’s contribution to science is undeniably welcome, the report points out that quantity of research is not an exact barometer of quality. If we use citations as some kind of gauge, however rough, of the quality of a publication, then China does not perform as well as we might expect.
1


What can you take from this?

While data can be fudged, and people can be dishonest, as aforementioned, that does not bode well for people who have no peer reviewed process at all. Even if it were widespread, and all peer reviewed journals were subject to 7% fraud, then that still gives us 93% of the material to be properly tested.

If it lands in no journal at all (say, something on YouTube) there is nothing stopping people from flat out deceiving.

There are criticisms of the peer review process, and Science in general. That does not mean that it is a failed system, or that "YouTube/Blog Science" will take over any day soon.



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 01:16 PM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


Thinking outside the box and believing outside the box are two separate things. If penicillian did nothing more than inflame someones lymph glands (as opposed to being very useful), I suppose its use would not be so widespread today.

Yet, there are people out there consuming "natural" cures, like colloidal silver, after it was discontinued because of side effects.1

Does silver have medicinal properties? Of course it does, but should we choose to use it over antibiotics because Alex Jones is linking it on his webpage? And because "TPTB" are in control of everything....and they don't want you to have it....




posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 01:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by boncho
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


Thinking outside the box and believing outside the box are two separate things.


Who is supporting blind faith?
I said I agree for the most part with the OPs stance. I doubt ATS will be the forum for ground breaking research. Scientifically viable speculation shouldn't be discussed?



Does silver have medicinal properties? Of course it does, but should we choose to use it over antibiotics because Alex Jones is linking it on his webpage? :


Caveat Emptor



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 01:23 PM
link   
I think we also need to remember what the limits of science are. There's empirical science, and then there's highly theoretical science, the latter being subjective and dependent upon complex mathematics much more than observation and experimentation. Even one of my physics profs was expressing concern about straying too far from empirical science back in the '80s. It's all well and good to try to explain,through math and models, phenomena that cannot (at least at this time) be directly observed or repeated in a lab. But it isn't as "scientific" as it may sound, since it is often a case of "a growing number of hypothetical entities" as The Cosmology Statement put it.

If the scientific community wants to bolster its reputation in this time of "Climategate" and bending research to fit the aims of those paying for it, I think they need to police their own and stop pushing theory as fact. They need to stop making ideology (regardless of the branch of science) and protecting careers a priority and go back to true research and discovery, unhindered by preconceived limits and philosophical constraints. They have only themselves to blame for losing the public's confidence.



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 01:43 PM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 



Who is supporting blind faith? I said I agree for the most part with the OPs stance. I doubt ATS will be the forum for ground breaking research. Scientifically viable speculation shouldn't be discussed?



My post really wasn't directed at you. Just pointing out that open minds sometimes turn into closed minds of illogical openness.

ATS should be a great place for speculating and discussing possibilities, but to me it seems lately, like it's a platform for hawking and/or promoting energy scams in regards to everything "free energy" and the like.




caveat emptor


Yeah... And it separates the fools doesn't it?

Unfortunately, when millions ride and bandwagon and there are just a few people that realize the bandwagon is nothing more than talk and sleaze....



...Depressing ain't it? It's like watching a heard of animals walk themselves off a cliff.



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 02:21 PM
link   
May I remind you that you are in a conspiracy forum? Are you the science police or something. I don't want to be rude, but sometimes I wonder if there are any truth seeker on here.

Here let me tell you what I think is happening:
The people you were referring to aren't "against" science (or "real science" if you prefer) or scientific institutions/journals. What these people are against is the dismissal of everything that is not peer-reviewed.

"You want to play the science game, you play by the rules."

So what are the rules exactly? The peer-review concept is rigged, and extremely selective. I mean, it's a fact that it is selective. Since you have totally ignored my reply that I addressed to you in my last thread, let me explain it once more in a very very brief way.

Now show me the rules! You're not the one who's gonna write them, but they must exist right? Where can I see the rules?

Money controls everything. With money comes power. You don't need 10,000 scientists to be "in the cover-up", you need a well oiled up system that can keep the status quo alive. Scientists don't lie, they report to an institution that lies, sometimes. (You seem not to believe in a status quo...) So what is better than making everyone believe that for a technology/piece of science to be true and operable, it has to be peer-reviewed by a certain "credible" and absolute scientific institution? The thing is, yes, with these institutions we've been able to invent internet, satellites, cars, and so on. But we could be way above that by now if there were no middle-man (the peer-review concept).

So what is your rule exactly? I've always thought one of the primary rule of science was to question everything, not take anything as absolute. Was I wrong the whole time? Because the whole thing with the peer-review, is that if something is not peer-reviewed, people see it as "false", or simple inoperable. That goes against questioning everything. What if the institutions really are controlled? You HAVE to ask yourself this question. "The important thing is not to stop questioning." - Einstein So how does a website become "fringe" and "not good enough"? By going against the generally accepted ideas? By not getting peer-reviewed?

"if you have a problem with mainstream sources then stop abusing mainstream science to support your claims! "
But then you are going to link me to this thread
I will say it once more but, man, you're on a conspiratorial website! If you don't believe in any conspiracy at all, why are you here? Why aren't you on a science forums with like-minded people? I would expect people would come here with a different mindset...The thing is...there is just one conspiracy...one you have to understand. Once you understand THE conspiracy, you will understand the people you're accusing of stupidity's point.

Now let me tell you the rule here: open mindset. You are on this website to challenge you're view of reality. If you want peer-reviewed articles and nothing else, there are hundreds of scientific forums for that.

I encourage people to challenge everything that is "mainstream", this is the purpose of this website. There is nothing hypocritical in challenging the status quo (read mainstream science). What is hypocritical is to ignore everything that is not peer-reviewed by a "credible" institutions with "credible" scientists. Who makes them "credible"? Is it the fact that they have a phd...that has been earned mostly by repeating what you were told at school? What if the education system was wrong?



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 02:28 PM
link   
Oh, if we're making science based forum rules, something I'd like to ban would be term arrogation as practiced originally by Theosophists, and which has unfortunately spread into pretty much every branch of "New Age" belief.

It goes like this:


I think live things are super special. So, since I don't know what makes one thing alive and another not, I'll make an irrational leap and postulate an undetectable attribute that makes something live. And since technology is new and cool, I'll call myself "Madame Blavatsky" and start theosophy by arrogating physics terms to my new pseudo-religion. Therefore, live things are alive because of "life energy", and have "vibrations". The more I like the live thing, the higher the vibration I'll attribute to it.


This gives rise to ATS arguments like "All living things have life energy". Physics says "energy cannot be destroyed". Therefore, all life is immortal and spirits simply migrate from one density to another.

Blargh. That sort of thing ought to be a flogging offense.



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 02:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gab1159
May I remind you that you are in a conspiracy forum? Are you the science police or something. I don't want to be rude, but sometimes I wonder if there are any truth seeker on here.


The entire point of "mainstream science" is the pursuit of truth. In order to facilitate it, we've sort of developed tools to pare away wishful thinking and error. They're not perfect, but they work in most cases.

If you are really looking for conspiracy that actually exists, is it not better to look for one with eyes that are seeking for objective truth instead of "I had a dream last night of Beklar, my spirit consort from the fifth density, who told me the spirit vibrations of the djinn are going to cause Nibiru to hit Earth when we reach the harmonic conjunction at next Beltane"?



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 02:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gab1159
May I remind you that you are in a conspiracy forum? Are you the science police or something. I don't want to be rude, but sometimes I wonder if there are any truth seeker on here.

I have nothing against discussion, what I DO have a problem with is the abuse of mainstream science to support pseudo-science. THAT is my bone of contention. If you wish to play the science game by using mainstream science to support your assertions, cite proper academic papers, not cherry pick sciencey-sounding words in an attempt to out-jargon your opponent.
edit on 1-6-2011 by john_bmth because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 02:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gab1159
"You want to play the science game, you play by the rules."

So what are the rules exactly? The peer-review concept is rigged, and extremely selective. I mean, it's a fact that it is selective. Since you have totally ignored my reply that I addressed to you in my last thread, let me explain it once more in a very very brief way.

See? This is EXACTLY what I'm talking about. If you really think that, fine, but leave science alone. Don't be a hypocrite by trashing mainstream science on the one hand only to cherry pick and distort genuine scientific terms and concepts to support pseudo-science on the other. You can't have it both ways.



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 02:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Gab1159
 



May I remind you that you are in a conspiracy forum? Are you the science police or something. I don't want to be rude, but sometimes I wonder if there are any truth seeker on here.


You posted a thread that claimed people who were involved in widespread pathological delusion and/or fraud were being 'suppressed' by 'tptb'.1

If anything, you are part of a conspiracy, or at the very least, a purveyor of lies.

How are you a truth seeker?


edit on 1-6-2011 by boncho because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 04:12 PM
link   
reply to post by john_bmth
 


ok im now feeling like this article may be directed at people like me who try and bring "pop" science
to the attension of the members of ATS, and try to explain the science to the best of my abilities and "link" the original articals.
then i make "unscientific" interpretations based on my interpretation of the pop article.
this usually invokes debate about the interpretation and quite regularly people alot more versed in the area of science these pop articles are refering to, come along with a much more concise explination of what the science acually means,
think Phage
think CLPrime
and a member whos name i cant spell (starts with a you know who you are

david grouchy
Phractal Phil

and many more highly educated members who
in a round about way peer reveiw what has been posted and offer corrections and explinations.
in a "laymans" terms or even using the current best sources
this interaction you seem to dislike so, has helped me in my understanding of science and the universe
and i must thank not only the members listed but all others that have an opinon on my articles
in this science forum i have learned more from being wrong and being corrected with links and info from members spending THEIR time maling sure the content is as acurite is it can be

hey i admit im wrong when confrunted with thoughtful well written responces
kinda like ATS peer reveiw

when you say that the science forum has not contributed to science i would point out a few things
1.members are being exposed to nasa and plank institute material that may not otherwise have come to their attension, and by having a "layman" interpretation members (and myself) are able to enjoy the science without having to be a PHD to understand what is being presented

2.i personally use the science forum to gain the attension for my "theories" and have gained great insight from members "peer reveiw" of my theories and in some cases have had conclusive evedence presented that viods my thesis.

3.you seem to imply that no great discoveries come from "backyard" astronomers and as i "backyard" astonomer
i would like to direct your attension to my theories that are possably correct or have been show correct by observations by NASA and ESA




The images are at once artistic and informative, weaving together themes in astrobiology, planetary science, and astronomy. Including contributions from backyard astronomers, large telescopes in space, and even point-and-shoot cameras of field researchers, the collection represents the current state of exploration as seen through the eyes of the scientific community.


link to pop science article


xploders gravitational microscoping thread see picture below

www.abovetopsecret.com...

i would like to point out the first place in the world that gravitational microscoping was "theorized" was by me here on ATS.




to be clear i did not make observations that lead to this idea
i "theorized" the idea and posted it here on ats

and the imagary being displayed by NASA is "exactly" what would be expected from
xploders gravitational microscoping.
this is an example of something that HAS NOT been observed by and may be validated (not yet released)

here is an example of non observational theory acually proven correct by a later NASA release

a universe full of lens shaped bubbles
www.abovetopsecret.com...

read the thread then tell me we pop science types dont add to science



these are two "high profile" examples why these forums ARE healthy
the allow any one to "see the science" and comment on it

i find the idea that we mare mortals with out PHDs have nothing to contribute
or should not "present" ideas for other members to read is a form of science snobbery

and if you would like to help increase the "standard" of science in the science forum
please feel free to add threads containing the peer reveiwed articles and explinations for all members to enjoy
as this would do more to increase understanding of the sciences than just complaining


please feel free to review the links and information i have presented in my defence
defence rests your honour


xploder




edit on 1-6-2011 by XPLodER because: spelling

edit on 1-6-2011 by XPLodER because: spelling again lol

edit on 1-6-2011 by XPLodER because: add more science buddies



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 04:28 PM
link   
reply to post by XPLodER
 


Actually, XPLodER, you did not even cross my mind. I'm talking about people who denounce peer-reviewed science as corrupt and unreliable, yet use peer-reviewed science to support pseudo-science. 'm not against debate, I'm not against "what if's", I'm not against speculating, what I am against is the hypocrisy of what I describe above.
edit on 1-6-2011 by john_bmth because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 05:01 PM
link   
reply to post by john_bmth
 


in that case i appologise for being eddgy
as others in my circle of friends have denounced my credability
for instigating a debate about the expanding earth theory
hey i am human and have made mistakes in the past and will make mistakes in the future
but my aim here is to bring science to the members for consumption and debate
i find people here are very good at correcting my errors
and for that i am greatful

the refusal of peer reveiwed science shows a lack understanding in the true nature of science
without newton and einstien i would not have the mecanics to "theroize" about gravity or optics

all science "stands on the sholders" of the scientists and descoveries of previous peer reveiwed litrature.
and in this sence without credable peer reveiw the achivements of others cannot be used to "push" the boundries of inovation and this would stop the evolution of knowledge based on the tried and true sciencetific process.

in conclusion for anyone to counter peer reviewed material with a lower standard of reveiw is folly

but if a logical well thought out argument is put forward
to discount it out of hand without consideration because of a lack of peer reveiw
could also be folly of a lesser degree

xploder



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 05:09 PM
link   
Let me add one more comment, here -- it's "buyer beware" when you're looking at pop science articles.

Journalists get things wrong and often misunderstand the significance of things (or decide that relatively trivial matters are suddenly of world-shaking importance.) They will latch onto something that catches their attention and focus the article around it, and sometimes the results are so far off what's really said that the scientists (as in the case of the "galaxy falling into the Milky Way galaxy" some years ago) get angry enough to try and publish a rebuttal saying "they got the science wrong."

PLOS, by the way, is not exactly a "peer reviewed journal." It's really more of a "public reviewed journal." They place articles online and anyone can declare themselves a reviewer and approve an article. So they get some truly absurd things accepted.

As an example: I am going to be including formulas involving "stochastic networks with N-P completeness" in a dissertation. This will have to be reviewed by at least one mathematician ... and preferably several because math isn't my major field and I could derive the wrong interpretation. I could, however, submit to PLOS about how stochastic networks with N-P completeness prove that string theory is completely accurate and if enough folks voted it as acceptable, it could be published... without any mathematician or physicist ever taking a look at it.



new topics

top topics



 
13
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join