Peanut Butter - The Atheist's Nightmare

[emp]

Climategate
</thread>

Funny.

I actually view "climategate" as a proof that the scientific method works.

If that stuff was written in [insert holy book of choice], there would not even be questions about it, cause you know, it's scripture.

Of course mistakes / political feuds / fraud / falsification of data / etc.. happen in science. But as a whole, the method works, and it has worked pretty well for everyone who is sitting in front of his keyboard now.

Most of these things get found out sooner or later, not by prayer, but by rigorous testing and evaluation.

::emp::

 

[lukep]

All Climagegate proved was that Faux News watchers go way out of the way to discredit science.

 

[Jokerr]

Wait, there's evidence for creationism?

 

[Spelunking]

Has anyone mention chromosome #2 yet?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zi8FfMBYCkk]YouTube - Ken Miller on Human Evolution[/ame]

How can you deny evolution at all, really?

 

[Ar Scion]

Err? WHAT now?

Scientists have been laughed out of the room when their hypotheses have been disproven. Wrong science is mocked and ridiculed all day long.

This is the beauty of science. Find flaw in a hypothesis, throw it away, start new, get a teeny bit closer to the truth.

Science is here to find truths that can explain ALL data gathered, without flaw.

This is also why the creationist bunk does not stand up to scientific scrutiny.




Science is not a "I make you feel good, you make me feel good" kinda thing. I find flaw with your hypothesis, you can be sure I'll rip you a new one and get laudated by the rest of the community for advancing science.


Advancing a field has nothing to do with being dismissed later. Actually, most scientists share that fate.

That is what science is. You find a clue to something that might explain a bit in your field. You set up experiments or look at data with a fresh eye. You write papers, you form your hypothesis, you attend conferences...
and you are laughed at when the next guy disproves your stuff and finds some flaw in your logic.

And yet! You have advanced your field, even in failure, even in defeat.



And please stop using the word "theory" for creationism. It is, at it's best, a hypothesis.

::emp::

I honestly don't see it this way. Your view of academia sounds like a very dramatic Hollywood version of the real thing. Going around assaulting other scientists and their work hardly does any good for anybody, even though it makes for good entertainment.

I don't know if you're trying to see scientific research from within the framework of a free market economy or some sort of competitive perspective, but if it worked like that, science would be fucked.

 

[Spelunking]

I honestly don't see it this way. Your view of academia sounds like a very dramatic Hollywood version of the real thing. Going around assaulting other scientists and their work hardly does any good for anybody, even though it makes for good entertainment.

I don't know if you're trying to see scientific research from within the framework of a free market economy or some sort of competitive perspective, but if it worked like that, science would be fucked.

The fact that scientists' work gets viciously attacked is part of what gives the work merit.

 

[papajohn56]

I honestly don't see it this way. Your view of academia sounds like a very dramatic Hollywood version of the real thing. Going around assaulting other scientists and their work hardly does any good for anybody, even though it makes for good entertainment.

I don't know if you're trying to see scientific research from within the framework of a free market economy or some sort of competitive perspective, but if it worked like that, science would be fucked.

It is too dramatic, but scientists in academia are passive aggressive dicks to eachother. If one is a reviewer for another's paper that conflicts with them, you will see them sending it back for revision out of spite. It's not too common but it happens.

 

[emp]

Of course I am hopelessly exaggerating. I am a scientist by education and have worked in academia. Although the moves and attacks are more slow and subtle, the outcome is the same. And yes, the very nature of scientific discourse is this attack. Only a hypthesis that can withstand repeated attacks over time will stand.

This is just the point a forum breaks down. If I could sit together with you, we could have a fun time discussing the finer points of the philosophy behind science.

This being a forum, all the shouting and drama barely help my point getting registered above the noise the trolls make.

::emp::

 

[conv3rsion]

How can you deny evolution at all, really?

you can be (willfully or not) ignorant of the evidence or just fundamentally against the possibility that there actually wasn't an adam and an eve created initially in their final forms.

Either way, it changes nothing about the mountain of evidence supporting evolution like the video you just posted. All it takes is one missing fused chromosome and evolution has a serious problem, but of course there it is as we'd expect.

 

[LotsOfZeros]

Funny.

I actually view "climategate" as a proof that the scientific method works.

If that stuff was written in [insert holy book of choice], there would not even be questions about it, cause you know, it's scripture.

Of course mistakes / political feuds / fraud / falsification of data / etc.. happen in science. But as a whole, the method works, and it has worked pretty well for everyone who is sitting in front of his keyboard now.

Most of these things get found out sooner or later, not by prayer, but by rigorous testing and evaluation.

::emp::

Skepticism of science/scientists does not always mean I've ever cracked a bible.

Very narrow-minded of you to keep diverting back to 'Bibles are bad', 'Jesus/God is bad', 'Fox news did this!' when you really know nothing about my beliefs in the overall issue.

You 'scientists' can do better than that.
Lulz all around.

 

[erect]

^^ Chuck Norris, proof of evolution

 

[Ghost]

This is a smart man right here...

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mQorzOS-F6w"]YouTube - Christopher Hitchens - The Best of the Hitchslap[/ame]&feature=player_embedded

 

[emp]

Skepticism of science/scientists does not always mean I've ever cracked a bible.

Very narrow-minded of you to keep diverting back to 'Bibles are bad', 'Jesus/God is bad', 'Fox news did this!' when you really know nothing about my beliefs in the overall issue.

You 'scientists' can do better than that.
Lulz all around.

LOL.. I guess we are missing each other's point / interpreting too much ..

I just commented on a general tendency in debate with religionists as in "it has been written ##### years ago and is still valid, although there are plotholes you can drive a truck through"

I never said that you are a bible thumper or that the bible/Jesus is bad.

::emp::

 

[Ar Scion]

It is too dramatic, but scientists in academia are passive aggressive dicks to eachother. If one is a reviewer for another's paper that conflicts with them, you will see them sending it back for revision out of spite. It's not too common but it happens.

Oh, for sure they are passive aggressive dicks to each other.

But this passive-aggression is a detriment to the process. It's the result of polluting pure data and pure information gathering with the human personality.

This shit doesn't make for better research, because the focus is on taking down the person, not improving your own shit.

Could you imagine how your company would run if your employees were passive aggressive dicks who kept trying to pull each other down?

It happens. But it ain't pretty. And it's not the optimal way to get better results.

 

[emp]

Oh well. In science, attacking the hypothesis / paper / theory IS the way forward, as only by constant scrutiny we will find out what is true.

What sucks (often) is the politics surrounding it. (This is where the passive aggressive comes from). Competing for budget, competing for people (the young, bright stars), for titles and positions and the place in the next publication.

Throw in big politics, corporate interests and more and more capital meddling in science, and add the fact that scientists are only humans and you got quite a mess.

::emp::

 

[Ar Scion]

We're on the same page on the issue of scientific pollution then. What alarms me is the lack of oversight or regulation of these sort of things.

If you ask scientists they will deny that any problems exist. You can be sure that these are the guys who are benefiting from the status quo.

They've mastered the art of marketing their research to grant beneficiaries, the art of sabotaging competitors and blackballing journals, scientists and institutions that might hurt their prospects.

All while putting on a front that everything is fine and science is working as it should.

 

[emp]

The oversight and regulation comes from peer reviews and the scientific process itself.
(constant attacks, reviews, scrutiny, retesting, etc..)

The issue of "scientific pollution" is mostly exaggerated. What we are mostly struggling with is incompetence of individual scientists, researchers having to code their own analysis programs, outdated equipment, lack of funds, etc..

The basic impression I get is more that it is like democracy. A bullshit system, but still the best we have come up with.

And science has a huge success rate, no denying that, is there?

What gets me ranting is people going up against science who have no clue about it.
You are entitled, no, you are INVITED to criticize and prod and poke any theory or hypothesis, paper or conference talk if you bring something to the table.

At least an education.

Know what you are talking about and a scientist will love to discuss with you.

But be prepared to get completely ignored or ridiculed if you just spout dogma. "it is true, because I read it in the last Harry Potter" does not cut it.

::emp::

 

[Ar Scion]

The oversight and regulation comes from peer reviews and the scientific process itself.
(constant attacks, reviews, scrutiny, retesting, etc..)

The issue of "scientific pollution" is mostly exaggerated. What we are mostly struggling with is incompetence of individual scientists, researchers having to code their own analysis programs, outdated equipment, lack of funds, etc..

The basic impression I get is more that it is like democracy. A bullshit system, but still the best we have come up with.

And science has a huge success rate, no denying that, is there?

What gets me ranting is people going up against science who have no clue about it.
You are entitled, no, you are INVITED to criticize and prod and poke any theory or hypothesis, paper or conference talk if you bring something to the table.

At least an education.

Know what you are talking about and a scientist will love to discuss with you.

But be prepared to get completely ignored or ridiculed if you just spout dogma. "it is true, because I read it in the last Harry Potter" does not cut it.

::emp::

You're telling me that if a field full of scientists ideologically committed to one theory form a peer review panel and review a paper which espouses an unpopular alternative, there is no way they can possibly find a reason to reject that theory?

This sort of blind faith in the system is unwarranted, if you ask me. I remember reading the story of a geologist who predicted the Lake Nyos disaster. I can't find his name now, but his understanding of the situation was unpopular among his peers. As a result, on the basis of spelling errors they rejected his paper.

While criticizing arguments and such is warranted and necessary, there is a line that is crossed when people, individuals are targeted, smeared and their careers ruined for pursuing theories that might be unpopular but could potentially have scientific merit if pursued.

You see it as a good thing. I see it as blackmail and a great disservice to the scientific community and the public.

 

[emp]

Of course these things happen, and probably more frequent than I know, but less frequent than you think.

But science is full of once unpopular theories that are now accepted.

Einstein hated Quantum Theory. Did not stop it.

::emp::

 

[Rusky]

In response to the Christopher Hitchens video above. Probably the most outspoken atheist today. I dont agree with him, but still like to listen to him debate.
He was diagnosed with level 4 cancer recently. It would be interesting to see how this will effect his thinking in the next 12 months. Sucks for him, believe me I feel sad for him.
Him on 60 minutes this weekend.
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OkAMOrnyy30"]YouTube - Christopher Hitchens, still outrageous[/ame]