Do You Trust Research Findings? Perhaps You Shouldn't!

[j_j]

Are you attempting to refer to me again, JJ? Let's see if Gregadd agrees with you?

Read what you like, since you've been deliberately insulting all afternoon and are clearly trying to pick a fight. Trying to get you to read what I wrote seems impossible, anyhow.

Good day.

 

[j_j]

Ok, This is a gross misrepresentation of my position.

If so, your position was ill-stated.

I said scientists are flawed & therefore are subject to all the common frailties of humans. Now all you have to do is present the evidence which shows how the scientific machine corrects these flaws. You can start with how research grants are awarded & end with the evidence I asked for above

And, of course, simple evasion of the point by changing the goal posts. Research grants are NOT what establishes legitimacy of a result. Testing and verification are.

Perhaps you are aware of the discovery of the flaw in the idiotic austerity-economics paper mentioned upthread? That's a classic example of showing how the PROCESS of science corrects flaws.

And, it's not a "machine", so could we stop with the emotionally loaded rhetoric and attempts to equate science to gangsterism?

 

[jkeny]

...So, you are AN example. Hardly the only one.

So I am, in your eyes, an example of " there is a smallish, but rabidly vocal group, who wants to reject science and denigrates it at every opportunity."
Just for the record!

 

[treitz3]

Hello again, gentlemen. Please cease the arguing back and forth. It is against the TOS of this forum and cordial participation is a key requisite to being a member of this forum. One of the goals of this forum is to have a friendly place where everyone shares ideas and information without the level of bickering and angst that other forums tend to create. This is not directed toward one or the other. For your convenience, here is a link to the Terms of Service - http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showthread.php?1207-Terms-Of-Service

Please consider this a formal warning.

Tom

 

[jkeny]

If so, your position was ill-stated.


And, of course, simple evasion of the point by changing the goal posts. Research grants are NOT what establishes legitimacy of a result. Testing and verification are.

What research is funded plays a very large part in determining what areas are researched & papers might result, don't you think? This is the very primary step to look at.

Perhaps you are aware of the discovery of the flaw in the idiotic austerity-economics paper mentioned upthread? That's a classic example of showing how the PROCESS of science corrects flaws.

Yes, I posted it?? What happened to the peer-review mechanism, then? Why was it published? How long was it left unchallenged? How much damage was done before the flaw was uncovered. How has this changed the austerity policy?

And, it's not a "machine", so could we stop with the emotionally loaded rhetoric and attempts to equate science to gangsterism?

I'm sorry, don't know what you are talking about?

 

[andy_c]

Just have to post a link to one of my favorite web articles, "Science Was Wrong Before" LOL.

 

[Gregadd]

Originally Posted by Gregadd
"I find it interesting that high-end audio is infested with things like the right-wing creationists, there is a smallish, but rabidly vocal group, who wants to reject science and denigrates it at every opportunity." j.j.

A decidedly unscientific statement.

Your claim, your evidence. The evidence for my claim is in public view and we both know it.
Normally i would I not bother to respond. But since you purport to know hat i know and are in error I will enlighten you. As best I can remember I am unaware of the religious affiliation of all but one member of WBF There is no formal High end Club of which I am awre. One member of WBFsent me pm saying he was an atheist. That's his business.
Your statement about what I know is wrong.Your statement in general is unsupported by evidenc, is probably wrong and is definitely bigoted.

Just as an aside i believe in the separation of church and state.No exceptions.