Page 5 of 9 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 90

Thread: Scientist Resigns as Stem-Cell Creation Method Is Discredited

  1. #41
    tWebber MaxVel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    It's hot!
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    1,137
    Amen (Given)
    767
    Amen (Received)
    1211
    One of the problems is the conflation of 'science' with 'everything scientists say / everything scientists do'. I can trust the former, but I don't automatically trust the latter. Scientists get things wrong. And they should be happy to have that pointed out, when they do.

    We know that the peer review process can be corrupted (and has been), and a Nobel Prize winning scientist says:

    Quote Originally Posted by Sydney Brenner
    I think peer review is hindering science. In fact, I think it has become a completely corrupt system. It’s corrupt in many ways, in that scientists and academics have handed over to the editors of these journals the ability to make judgment on science and scientists. There are universities in America, and I’ve heard from many committees, that we won’t consider people’s publications in low impact factor journals.

    Now I mean, people are trying to do something, but I think it’s not publish or perish, it’s publish in the okay places [or perish]. And this has assembled a most ridiculous group of people. I wrote a column for many years in the nineties, in a journal called Current Biology. In one article, “Hard Cases”, I campaigned against this [culture] because I think it is not only bad, it’s corrupt. In other words it puts the judgment in the hands of people who really have no reason to exercise judgment at all. And that’s all been done in the aid of commerce, because they are now giant organisations making money out of it.


    Shunya, it seems to me that you do conflate 'science' with 'whatever scientists say / whatever scientists do'. Scientists are people, it's foolish to trust them 100%, just like it's foolish to trust anyone 100%. People are fallible, even when they have the best of intentions.
    ...>>> Witty remark or snarky quote of another poster goes here <<<...

  2. Amen Cerebrum123, Adrift, DesertBerean, Chrawnus amen'd this post.
  3. #42
    tWebber Adrift's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    6,644
    Amen (Given)
    5759
    Amen (Received)
    5343
    Quote Originally Posted by MaxVel View Post
    One of the problems is the conflation of 'science' with 'everything scientists say / everything scientists do'. I can trust the former, but I don't automatically trust the latter. Scientists get things wrong. And they should be happy to have that pointed out, when they do.

    We know that the peer review process can be corrupted (and has been), and a Nobel Prize winning scientist says:





    Shunya, it seems to me that you do conflate 'science' with 'whatever scientists say / whatever scientists do'. Scientists are people, it's foolish to trust them 100%, just like it's foolish to trust anyone 100%. People are fallible, even when they have the best of intentions.
    Yeah. I was recently reading a scientist on another forum, and he said that he wished that the process was more open ended. The peer review process itself can sometimes help protect bad research. I don't know. Thought that was interesting.

  4. #43
    tWebber robrecht's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    The Kingdom of God
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    6,865
    Amen (Given)
    896
    Amen (Received)
    1563
    Quote Originally Posted by Adrift View Post
    Yeah. I was recently reading a scientist on another forum, and he said that he wished that the process was more open ended. The peer review process itself can sometimes help protect bad research. I don't know. Thought that was interesting.
    Traditionally, peer reviewers and authors are anonymous to each other, but there have been experiments with a more open process, especially with the hard sciences. Open access journals are also changing the process, with the technological ability for on-going peer-review through something akin to discussion boards. I think both of these trends toward transparency and wider capability for comment by more peers will ultimately have a positive effect.
    βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
    ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

    אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

  5. Amen Adrift, klaus54 amen'd this post.
  6. #44
    tWebber Chrawnus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Finland
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    3,689
    Amen (Given)
    4164
    Amen (Received)
    2643
    Quote Originally Posted by shunyadragon View Post
    Do you have anything to contribute to thread instead of anal retentive insults?
    Repeating your ridiculous assertion more than once does not make it any less of an untruth.

  7. Amen Cerebrum123 amen'd this post.
  8. #45
    tWebber shunyadragon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Hillsborough, NC
    Faith
    Agnostic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    11,822
    Amen (Given)
    1026
    Amen (Received)
    745
    Quote Originally Posted by robrecht View Post
    You have not really explained the what the difference is between foundational members of the Baha'i faith opposing scientific theories and members of other religions opposing scientific theories. You've mentioned a few differences, but the significance of each difference is not clear. Uneducated. Commenting on scriptures. Not wanting to offend their addresses. These sound like excuses that you yourself would not accept from people in other faiths.
    I have addressed the foundational members of the Baha'i Faith and references as to how the Baha'i Faith carries those principles and teaching forward concerning science, and your ignoring my references. The foundation principles of the Baha'i Faith concerning the Harmony of science and religion, the primacy of science concerning the knowledge of our physical existence, and the independent investigation of truth dictates that ALL scripture including the Baha'i Writings must accept the knowledge of science as having primacy over scripture concerning the understanding of our physical existence.
    Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
    Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
    But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

    go with the flow the river knows . . .

    Frank

    I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

  9. #46
    tWebber shunyadragon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Hillsborough, NC
    Faith
    Agnostic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    11,822
    Amen (Given)
    1026
    Amen (Received)
    745
    Quote Originally Posted by MaxVel View Post
    One of the problems is the conflation of 'science' with 'everything scientists say / everything scientists do'. I can trust the former, but I don't automatically trust the latter. Scientists get things wrong. And they should be happy to have that pointed out, when they do.

    We know that the peer review process can be corrupted (and has been), and a Nobel Prize winning scientist says:





    Shunya, it seems to me that you do conflate 'science' with 'whatever scientists say / whatever scientists do'. Scientists are people, it's foolish to trust them 100%, just like it's foolish to trust anyone 100%. People are fallible, even when they have the best of intentions.
    It does not rely on trusting either, it depends on trusting the collective body of science that develops and evolves over time, and one need not trust individual scientists.

    'It seems to me . . .' misquotes me and misunderstands science. No, I do not conflate science with 'what scientists say. whatever scientist do.' that is your problem. The redundant repeating research, and the peer review process does not depend on what individual scientist say or do. It depends on the long term process that results in our body of scientific knowledge.
    Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
    Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
    But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

    go with the flow the river knows . . .

    Frank

    I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

  10. #47
    tWebber shunyadragon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Hillsborough, NC
    Faith
    Agnostic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    11,822
    Amen (Given)
    1026
    Amen (Received)
    745
    Quote Originally Posted by Chrawnus View Post
    Repeating your ridiculous assertion more than once does not make it any less of an untruth.
    Do you have anything constructive to add to this thread?
    Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
    Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
    But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

    go with the flow the river knows . . .

    Frank

    I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

  11. #48
    tWebber shunyadragon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Hillsborough, NC
    Faith
    Agnostic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    11,822
    Amen (Given)
    1026
    Amen (Received)
    745
    Quote Originally Posted by robrecht View Post
    Traditionally, peer reviewers and authors are anonymous to each other, but there have been experiments with a more open process, especially with the hard sciences. Open access journals are also changing the process, with the technological ability for on-going peer-review through something akin to discussion boards. I think both of these trends toward transparency and wider capability for comment by more peers will ultimately have a positive effect.
    The peer review process is only one small part of the vast process involved of how scientific knowledge develops. Actually many examples of fraud and bad research pass muster on the initial peer review process before publication. It is the repeating of the research by others that most often uncovers the problems. In the case of this fraudulent research it is the failure of others to replicate the results by independent research, after it was published.
    Last edited by shunyadragon; 12-28-2014 at 05:46 PM.
    Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
    Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
    But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

    go with the flow the river knows . . .

    Frank

    I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

  12. #49
    tWebber robrecht's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    The Kingdom of God
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    6,865
    Amen (Given)
    896
    Amen (Received)
    1563
    Quote Originally Posted by shunyadragon View Post
    I have addressed the foundational members of the Baha'i Faith and references as to how the Baha'i Faith carries those principles and teaching forward concerning science, and your ignoring my references. The foundation principles of the Baha'i Faith concerning the Harmony of science and religion, the primacy of science concerning the knowledge of our physical existence, and the independent investigation of truth dictates that ALL scripture including the Baha'i Writings must accept the knowledge of science as having primacy over scripture concerning the understanding of our physical existence.
    No, I acknowledge all of that, but none of it addresses the fact that individual Baha'i, including founders of the Baha'i faith, also rejected scientific theories for religious/philosophical reasons. It is sad that you cannot acknowledge this fact.

  13. Amen Adrift, Cerebrum123 amen'd this post.
  14. #50
    tWebber robrecht's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    The Kingdom of God
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    6,865
    Amen (Given)
    896
    Amen (Received)
    1563
    Quote Originally Posted by shunyadragon View Post
    The peer review process is only one small part of the vast process involved of how scientific knowledge develops. Actually many examples of fraud and bad research pass muster on the initial peer review process before publication. It is the repeating of the research by others that most often uncovers the problems. In the case of this fraudulent research it is the failure of others to replicate the results by independent research, after it was published.
    Of couurse. I have already spoken of the importance of replication of results.
    βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
    ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

    אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •