sinequanon:


You are not being very precise about what you are asking.

I have already said that the technology is a product of many skills and disciplines, not only science. So, you cannot arbitrarily claim for science whatever you deem positive.

Be more specific. For example, do you know the history of semi-conductor technology? They got computers working before they had a proper theory for semiconductors. Modems? Working modems were carrying information with greater bandwidth than early theories predicted, because those theories were incorrect. With technology, it is overwhelmingly the case that scientific theory does NOT lead the way. It is TRIAL AND ERROR that leads the way. The results end up in products before the scientific theories can account for them.

You can check out the history of aircraft and the theory of flight. You will find the same thing. TRIAL AND ERROR, then TECHNOLOGY, then SCIENTIFIC EXPLANATION.

I don't think you properly understand how technological products are created. Your airplane example is proof. Aerodynamic theories have been studied as far back as Aristotlean times so you may need to go back and reevaluate what you think you know.

Then you should be able to give us you BEST example for discussion. Please do so.

Lots of proof, easy one off the top of my head: germ theory of disease.

Do you know how many people I have spoken with who have responded with your ever so predictable examples? It makes me wonder just how deeply people think about the question.

budaatum:

Science allows you to communicate with me over a distance way further than you would have been able to do by shouting. Is that a "failure" and an "ailment" that only serves your "control freakery" need to communicate with me?

Ignoring your egocentric perspective, the fact is that you are anonymous, as far as I am concerned. I am not really communicating with you, per say. I am just broadcasting to anybody reading this thread. If communication in our local communities had not broken down the way they generally have in towns and cities, I would not be broadcasting. I would be having a connection and much more meaningful conversation with somebody less anonymous. It is the erosion of those connections and of related community cohesion that is the failure, for which the internet is part and parcel.

Now tell me, link me to the last topic and post where internet discussion has educated budaatum, changed his mind and enhanced his life.

budaatum:
Science is what people go for when they are ill and go to the doctor. Is it "failure" and an "ailment" that science gives us the "control freakery" to heal people and stop them dying young?

As I have told you, the healthiest people on Earth are not where the doctors are or where science is practiced.

budaatum:
Science is what has helped produce better yielding and disease resistant crops which has helped reduce scarcity of food and reduced the number of people who would have died of famines. Is this "control freakery" a "failure" and an "ailment"?

What is happening is that you are taking for granted famine, disease, disaster and so forth.

What you are not addressing is the fact that so much of this is caused by human activity. If you ignore that, then you cannot put anything into a moral context, because you cannot begin to question the dynamics of human nature in any depth.

LordReed:


I don't think you properly understand how technological products are created.

On the contrary. You have a very naive understanding, probably from watching too many Hollywood films.

LordReed:
Your airplane example is proof. Aerodynamic theories have been studied as far back as Aristotlean times so you may need to go back and reevaluate what you think you know.

You mean check my notes on Fluid Dynamics from my undergraduate Mathematics course at University of Cambridge in the UK? No. I don't think i need to do that. I think I understand much more about it than you do.

Your vague reference to "Aristotlean times" (sic) is the stab-in-dark "argument" of somebody who knows very little.

I was a researcher at the Meteorological Office in London, if you need to know a little about my background on this. Admit it, your own knowledge is based on vague hearsay that you have no ability to verify or understand in any depth.

Even something as simple as the swing of a cricket ball is STILL not properly understood, even though it is much simpler than a model for the lift of an aircraft. It is a very complex field and theory is far behind experimental observation.

LordReed:
Lots of proof, easy one off the top of my head: germ theory of disease.

And what is your best specific historical example of how that has helped.

vaxx:
i will give you a countless number of truth in science but that should not derail this thread. Science truth itself can be universally accepted if so wish because Science has one cool and unique feature compared to any other source of truthe searching

It is self-correcting!

If you are wrong, there is this thing called peer-review....

Yes, yes, yes... I have actually been involved in peer review. What is your qualification to speak on the matter?

You are repeating a heap of things that can be googled on "popularized science". When I read what you write, it reads like a mantra, almost verbatim, what has been drummed into some people's heads by the likes of Richard Dawkins, but which you don't really understand. It is not an argument. It is a mantra.

Your idea of peer review is so naive.

Take vaccines, for example. Did you read what happened to Andrew Wakefield, whose work was published in the respected Lancet and then removed after a political storm? He was stripped of his license to practise, too.

In many fields, peer review doesn't work. People are too afraid to lose their jobs. A couple or notable examples are Andrew Wakefield and Professor Nutt (who published a paper on the relative harm of cannabis and other drugs.)

sinequanon:


Yes, yes, yes... I]have actually been involved in peer review. What is your qualification to speak on the matter?

then what does this process of peer review you work with? And how do you objectively verify that it does not work

You are repeating a heap of things that can be googled on "popularized science". When I read what you write, it reads like a mantra, almost verbatim, what has been drummed into some people's heads by the likes of Richard Dawkins, but which you don't really understand. It is not an argument. It is a mantra.

far from it. Peer review can be objectively verified and if by so doing you called it a mantra and i will like to see the process that state otherwise. This online ""anybody"" from its corner room can provide anything . Let's see what you call understanding and put it on the basis of objectively verified evidence.

Your idea of peer review is so naive.

I think you talk carelessly

Take vaccines, for example. Did you read what happened to Andrew Wakefield, whose work was published in the respected Lancet and then removed after a political storm? He was stripped of his license to practise, too.

In many fields, peer review doesn't work. People are too afraid to lose their jobs. A couple or notable examples are Andrew Wakefield and Professor Nutt (who published a paper on the relative harm of cannabis and other drugs.)

This is one of the problems with you guys because an idea went wrong somewhere therefore it justify every other purpose or what the idea is meant for is consider untrue. Are you wsure you not repeating the same mantra I found people like you doing...

sinequanon:
Ignoring your egocentric perspective, the fact is that you are anonymous, as far as I am concerned. I am not really communicating with you, per say. I am just broadcasting to anybody reading this thread. If communication in our local communities had not broken down the way they generally have in towns and cities, I would not be broadcasting. I would be having a connection and much more meaningful conversation with somebody less anonymous. It is the erosion of those connections and of related community cohesion that is the failure, for which the internet is part and parcel.

You are not communicating with me per se? Yet here I am responding to you 'not exactly" communicating with me per se. Wonder, isn't it!

By the way, are there no people around you that you can go and communicate with without science created technology? Do accept my apology for allowing science to erode your ability to have a "connection and much more meaningful conversation with somebody less anonymous".

sinequanon:
Now tell me, link me to the last topic and post where internet discussion has educated budaatum, changed his mind and enhanced his life.

Question. Do you not learn anything from communicating on Nairaland? Please do not insult yourself. Even though I may not agree with your points or adopt your perspective, I still learn about your perspective from you and just about everyone I discuss with - well, except vaxx, sometimes, that is - and my life is significantly enhanced by the understanding I gain of your perspective.

Without having heard your perspective, my perspective would be a lot narrower, and I consider that a bad thing, so accept my profound gratitude for further enlightening me.

sinequanon:
As I have told you, the healthiest people on Earth are not where the doctors are or where science is practiced.

Yet, there's everyone trying to be closer to doctors and hospitals. I wonder why.

sinequanon:
What is happening is that you are taking for granted famine, disease, disaster and so forth.

I very strongly beg to differ. If I were "taking for granted famine, disease, disaster and so forth", I wouldn't be using science to reduce these things!

sinequanon:
What you are not addressing is the fact that so much of this is caused by human activity. If you ignore that, then you cannot put anything into a moral context, because you cannot begin to question the dynamics of human nature in any depth.

Science, "the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment", is the questioning of the "dynamics of human nature in depth", and is something human beings have practised in one form or another since the dawn of time. I hardly see how systematically questioning "the dynamics of human nature in depth", scientifically, causes "famine, disease, disaster and so forth", except if it is done unethically and immorally, and without due regard for consequences, which is the exact question the op posed in this thread, and which I have continously claimed must be, and is, a significant and essential consideration where science is concerned.

sinequanon:


On the contrary. You have a very naive understanding, probably from watching too many Hollywood films.

I'm not the one pulling dust from my ass and calling it facts.

You mean check my notes on Fluid Dynamics from my undergraduate Mathematics course at University of Cambridge in the UK? No. I don't think i need to do that. I think I understand much more about it than you do.

Your vague reference to "Aristotlean times" (sic) is the stab-in-dark "argument" of somebody who knows very little.

I was a researcher at the Meteorological Office in London, if you need to know a little about my background on this. Admit it, your own knowledge is based on vague hearsay that you have no ability to verify or understand in any depth.

Even something as simple as the swing of a cricket ball is STILL not properly understood, even though it is much simpler than a model for the lift of an aircraft. It is a very complex field and theory is far behind experimental observation.

LoL, who gives a Bleep about what school you went to? In fact you should return your certificate if this is the crap you are out here pushing.

Can you show me how much spirituality has aided us in knowing about how to design and fly a plane or even anything of substance for that matter? Researcher my ass.

And what is your best specific historical example of how that has helped.

To what end? If citing the germ theory of disease is not enough for you, you can go suck it. I won't waste my time with dumbasses who pretend but are airheads in actuality.

sinequanon:



Take vaccines, for example. Did you read what happened to Andrew Wakefield, whose work was published in the respected Lancet and then removed after a political storm? He was stripped of his license to practise, too.

LMFAO! This is how you know dumbasses who get their information from conspiracy websites. LoL I suspected that it was the case with you and here you've proved it beyond doubt.

Dude you are a fraud! LMFAO!

sinequanon:

Take vaccines, for example. Did you read what happened to Andrew Wakefield, whose work was published in the respected Lancet and then removed after a political storm? He was stripped of his license to practise, too.

In many fields, peer review doesn't work. People are too afraid to lose their jobs. A couple or notable examples are Andrew Wakefield and Professor Nutt (who published a paper on the relative harm of cannabis and other drugs.)

Andrew Jeremy Wakefield (born 1957) is a discredited former British doctor who became an anti-vaccine activist. He was a gastroenterologist until he was struck off the UK medical register for unethical behaviour, misconduct and fraud. In 1998 he authored a fraudulent research paper claiming that there was a link between the administration of the polyvalent measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine and the appearance of autism and bowel disease.

Note that he was struck off from the UK medical register (it is run by his peers) for "unethical behaviour, misconduct and fraud". More evidence of the importance of ethics in his field, I'd say!

Professor David Nutt was dismissed from his ACMD position by the Home Secretary, Alan Johnson. Explaining his dismissal of Nutt, Alan Johnson wrote in a letter to The Guardian, that "He was asked to go because he cannot be both a government adviser and a campaigner against government policy. [...] As for his comments about horse riding being more dangerous than ecstasy, which you quote with such reverence, it is of course a political rather than a scientific point."

As in, dismissed for not doing the job his employer paid him to do!

vaxx:
then what does this process of peer review you work with? And how do you objectively verify that it does not work

far from it. Peer review can be objectively verified and if by so doing you called it a mantra and i will like to see the process that state otherwise. This online ""anybody"" from its corner room can provide anything . Let's see what you call understanding and put it on the basis of objectively verified evidence.

I think you talk carelessly

Well, I can see that you are talking about a process you clearly don't understand, you have not been involved in, yet you believe in with a passion.

It is a mantra, because you are repeating what you have been told, without have anything in the way of direct experience.

vaxx:
This is one of the problems with you guys because an idea went wrong somewhere therefore it justify every other purpose or what the idea is meant for is consider untrue. Are sure you not repeating the same mantra I found people like you doing...

You misunderstand. I am not saying that his idea "went wrong". I am saying that his paper was probably valid, but was removed for political reasons, and the authorities in his field (of which he used to be a leading practitioner) tried to silence him by stripping him of his license to practise, for political, not scientific, reasons. He escaped to the US, where he was more free to speak. If you follow the discourse that is happening in the US, you will come across not just one case, but several cases of doctors and researchers who have talked about the pressure they have been under to conform and shut up. Far from validating research, the peer structure is hijacked to enforce political conformance.

Another field is "global warming". You paymasters, as with most research, are governments. The whole system ends up serving political ends.

Look at the tomfoolery that happened at CERN, with the Large Hadron Collider. It was complete fakery, with all the big names willingly taking part. The status of the Higg's Boson is still "unproven", but they used media spin and chicanery to mislead the public. It's all about money and justification of public expenditure for the upgraded collider. The most interesting aspect was to see all the celebrated physicists taking part in the pretence.

budaatum:

Andrew Jeremy Wakefield (born 1957) is a discredited former British doctor who became an anti-vaccine activist. He was a gastroenterologist until he was struck off the UK medical register for unethical behaviour, misconduct and fraud. In 1998 he authored a fraudulent research paper claiming that there was a link between the administration of the polyvalent measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine and the appearance of autism and bowel disease.

Note that he was struck off from the UK medical register (it is run by his peers) for "unethical behaviour, misconduct and fraud". More evidence of the importance of ethics in his field, I'd say!

His peers removed his work after substantial political pressure. That is not evidence of ethics. It is evidence of politics.

You should base your opinion at the very least on what he claims and what the counterarguments are.

You are suggesting that it is mere "coincidence" that his claims were politically sensitive?

In the US, research linking MMR to autism was doctored by removing positive results from the African American community, allowing the link could be "disproved". That's one reason people should pay attention and not act the clown like LordReed the gullible.

budaatum:
Professor David Nutt was dismissed from his ACMD position by the Home Secretary, Alan Johnson. Explaining his dismissal of Nutt, Alan Johnson wrote in a letter to The Guardian, that "He was asked to go because he cannot be both a government adviser and a campaigner against government policy. [...] As for his comments about horse riding being more dangerous than ecstasy, which you quote with such reverence, it is of course a political rather than a scientific point."

As in, dismissed for not doing the job his employer paid him to do!

Yes. But all he did was to publish peer reviewed science. So what didn't his employer and the likes of Alan Johnson (who are not on the peer review panel) like about that?

sinequanon:

His peers removed his work after substantial political pressure. That is not evidence of ethics. It is evidence of politics.

You are either being intentionally dishonest, or you haven't a clue what you are talking about.

Science, and society in general, learnt not to do what you're suggesting was done here way back in the 16th century with the likes of Giordano Bruno, Galileo and Copenicus. You might want to read up on them.

budaatum:

You are either being intentionally dishonest, or you haven't a clue what you are talking about.

Science, and society in general, learnt not to do what you're suggesting was done here way back in the 16th century with the likes of Giordano Bruno, Galileo and Copenicus. You might want to read up on them.

You are joking. Nobody can be this naive.

Either way, joking or naive, discussion has become useless.

sinequanon:

You misunderstand. I am not saying that his idea "went wrong". I am saying that his paper was probably valid, but was removed for political reasons, and the authorities in his field (of which he used to be a leading practitioner) tried to silence him by stripping him of his license to practise, for political, not scientific, reasons. He escaped to the US, where he was more free to speak.

Go read up on Professor Wakefield too. "Probably valid" does not accurately describe his position!

Ian Lipkin, professor of epidemiology and director of the Center for Infection and Immunity at Columbia University’s Mailman School of Public Health, writing in The Wall Street Journal, said: "If Vaxxed had been submitted as science fiction, it would merit attention for its story line, character development and dialogue. But as a documentary it misrepresents what science knows about autism, undermines public confidence in the safety and efficacy of vaccines, and attacks the integrity of legitimate scientists and public-health officials".

Anyone is free to talk nonsense in America. Their President does it like 10 times a day!

sinequanon:


That's one reason people should pay attention and not act the clown like LordReed the gullible.

You sir are the fucking clown who came up with a bogus "I attended Cambridge" story, spewing dust out of his ass and calling it facts. To top it off you defend a fraud while denying science. You are the king of clowns.

budaatum:

You are either being intentionally dishonest, or you haven't a clue what you are talking about.

Science, and society in general, learnt not to do what you're suggesting was done here way back in the 16th century with the likes of Giordano Bruno, Galileo and Copenicus. You might want to read up on them.

The guy is a fucking fraud, putting on airs and strutting around like a knowledgeable person. Cambridge indeed.

LordReed:


The guy is a fucking fraud, putting on airs and strutting around like a knowledgeable person. Cambridge indeed.

He said he went to Cambridge? Cambridge College London perhaps. A secondary school student would fail O'levels if they say what he writes!

budaatum:

He said he went to Cambridge? Cambridge College London perhaps. A secondary school student would fail O'levels if they say what he writes!

From the horse's mouth:

sinequanon:

You mean check my notes on Fluid Dynamics from my undergraduate Mathematics course at University of Cambridge in the UK? No. I don't think i need to do that. I think I understand much more about it than you do.

Your vague reference to "Aristotlean times" (sic) is the stab-in-dark "argument" of somebody who knows very little.

I was a researcher at the Meteorological Office in London, if you need to know a little about my background on this. Admit it, your own knowledge is based on vague hearsay that you have no ability to verify or understand in any depth.

Dude is a nutcase.

budaatum:

Go read up on Professor Wakefield too. "Probably valid" does not accurately describe his position!

Ian Lipkin, professor of epidemiology and director of the Center for Infection and Immunity at Columbia University’s Mailman School of Public Health, writing in The Wall Street Journal, said: "If Vaxxed had been submitted as science fiction, it would merit attention for its story line, character development and dialogue. But as a documentary it misrepresents what science knows about autism, undermines public confidence in the safety and efficacy of vaccines, and attacks the integrity of legitimate scientists and public-health officials".

Anyone is free to talk nonsense in America. Their President does it like 10 times a day!

Once again, you are just quoting what people say, without referring to any understanding of what the claims and issues are.

"Soundbites" is what they call it.

When you assess things you should look at all sides of the issue, and not assume one side is ALL "conspiracy", and the another side is ALL "legitimate". We are talking about human institutions with all their attendant flaws and deviance.

A interesting issue that would not have come to light but for the Vaxxed lobby is that no study has been done comparing rates of autism among populations of vaccinated and unvaccinated people. The claim that "no link has been found" is easy to make if you are not looking for one.

Other interesting fact concerns the differential treatment of vaccination damage cases compared to other medication. Pharmaceutical companies have indemnification against claims of damage. The taxpayer pays.

Another issue was the use of inactive vaccine substrate as a placebo in vaccine tests, instead of say the normal sugar solution. This meant that damage caused by the substrate (which has in the past contained substances like mercury and aluminium) would not show a difference between the placebo and test groups. Also, they use in the analysis safe concentrations limits determined for adults and apply them to babies with undeveloped immune systems.

So, just as you have to listen to scientists to find holes poked in claims by the anti-vaccine lobby, the same is the case for finding spin and holes in the science.

EDIT: Oh, I see, you've joined the idiocy brigade. Don't bother replying. I won't be reading.

Sound bites, right?

He was reportedly asked to leave Royal Free Hospital after refusing a request to validate his 1998 Lancet paper with a controlled study.

He resigned from Thoughtful House in February 2010, after the British General Medical Council found that he had been "dishonest and irresponsible" in conducting his earlier autism research in England.

Wakefield is barred from practising as a physician in the UK,

Twenty-four hours before the 2004 Sunday Times report by Deer, The Lancet's editor Richard Horton responded to the investigation in a public statement, describing Wakefield's research as "fatally flawed" and said he believed the paper would have been rejected as biased if the peer reviewers had been aware of Wakefield's conflict of interest. Ten of Wakefield's twelve co-authors of the paper in The Lancet later published a retraction of an interpretation: The section of the paper retracted read as follows:
We wish to make it clear that in this paper no causal link was established between (the) vaccine and autism, as the data were insufficient. However the possibility of such a link was raised, and consequent events have had major implications for public health. In view of this, we consider now is the appropriate time that we should together formally retract the interpretation placed upon these findings in the paper, according to precedent.

In the Dispatches programme, Deer also revealed that Nicholas Chadwick, a researcher working under Wakefield's supervision in the Royal Free medical school, had failed to find measles virus in the children reported on in The Lancet.

In January 2005, Wakefield initiated libel proceedings against Channel 4, the independent production company Twenty Twenty and Brian Deer, The Sunday Times, and against Deer personally along with his website briandeer.com. Within weeks of issuing his claims, however, Wakefield sought to have the action frozen until after the conclusion of General Medical Council proceedings against him. Channel 4 and Deer sought a High Court order compelling Wakefield to continue with his action, or discontinue it. After a hearing on 27 and 28 October 2005, Mr Justice David Eady ruled against a stay of proceedings:
It thus appears that the Claimant wishes to use the existence of the libel proceedings for public relations purposes, and to deter other critics, while at the same time isolating himself from the "downside" of such litigation, in having to answer a substantial defence of justification ... I am quite satisfied, therefore, that the Claimant wished to extract whatever advantage he could from the existence of the proceedings while not wishing to progress them or to give the Defendants an opportunity of meeting the claims.

You do realise he could sue for libel if all these were lies and he had evidence to prove it, right? You might wanna do him a favor and edit wiki!

sinequanon:


Once again, you are just quoting what people say, without referring to any understanding of what the claims and issues are.

"Soundbites" is what they call it.

When you assess things you should look at all sides of the issue, and not assume one side is ALL "conspiracy", and the another side is ALL "legitimate". We are talking about human institutions with all their attendant flaws and deviance.

A interesting issue that would not have come to light but for the Vaxxed lobby is that no study has been done comparing rates of autism among populations of vaccinated and unvaccinated people. The claim that "no link has been found" is easy to make if you are not looking for one.

Other interesting fact concerns the differential treatment of vaccination damage cases compared to other medication. Pharmaceutical companies have indemnification against claims of damage. The taxpayer pays.

Another issue was the use of inactive vaccine substrate as a placebo in vaccine tests, instead of say the normal sugar solution. This meant that damage caused by the substrate (which has in the past contained substances like mercury and aluminium) would not show a difference between the placebo and test groups. Also, they use in the analysis safe concentrations limits determined for adults and apply them to babies with undeveloped immune systems.

So, just as you have to listen to scientists to find holes poked in claims by the anti-vaccine lobby, the same is the case for finding spin and holes in the science.

EDIT: Oh, I see, you've joined the idiocy brigade. Don't bother replying. I won't be reading.

budaatum:



You do realise he could sue for libel if all these were lies and he had evidence to prove it, right? You might wanna do him a favor and edit wiki!

Don't bother with this guy, he is a conspiracy nutter. Look at his ramblings on CERN and climate change and you have all you need to know about him.

I suspected he was a conspiracy nutter and immediately I saw all that jazz on Wakefield it was confirmed.

[img]https://s1/images/MuttMJpopcorn.gif[/img]
Y'all are fairkin wanking hilarious

sinequanon:


Well, I can see that you are talking about a process you clearly don't understand, you have not been involved in, yet you believe in with a passion.

Argument ad hominem fallacy, instead of you to attack the argument you claimed is not universally true, you are now attacking my own personality. I ask what are this process of peer review you consider untrue or what are this process you yourself as engage on so as to validate you are talking from position of authority. (.i am just a mere student who is seeking knowledge)..

It is a mantra, because you are repeating what you have been told, without have anything in the way of direct experience.

i never knew where you get this from, I read , I learn and I practice....this is enough evidence to claim this validity, you are talking to a stranger you know, never assume anything directly from your side about me without having the necessary evidence.

You misunderstand. I am not saying that his idea "went wrong". I am saying that his paper was probably valid, but was removed for political reasons, and the authorities in his field (of which he used to be a leading practitioner) tried to silence him by stripping him of his license to practise, for political, not scientific, reasons. He escaped to the US, where he was more free to speak. If you follow the discourse that is happening in the US, you will come across not just one case, but several cases of doctors and researchers who have talked about the pressure they have been under to conform and shut up. Far from validating research, the peer structure is hijacked to enforce political conformance.

it is not today politician have been hijacking scientific research to mitigate on their society and it is not today scientist research has been influencing political decision positively as well. Politicians had the control power, they can influence be it anything....it is not about immoral in science, it is about immoral in society. This is why i say society determine what is immoral or moral. If you abreast with scientific finding which I doubt, you will realise the politicians often decide who get more payed base on what society demands. For instance, .it is well known that much more money is allocated towards research for women's health issues than for men's health issues, even though women already have the higher life expectancy to that of men but because society has the inherent interest of women, it has become a factor.

Another field is "global warming". You paymasters, as with most research, are governments. The whole system ends up serving political ends.

As I said earlier both influence each other, it will be very unhealthy to any society if research conducted shows evidence of castastrophy and the politicians decided to hijack it for political gain. Yes it happens, I am not denying it but this is not science as it is base on mediocrity. A progressive society like Europe have a consensus agreement on global warming apart from that of America which is influence by Donald trump polity.

Look at the tomfoolery that happened at CERN, with the Large Hadron Collider. It was complete fakery, with all the big names willingly taking part. The status of the Higg's Boson is still "unproven", but they used media spin and chicanery to mislead the public. It's all about money and justification of public expenditure for the upgraded collider. The most interesting aspect was to see all the celebrated physicists taking part in the pretence.

You were able to discover it was base on pseudoscience because geniue fact spring out. Politicians had sometime influence pseudoscience for thier own political gain. It is common and it happen. But this is not science.....

vaxx:
Argument ad hominem fallacy, instead of you to attack the argument you claimed is not universally true, you are now attacking my own personality. I ask what are this process of peer review you consider untrue or what are this process you yourself as engage on so as to validate you are talking from position of authority. (.i am just a mere student who is seeking knowledge).

For me to claim that you clearly are not familiar enough with peer review is not "an attack on your personality". It is not an "attack" at all. Nobody is familiar with every walk of life.

Peer review is a process whereby a body of work, like a research paper or thesis, is checked for quality, substance and accuracy by a panel of peers, who are active in the field. It is generally an iterative process, where corrigenda and suggestions are decided upon by the panel for consideration, and the work is resubmitted until it is accepted in full or rejected.

I used to be (but am not any more) a researcher in the field of Fluid Dynamics, specifically in relation to meteorology. However, most of my experience of doing peer review came from referrals from other departments like biology. Biologists often had to refer to mathematicians for correct statistical modeling and interpretation of their experiments.

vaxx:
i never knew where you get this from, I read , I learn and I practice....this is enough evidence to claim this validity, you are talking to a stranger you know, never assume anything directly from your side about me without having the necessary evidence.

OK. Let me ask. What is your experience in scientific research?

I have given you examples of peer reviewed research accessible to both of us. In the case of Andrew Wakefield, who suggested the possibility of a link between the MMR vaccine and autism, his research was peer reviewed and accepted in one of the most prestigious medical journals, The Lancet.

Subsequently, because of the political impact of his research (people losing confidence in MMR and the government vaccination project), two things happened

1. Government engineered a pretext to have him removed from practice. They claimed that he did not have proper parental consent in carrying out his research, and that he was not qualified to carry out the research that he did. The first pretext does not invalidate the science in his research. The second pretext is suggesting that the peer review process is seriously flawed, if the research of an "unqualified" person can pass review for one of the most prestigious medical journals.

2. But then there was also a campaign to attack his methodology and the statistical results of his research. For example, there were claims that the sample size wasn't large enough to obtain significance. All this had already been peer reviewed. So how would such serious supposed basic flaws pass review for one of the most prestigious medical journals?

The problem with vaccination research is obvious. If the public are allowed to scrutinize the research, significant numbers of people may opt out of vaccination, affecting the threshold for a measure of vaccine effectiveness known as "herd immunity". To protect that threshold, governments interfere with the research and peer review process.

Another problem I know about from personal experience as a researcher is in application for research grant. These are often government grants, issued annually. It would be very naive to assume that the government will fund OPEN research that conflicts with government policy. The government would want such research to be CLOSED to outside scrutiny in order to protect the political and economic factors that are part of policy. A public example of that was the research done by Professor Nutt (whom I mentioned in an earlier post). He wasn't silenced, but he lost his position and funding for publicising his research.

vaxx:
it is not today politician have been hijacking scientific research to mitigate on their society and it is not today scientist research has been influencing political decision positively as well. Politicians had the control power, they can influence be it anything....it is not about immoral in science, it is about immoral in society. This is why i say society determine what is immoral or moral. If you abreast with scientific finding which I doubt, you will realise the politicians often decide who get more payed base on what society demands. For instance, .it is well known that much more money is allocated towards research for women's health issues than for men's health issues, even though women already have the higher life expectancy to that of men but because society has the inherent interest of women, it has become a factor.

The highlighted is where we are in dispute.

Humans are inquisitive creatures. We have been researching for as long as we have existed on Earth -- long before anything we call science. We observe our environment and we interact according to our observations. Most animals do the same thing. It is not enough to call it science. Even medicine has existed long before science. Even animals self-medicate. We don't call it science.

Scientific research is a particular kind of research that values a particular type of outcome in isolation of any other paradigm. It postulates a mechanistic world. This means that only certain types of research and outcome are valued by science. It is a narrowing down of research at large. It is an injection of IGNORANCE.

vaxx:
As I said earlier both influence each other, it will be very unhealthy to any society if research conducted shows evidence of castastrophy and the politicians decided to hijack it for political gain. Yes it happens, I am not denying it but this is not science as it is base on mediocrity. A progressive society like Europe have a consensus agreement on global warming apart from that of America which is influence by Donald trump polity.

(Man! The politicking in this area is one reason I am so glad I got out of weather research. You can find yourself having to toe the line or your career is toast.)

International laws curbing environmentally unfriendly emissions makes it difficult for emerging economies to industrialize as quickly as Europe did. So, there is a huge economic and political incentive for some geographies to support such laws. Europe's progressiveness on the issue is more or less incidental. The strategy is to keep other countries at bay.

vaxx:
You were able to discover it was base on pseudoscience because geniue fact spring out. Politicians had sometime influence pseudoscience for thier own political gain. It is common and it happen. But this is not science.....

LOL!!

I've seen this kind of argument so many times.

They ask you for evidence and proof.

If you supply it, they say, "see, science eventually led to the truth".

If you supply it without widely acknowledged proof, they say, "it is all conspiracy".

The problem is obvious: if your definition of proof is "what the authorities say", then you cannot prove that the authorities are doing anything wrong. You are in a position where you just have to believe what you are told.

Your only proper alternative is to read up and understand the subject matter in sufficient depth that you can separate genuine research from politics and machinations, and make your own, more deeply informed decision.

sinequanon:




Peer review is a process whereby a body of work, like a research paper or thesis, is checked for quality, substance and accuracy by a panel of peers, who are active in the field. It is generally an iterative process, where corrigenda and suggestions are decided upon by the panel for consideration, and the work is resubmitted until it is accepted in full or rejected

i am not asking about the definition, I am asking about the process, what are the process of peer review you consider that are not universally true? Well I will do the favour of answering the question myself... they are three process of peer review and I shall be explaining them below. .....

""Single-blind peer review: In this type, authors do not know who is reviewing their paper, but reviewers are aware of the authors’ identity""

""Double-blind peer review: In this type, both the author and peer reviewers are not aware of each other’s identity"".

""Open peer review: In an open peer review, identities of both author and reviewers are disclosed to each other.
Post publication peer review: This is a variant of open peer review. In this type of review, reviewers evaluate a manuscript after it has been published on an open access platform"".....

All This are taking from academia review centre and it is applicable all over the world.

So my argument is this, which of this process is not universally true and how can a novice(That you claim I am) be enlightened about them. Ensure your proposition is base on verifiable evidence? If not I will treat this argument as one of those who argue in cycle.

OK. Let me ask. What is your experience in scientific research?

i just told you, I am just a mere student who is open and willing to learn.

I have given you examples of peer reviewed research accessible to both of us. In the case of Andrew Wakefield, who suggested the possibility of a link between the MMR vaccine and autism, his research was peer reviewed and accepted in one of the most prestigious medical journals, The Lancet.

I don't see this as a good debate using one individual as model of defence, what about the numerous scientific research that had being published and it's accepted on merit. I am not really interested in this kind of argument, it is baseless.

Another problem I know about from personal experience as a researcher is in application for research grant. These are often government grants, issued annually. It would be very naive to assume that the government will fund OPEN research that conflicts with government policy. The government would want such research to be CLOSED to outside scrutiny in order to protect the political and economic factors that are part of policy. A public example of that was the research done by Professor Nutt (whom I mentioned in an earlier post). He wasn't silenced, but he lost his position and funding for publicising his research.

This is not always true . They have been well sponsored research on the use of alcohol and cigarettes despite their economic importance . And this research does not favour government at all. Well, quite agree with you, it is possible for government to block or close down access to scientific research if it has enormous effect on goverment economic potential, this act of immoral from the goverment and not science itself. Science does not meant to be immoral, it is society (political herachy) that acted immoral. Science suppose to be free and fair. You should have it in mind that I said earlier that is society that determine what is immoral or moral. As science is neutral.

The highlighted is where we are in dispute.

Humans are inquisitive creatures. We have been researching for as long as we have existed on Earth -- long before anything we call science. We observe our environment and we interact according to our observations. Most animals do the same thing. It is not enough to call it science. Even medicine has existed long before science. Even animals self-medicate. We don't call it science.

science is a Latin word which means knowledge, trying to put a date and time constraint into when science begin is a fallacy on it is own, ""knowledge is as old as the universe"" Science was not invented or created. It just happened over time. The human is by nature curious and at first looked for better ways to form hunting weapons, harness fire, track animals…the list is endless all this are element of science that we evolve to learn by observation. Later, we found ways to uncover the secrets of nature through experimentation. We developed glass, curved it and looked at the microscopic world through the microscope and the stars through the telescope and so on. Well it will make sense if you it started at the big bang.

Scientific research is a particular kind of research that values a particular type of outcome in isolation of any other paradigm. It postulates a mechanistic world. This means that only certain types of research and outcome are valued by science. It is a narrowing down of research at large. It is an injection of IGNORANCE.

scientific research is base on empirical evidence and anything that can be measure or determined with our objective eyes anything other than that is not science. Science does not claim he had answer to everything. Science is a tool just like hammer, it might not be good for sawing.... Science already admit it's own error, it can not exploit anything outside objective verified evidence. It is not a position of ignorance but a position of intellectual. It has been tested overtime and it works.

LOL!!

I've seen this kind of argument so many times.

They ask you for evidence and proof.

If you supply it, they say, "see, science eventually led to the truth".

If you supply it without widely acknowledged proof, they say, "it is all conspiracy".

This is what science is asking for, bring out the objective verified evidence and let's put it into test, if it is not objective/empirical. Take it away from me.

The problem is obvious: if your definition of proof is "what the authorities say", then you cannot prove that the authorities are doing anything wrong. You are in a position where you just have to believe what you are told.

No, my definition of proof is evidence on objective verified fact. Science is not about proof but about evidence. There is difference between the two.

Your only proper alternative is to read up and understand the subject matter in sufficient depth that you can separate genuine research from politics and machinations, and make your own, more deeply informed decision.

Not a bad idea. But what about taking up the pratical aspect of it.

You can test the evidence yourself.

budaatum:

You are either being intentionally dishonest, or you haven't a clue what you are talking about.

Science, and society in general, learnt not to do what you're suggesting was done here way back in the 16th century with the likes of Giordano Bruno, Galileo and Copenicus. You might want to read up on them.

You're wrong on this bro, big time.
I work in the academia so I understand.

LordReed:


Don't bother with this guy, he is a conspiracy nutter. Look at his ramblings on CERN and climate change and you have all you need to know about him.

I suspected he was a conspiracy nutter and immediately I saw all that jazz on Wakefield it was confirmed.

Ever wondered where conspiracies come from?

sinequanon:


You are joking. Nobody can be this naive.

Either way, joking or naive, discussion has become useless.

We should talk some time.

DeSepiero:


Ever wondered where conspiracies come from?

Yes, I know where they come from: rumours, bits of information (most likely taken out of context), conjectures and perceived (mostly wrongly) patterns.

LordReed:


Yes, I know where they come from: rumours, bits of information (most likely taken out of context), conjectures and perceived (mostly wrongly) patterns.

Wouldn't it be erroneous to assume that truth can't be peddled as conspiracy?

vaxx:
So my argument is this, which of this process is not universally true and how can a novice(That you claim I am) be enlightened about them. Ensure your proposition is base on verifiable evidence? If not I will treat this argument as one of those who argue in cycle.

I can't make sense of what you mean be a process being "true".

Are you asking which of the peer review METHODS you mentioned is "not accepted" everywhere?

I am not sure what you are getting at.

vaxx:
i just told you, I am just a mere student who is open and willing to learn.

What I wish to know is if you have any direct personal experience with peer review.

vaxx:
I don't see this as a good debate using one individual as model of defence, what about the numerous scientific research that had being published and it's accepted on merit. I am not really interested in this kind of argument, it is baseless.

You are mischaracterizing an example as a "model of defence".

I think that you are missing the point, which is that saying that something has been "peer reviewed" does not automatically mean that it should be accepted as fact. I gave an extreme example, but there is a sliding scale.

The upshot is that you have to be personally skilled to some extent in the field in order to assess its credibility. And to appreciate the credibility of science as a whole, you need to be aware of the human factors.

YES, YOU KEEP REPEATING YOUR POINT THAT HUMAN FACTORS ARE 'NOT THE FAULT' OF SCIENCE.

THE POINT IS THAT YOU ARE ASSESSING THE SUCCESS AND CREDIBILITY OF SCIENCE THROUGH THE LENS OF HUMAN REPORTING.

SO I AM SAYING THAT YOU NEED TO BE CLOSER THAN THAT TO SCIENCE, AND HAVE A DEEPER PERSONAL UNDERSTANDING THAN THAT, IN ORDER TO ASSESS THE SUCCESS AND CREDIBILITY OF SCIENCE AS A FRAMEWORK.

vaxx:
This is not always true . They have been well sponsored research on the use of alcohol and cigarettes despite their economic importance . And this research does not favour government at all. Well, quite agree with you, it is possible for government to block or close down access to scientific research if it has enormous effect on goverment economic potential, this act of immoral from the goverment and not science itself. Science does not meant to be immoral, it is society (political herachy) that acted immoral. Science suppose to be free and fair. You should have it in mind that I said earlier that is society that determine what is immoral or moral. As science is neutral.

No. As I said above, this is a fallacy. Perhaps you can see the fallacy when applied to religion. The fact that religious acts are carried out by fallible humans is not a logical argument for saying that religion is morally neutral. You have to examine what the religion is SAYING.

So, I am asking you to go back to earlier posts where I talk about what science is SAYING. To crudely paraphrase, the scientific method is encouraging us to pay attention ONLY to what we can take control over and exploit. That is why science looks for mechanistic behaviour, and DENIES THE EXISTENCE OF NON-MECHANISTIC BEHAVIOUR. It does so arbitrarily. There is no logic that proves that the universe is mechanistic. It is a value judgment based on a need to control the universe. THAT IS WHERE MY MORAL ARGUMENT COMES FROM.

vaxx:
science is a Latin word which means knowledge, trying to put a date and time constraint into when science begin is a fallacy on it is own, ""knowledge is as old as the universe"" Science was not invented or created. It just happened over time. The human is by nature curious and at first looked for better ways to form hunting weapons, harness fire, track animals…the list is endless all this are element of science that we evolve to learn by observation. Later, we found ways to uncover the secrets of nature through experimentation. We developed glass, curved it and looked at the microscopic world through the microscope and the stars through the telescope and so on. Well it will make sense if you it started at the big bang.

Again, you are engaging in rather shallow repetition of accolades for science.

I addressed this distinction between research and science earlier. Instead of addressing my points, you have listed a standard popular response, which doesn't get to the point.

Read my earlier post again. Are animals doing science because they evolve knowledge? That is not my use of the word "science". I am talking about a deliberate enterprise that asserts that the universe is mechanistic and seeks to uncover that "mechanism".

vaxx:
scientific research is base on empirical evidence and anything that can be measure or determined with our objective eyes anything other than that is not science. Science does not claim he had answer to everything. Science is a tool just like hammer, it might not be good for sawing.... Science already admit it's own error, it can not exploit anything outside objective verified evidence. It is not a position of ignorance but a position of intellectual. It has been tested overtime and it works.

You are going round in circles repeating yourself. You don't seem to realize that all you are doing is using self-referential words. You cannot test the viability of science by insisting on scientific evidence, alone. It is circular. It is no different from a religious person insisting on the bible to validate his religion.

And you equivocate. "Admission of error" is a human act. But you have already separated human act from the nature of science. Now that it pleases you, you claim "honesty" as a advantage of science.

vaxx:
This is what science is asking for, bring out the objective verified evidence and let's put it into test, if it is not objective/empirical. Take it away from me.

No, my definition of proof is evidence on objective verified fact. Science is not about proof but about evidence. There is difference between the two.

You are not the first person to be caught in that circular loop with a passion.

vaxx:
Not a bad idea. But what about taking up the pratical aspect of it.

You can test the evidence yourself.

Options may be limited, but "I cannot practically test this personally" does not validate the argument "it is true because a human institutional authority told me so." It is better to admit you simply don't know.

Look at human nature in general. Scientists are not that much different.

I once had a similar argument with a magazine editor. In his eyes writers and historians are special people who have special integrity and behave better than the average.

sinequanon:


I]can't make sense of what you mean be a process being "true".

Are you asking which of the peer review METHODS you mentioned is "not accepted" everywhere?

I am not sure what you are getting at.

I am simply asking you wish of this process undergo in peer review method you are discarding? Your opinion was "" have I involve in this research particularly myself to validate how it work""?you went on to bring a scenario of an individual which findings was rejected base on political reason...... and I ask you? Since you of this opinion how do you determine if peer review is not universally true or what method of the process are you discarding?

What I wish to know is if you have any direct personal experience with peer review.

I already told you, I am simply a student.....

You are mischaracterizing an example as a "model of defence".

I think that you are missing the point, which is that saying that something has been "peer reviewed" does not automatically mean that it should be accepted as fact. I gave an extreme example, but there is a sliding scale.

something that has been peer review means it has scienctifc backup and can be trusted. The word Fact you are using here is ambiguous. Even people with noble laurel have seen their work discredited . That is the beauty of science, it can easily falsify itself. People who normally refuse to publish thier work are those who are afraid of scientific scrutiny.

[

quote]The upshot is that you have to be personally skilled to some extent in the field in order to assess its credibility.

This is fallacy at best, let me make you understand something .. Most of us, I mean most of the time, are to some extent a scientist. I.E. Your car won’t move. You Hypothesize that something is wrong. You gather information - the keys aren’t in the ignition, or their is a ‘boot’ on your tire, or the gas gauge is on E. You redress the hypothesized issue - filling the gas tank, puting the key in the ignition and turning it, paying your fines. You check your Hypothesis validity by seeing if your car will move now, if not you return to observing why the car may not move (oops, forgot that this car had its battery stolen) and test that observed possible cause of the issue, and so on, until you got the car moving. This is all what science is all about.

THE POINT IS THAT YOU ARE ASSESSING THE SUCCESS AND CREDIBILITY OF SCIENCE THROUGH THE LENS OF HUMAN REPORTING.

Another fallacious claim, I recently told you, I learn , read and practice. You need to have enough evidence of me before you can make any assumptions of me.

SO I AM SAYING THAT YOU NEED TO BE CLOSER THAN THAT TO SCIENCE, AND HAVE A DEEPER PERSONAL UNDERSTANDING THAN THAT, IN ORDER TO ASSESS THE SUCCESS AND CREDIBILITY OF SCIENCE AS A FRAMEWORK.

Do i need to make claim in my corner room for you to understand I am not a novice of scientific discipline....

No. As I said above, this is a fallacy. Perhaps you can see the fallacy when applied to religion. The fact that religious acts are carried out by fallible humans is not a logical argument for saying that religion is morally neutral. You have to examine what the religion is SAYING.

science is a method not a believe. Only the person using science can be consider immoral or moral ...religious is a believe system....bro where do you dig this logic out?

So, I am asking you to go back to earlier posts where I talk about what science is SAYING. To crudely paraphrase, the scientific method is encouraging us to pay attention ONLY to what we can take control over and exploit. That is why science looks for mechanistic behaviour, and DENIES THE EXISTENCE OF NON-MECHANISTIC BEHAVIOUR. It does so arbitrarily. There is no logic that proves that the universe is mechanistic. It is a value judgment based on a need to control the universe. THAT IS WHERE MY MORAL ARGUMENT COMES FROM.

false.. if there were no mechanism in the program of this universe. it would not have exist. ( you may even be arguing against religion here)The laws of physics that we understand so far show us that the change in value of a single one of them would cause the current universe to cease to exist.

Again, you are engaging in rather shallow repetition of accolades for science.

I addressed this distinction between research and science earlier. Instead of addressing my points, you have listed a standard popular response, which doesn't get to the point.

why are you so close minded? I am tempted to say you might not really be whom you claim. Your point is hogwash, I give reasons as to why it is. You can hold fallacious claim as point and think you have a fact, how do you even validate or verify your own claim. I want to know? And let's put this method into scrutiny.

Read my earlier post again. Are animals doing science because they evolve knowledge? That is not my use of the word "science". I am talking about a deliberate enterprise that asserts that the universe is mechanistic and seeks to uncover that "mechanism

i think your best question should be ""those animal use scientific experiment"" You can't ask an error questions on its own? ". Well it has not crossed my mind before, but now that you mention it, yes I think you could say some animals use scientific method. Crows, for example, are very good problem-solvers. Other animals as well are good at experimenting, and evaluating the results of their problem-solving attempts. The only thing missing is verbatim.

Options may be limited, but "I cannot practically test this personally" does not validate the argument "it is true because a human institutional authority told me so." It is better to admit you don't know.

it will be very difficult to change a close minded individual?