Hi Andrew, Based on your first two statements (about science very often being manipulated to produce desired results, and being just like politics in that matter): I'd find it very hard to believe you've gained formal qualifications in either field, nor worked intimately in either field -- as I have, in both. True, there are scientists employed by firms to provide company-friendly data. But (except for job-desperate scientists working in short-lived fly-by-night firms) they also provide cautionary info to management, and research safer & more effective products and/or processes -- to gain a competitive advantage and to protect long-term from litigation. Perhaps you think the marketers and managers making those public "heavily spun" statements are the scientists? And there is the occasional zealot who believes so strongly in his/her theory that s/he fudges the data and/or analysis. (e.g. Mendel and inherited traits.) I'm seeing this constantly in the Alternative Healthcare field. But if it happened as often as you imply, why does it make such big scientific (much less mainstream) news when discovered? The vast majority of modern scientific discovery is based upon detailed publication in peer review journals, followed by critiques (and in most cases requires replication by unrelated scientists) before general acceptance in the field. In essence, the first two statements remind me of people who say "statistics are useless, because they can lie": They end up having no real understanding of statistics, nor do they realise that we can't be certain of a correlation or causal relationship without employing statistics. Really liked your third statement, though, about perceived truth as an input. Rather clued-in to the finesse of it all. Usually the genesis of those ongoing heated "big-endian vs little-endian" debates in science. Enough time and further research usually settles it, though. All the above was said intending not so much to hurt as to assist. Cheers, Carl Bayswater On 22/04/14 20:01, Andrew McGlashan wrote:
On 22/04/2014 4:33 PM, Trent W. Buck wrote:
Andrew McGlashan wrote:
+1
Definitely too much politics here and it would be befit me re-iterate the /political/ nature of the climate gate lies/fraud, which really is purely political [even if science tries to muddy the water] !!!!
That nasty science, always messing with our ideologies. We should just ban it altogether.
Nothing wrong with science, but like many things it can be, [and very often is], manipulated to produce the desired results -- just like in politics. Just about anything can often be argued for and against and many arguments can work or fail depending on other inputs; the truth or *perceived* truth can make a different too, as another input.
Cheers A. _______________________________________________ luv-talk mailing list luv-talk@lists.luv.asn.au http://lists.luv.asn.au/listinfo/luv-talk