Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

Ends and means; or the self-immolation of scientific credibility


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> Ends and means; or the self-immolation of scientific credibility Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Ends and means; or the self-immolation of scientific cr... - 2/29/2012 8:48:48 PM   
TheHeretic


Posts: 19100
Joined: 3/25/2007
From: California, USA
Status: offline 		There is a bit too much denial in the the "denialgate" thread to try and do this there, and I'd like to see this go in the direction of the big question anyway, but the original source of the fuss is presented by that thread.

"Fake But Accurate" Science
quote:

For years, we've been lectured at by the global warming establishment about how anyone who doubts them is an enemy of science. One of them in particular, a fellow named Peter Gleick who was the chair of the American Geophysical Union's Task Force on Scientific Ethics, kept lecturing us about how much more scientific integrity the warmists have compared to us unscrupulous skeptics.

Well, now we know what the "scientific ethics" of this global warming establishment actually amounts to. It's not just that Gleick has confessed to stealing internal documents from the Heartland Institute, a think tank that supports global warming skepticism, or that he is suspected of forging another document in an attempt to defame Heartland. It's the fact that a whole section of the scientific establishment is defending Gleick on the grounds that it's OK to lie to promote their cause.

It should go without saying—it doesn't, apparently, but it should—that this is a complete inversion of genuine scientific ethics, in which there is no value higher than the truth. But that is how deeply the global warming dogma has corrupted the scientific establishment.


For anyone who might want to chime in that Gleick is going to sue for defamation at these outrageous charges, you can read his confession on Huff n Poo (of course, those who would try such a tack probably wouldn't make it this far into my post anyway, but what the hell).
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-h-gleick/-the-origin-of-the-heartl_b_1289669.html

He is claiming that the cut and paste "memo" magically came to him, and was then verified when he committed fraud to get the emails all the memo snips were cut and pasted from. That story gets about as far past the sniff test as an occupists armpit.

If scientific ethics are merely situtational, if scientists can feel free to fake and lie, is it even still science anymore? Doesn't that make them just another faith-based system of belief, no different than hardcore fundy creationists explaining away fossils? Perhaps, as the author of the article I started with speculates, no different than a bad cop, planting evidence on the guy he "knows" is guilty?

Ends and means, in science. What say you?

_____________________________

If you lose one sense, your other senses are enhanced.
That's why people with no sense of humor have such an inflated sense of self-importance.

Profile   Post #: 1
RE: Ends and means; or the self-immolation of scientifi... - 2/29/2012 8:55:06 PM   
Rule


Posts: 10479
Joined: 12/5/2005
Status: offline 		Was his name mentioned too in an earlier thread? If so, I then got the impression that he was a hired hand laboring in the service of evil.

Carbon dioxide hasn't got anything to do with a purported heating up of Earth's climate.

(in reply to TheHeretic)
Profile   Post #: 2
RE: Ends and means; or the self-immolation of scientifi... - 2/29/2012 9:14:52 PM   
Fellow


Posts: 1486
Joined: 9/21/2009
Status: offline 		We are talking about university science. There are some problems that cause lot of useless noise and sometimes false information to be published. The most importantly, a leading scientist must bring in grant money or he/she will be kicked out. In order to get grants he/she must publish as much as possible. Add here politically sensitive "goldmine" for grants as the global warming business is, and you get corruption. The last is not so evident in most natural science areas. In general, the university science is ridiculously inefficient. The taxpayers generally are not aware of that.

(in reply to TheHeretic)
Profile   Post #: 3
RE: Ends and means; or the self-immolation of scientifi... - 2/29/2012 9:15:23 PM   
Owner59


Posts: 17033
Joined: 3/14/2006
From: Dirty Jersey
Status: offline 		Guess it comes down to who`s paying the scientists........academia and governments or Exxon and Shell oil......As well as the sheer ,over whelming numbers of scientists and climatologists who do thinks there`s something there compared to the few that don`t.


Just say`n.....


_____________________________

"As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals"

President Obama

(in reply to Rule)
Profile   Post #: 4
RE: Ends and means; or the self-immolation of scientifi... - 2/29/2012 10:02:34 PM   
tweakabelle


Posts: 7522
Joined: 10/16/2007
From: Sydney Australia
Status: offline 		Here's a free tip for you, TheHeretic:

If you want to choose grounds on which to contest climate change, leave ethics and in particular scientific or professional ethics well alone.

The history of the anti-CC mob in this area - plagiarism scientific frauds and just plain lies abound - is not something they want public attention focussed on at all. Not to mention the entire .Univ of East Anglia fiasco dreamt up by these people.

Please note that even a successful attack on the ethical standards of one, or even several individuals associated with pro-climate change side of the debate has little or no effect on the pro-CC argument.

Try instead to stick to such facts and data as you can muster. Muck-raking is no substitute for rational debate and merely invites examination of the motives of the muck-rakers.

_____________________________



(in reply to Owner59)
Profile   Post #: 5
RE: Ends and means; or the self-immolation of scientifi... - 2/29/2012 10:59:19 PM   
TheHeretic


Posts: 19100
Joined: 3/25/2007
From: California, USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle


Please note that even a successful attack on the ethical standards of one, or even several individuals associated with pro-climate change side of the debate has little or no effect on the pro-CC argument.




Do you really believe that very the foundation of credibility those pro-CC folk (is that the new buzz-phrase? They get discredited and changed so often, it's hardly worth keeping track.) are standing on to make their argument has nothing to do with their ability to persuade? Really? I'm quite willing to accept that you'll go right along with the ends justifying the means whenever you happen to agree with the end in question, but I have trouble believing you are that ignorant of how public opinion works.

Alinsky advised that all social ills be personalized. Congratulations. You have a new poster child, and we have his signed confession.

My main argument against the global warming cult has long been that they were far more about power and money, than about the environment. Please don't try to tell me what my position is, or how to make my case.

My tip to you, Tweakabelle, is to try and deal with what I'm saying, instead of pretending I said something you feel competent to attack.


_____________________________

If you lose one sense, your other senses are enhanced.
That's why people with no sense of humor have such an inflated sense of self-importance.


(in reply to tweakabelle)
Profile   Post #: 6
RE: Ends and means; or the self-immolation of scientifi... - 2/29/2012 11:28:51 PM   
tweakabelle


Posts: 7522
Joined: 10/16/2007
From: Sydney Australia
Status: offline
quote:

They get discredited and changed so often, it's hardly worth keeping track.) are standing on to make their argument has nothing to do with their ability to persuade


You might like to list the occasions where the above has happened. Provide some credible sources for your claim.

quote:

Please note that even a successful attack on the ethical standards of one, or even several individuals associated with pro-climate change side of the debate has little or no effect on the pro-CC argument.


What I was alluding to here is that the pro-CC argument is based interpretations of data. The credibility of this evidence doesn't rely on the ethical standards of one or two pro-CC spokespersons or scientists, but on the data, which has been measured by thousands of scientist all around the world acting more or less independently. So if you want to make a credible case against CC (and I'm not saying you can't) then you need to either destroy the credibility of the data, or the manner in which that data is being interpreted.

Alleging that so-and-so is devious or underhand doesn't establish anything at all against the pro-CC argument.

quote:

My main argument against the global warming cult has long been that they were far more about power and money, than about the environment


Again, have you got any credible evidence to back up this claim? I haven't seen any to date. Unless you can establish credible evidence of this apparent world wide conspiracy you're alleging, this claim has no status in the debate other than just another ideologically-inspired wild conspiracy theory and ought to be regarded as such. So produce the evidence please.

It's very easy to run around denigrating all and sundry for base political motives. Please persuade us that there is something more to your claims than that. That is to say, produce some credible evidence.


< Message edited by tweakabelle -- 2/29/2012 11:30:06 PM >

_____________________________



(in reply to TheHeretic)
Profile   Post #: 7
RE: Ends and means; or the self-immolation of scientifi... - 3/1/2012 12:25:00 AM   
joether


Posts: 5195
Joined: 7/24/2005
Status: offline 		How about this Heretic, why dont you put your money where your month is and actually DO THE EXPERIMENTS YOURSELF? That's right, you 'believe' that Climate Change is a hoax and therefore unfactual in nature. That a massive conspiracy exists that has tens of thousands of scientists interconnected in a huge attempt to decieve the world population into believing a story that is on the same level as 'Honest Republicans' and 'Unicorns'.

Of course I and everyone else that understands Climate Change and have checked in on this material know, you will NOT do this for two important reasons:

1) Any information that you obtain from these experiments that do not conform to your narrow view of reality will be discarded.

2) You will not publish your finding in complete form. You will not state how you did every step of the process so that it can be replicated and tested for accuracy. These is a reason why scientists check, recheck, and check again, on the same damn experiment: To see if what they are testing actually is factual and true. You will modify things, even in a tiny form, but that will only show that everyone else's results vary quite sharply from your own. They'll ask you to show them EXACTLY, step-by-step how you did your expirements. Sooner or later, you'll slip up on your conspiracy and be found out as a liar. Does that mean Climate Change is correct? Not at all....it simiply shows your a liar and not to be trusted in the future. But given the massive mountain of evidence collected so far, its a pretty good indication that the concept of Climate Change is indeed taking place.

Likewise, if you recieve funding for all these experiments you are running 'for the good of humanity', I'm sure you'll be more than happy to 'show the books' and properly account for every last penny? And that all the money can be verified from their sources as being 'non-anti climate change supporters' (i.e. Koch Brothers, Exxon, etc).

I think I'll take the word of tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of scientists on this subject as being right. In fact, if I REALLY wanted to do the tests myself, I'm sure they'd be happy to give me a hand in performing them. Likewise, they would be very interested to find what my conculsions are based on the data. I'm not expecting a Nobel Prize for my work. But that is the difference between you and me; your afraid of the reality. Something all the scientists have agreed on and moved to the next logical steps.

Scientists from around the world are not arguing over whether or not Climate Change is taking place. They have already decided on that and agreed its taking place. They are not arguing on the causes of that change; For they have a good understanding and agreement. They are well aware of the planet going through 'cool' and 'warm' period changes; since they are the ones that discovered the very concept for humanity in the first place. They are not arguing on what sort of things might happen as the planet warms; They have agreed it will have numerous effects on the weather, soil, planets, animals and humans. They are arguing on what exactly to do about all of this. Unfortunately, the uninformed (i.e. conservatives) in our country believe that since scientists are arguing still, the matter on whether Climate Change is true or not is not settled. They believe (there is that word again....) that scientists have taken this whole concept as some sort of 'religious' concept, devoid of facts and evidence. When quite the opposite is true at current.

I suspect those few, token 'scientists' that claiim Climate Change is false are handsomely paid off by entities that would like to keep making profits by doing the very thing that is causing the rapid change in warmth to rise so quickly around the planet. Care to wager Heretic, how much scientific knowledge the average Santorum, Paul, or Romney support holds? I think I'll take NASA's understanding to that of the GOP's.

(in reply to tweakabelle)
Profile   Post #: 8
RE: Ends and means; or the self-immolation of scientifi... - 3/1/2012 2:47:16 AM   
Musicmystery


Posts: 30259
Joined: 3/14/2005
Status: offline
quote:

still science anymore?


Interest in science has died quite some time ago. Facts are irrelevant. What people believe is simply true.


(in reply to TheHeretic)
Profile   Post #: 9
RE: Ends and means; or the self-immolation of scientifi... - 3/1/2012 3:04:06 AM   
Kirata


Posts: 15477
Joined: 2/11/2006
From: USA
Status: offline
~ FR ~

The obvious solution here is to move Gleick to a different parish.

K.

(in reply to joether)
Profile   Post #: 10
RE: Ends and means; or the self-immolation of scientifi... - 3/1/2012 3:25:21 AM   
DaddySatyr


Posts: 9381
Joined: 8/29/2011
From: Pittston, Pennsyltucky
Status: offline 		If I'm reading this right; you're using an example of a scientist "run amok" (even criminally) in an effort to distort the truth in the hopes of turning public opinion so that he no longer needs science to make his point?

It's something the green guys have been doing for quite some time.

It's interesting (to me) that you called them "faith-based". I think, to a large degree, you've hit the nail on the head. In the "hippie era" (late 60s-early 70s) There were a whole lot of flower people that "went back to" the religion of "Mother Earth" etc. Unfortunately, since most of them didn't "come from" there to begin with, it made it tough to "go back" so, they made some of it up, as they went along.

Now, that is not to nullify anyone's religion. They are free to believe what they wish to believe and I support that. They are not free to make up (parts of) a religion, say it's not a religion, and try and get me toi live by their tenets. I believe that's a large portion of what's going on.

I've said on these threads before that I believe we are "leaving a carbon footprint" (I think that's the "in" phrase?) but, I don't think we're destroying the planet. I've also said that if one looks at what could possibly be the motivation of some of the most prominent people on the pro side of the argument, we would see that they're making a metric shit-ton of money by scaring people into believing that the world is going to end and they have the way to stop it. That's shameful.

I'd be a lot more tempted to give their moaning and gnashing of teeth credit if they weren't getting rich from it. Someone made the point that a scientist must "publish or perish". That is and has been an absolute for about as long as "professional" science has been in existence.

Pure science is a search for the truth. Truth (IMO) should be worshipped but it should be shown to be truth, first. Any scientist worth their salt cringes when a scientist goes "off the reservation" in terms of scientific method because they know that it sets back their cause, once the mistake/distortion is exposed.

I am not up on this specific case enough to know whether or not that's what this man did but, since we appear to have a confession, I'm going to go with a zealot, looking to forward his beliefs who might very well be a true believer or who might be just chasing the almighty dollar.

The cacophony that is my "fan club" will start now ...



Peace and comfort,



Michael

_____________________________

A Stone in My Shoe

Screen captures (and pissing on shadows) still RULE! Ya feel me?

"For that which I love, I will do horrible things"

(in reply to Musicmystery)
Profile   Post #: 11
RE: Ends and means; or the self-immolation of scientifi... - 3/1/2012 3:57:27 AM   
Musicmystery


Posts: 30259
Joined: 3/14/2005
Status: offline
quote:


Pure science is a search for the truth. Truth (IMO) should be worshipped but it should be shown to be truth, first. Any scientist worth their salt cringes when a scientist goes "off the reservation" in terms of scientific method because they know that it sets back their cause, once the mistake/distortion is exposed.


Agreed, but (1) self-serving "science" has been the norm for a few decades and (2) forming opinions and then grasping for "evidence" to self-"validate" has become so common it doesn't even raise eyebrows anymore.

(in reply to DaddySatyr)
Profile   Post #: 12
RE: Ends and means; or the self-immolation of scientifi... - 3/1/2012 4:03:18 AM   
DaddySatyr


Posts: 9381
Joined: 8/29/2011
From: Pittston, Pennsyltucky
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

Agreed, but (1) self-serving "science" has been the norm for a few decades and (2) forming opinions and then grasping for "evidence" to self-"validate" has become so common it doesn't even raise eyebrows anymore.


I agree with your statement also but, if I may be so bold as to "fix" it?

quote:

ORIGINAL Merged quote

forming opinions and then grasping for "evidence" to self-"validate" has become so common it doesn't even raise eyebrows or instill confidence in their credibility anymore.


I think we agree, here. I think that "scientists" that ignore actual scientific method are a danger to the very thing they're trying to "prove". That's it in a nut shell. Yes?



Peace and comfort,



Michael

_____________________________

A Stone in My Shoe

Screen captures (and pissing on shadows) still RULE! Ya feel me?

"For that which I love, I will do horrible things"

(in reply to Musicmystery)
Profile   Post #: 13
RE: Ends and means; or the self-immolation of scientifi... - 3/1/2012 4:12:34 AM   
Musicmystery


Posts: 30259
Joined: 3/14/2005
Status: offline
quote:



I think we agree, here. I think that "scientists" that ignore actual scientific method are a danger to the very thing they're trying to "prove". That's it in a nut shell. Yes?


Yes, but very important: additionally, people for the past few decades don't give a crap about facts. "Science" is what they choose to believe, regardless of facts or evidence; the rest is junk.

< Message edited by Musicmystery -- 3/1/2012 4:13:06 AM >

(in reply to DaddySatyr)
Profile   Post #: 14
RE: Ends and means; or the self-immolation of scientifi... - 3/1/2012 4:26:16 AM   
DaddySatyr


Posts: 9381
Joined: 8/29/2011
From: Pittston, Pennsyltucky
Status: offline 		That settles it. We agree.

I think it's as interesting that common, every-day people spew scientific "fact" without even reasoning out the fact that they're regurgitating.

I can't think of an example but I think all of us have seen polls or surveys that state something as "fact" that is contrary to our own experience. While we may not be "expert" in that field, we certainly have some knowledge and I think the scientists, negating our experiences, is part and parcel of ignoring scientific method.

I may not be making myself clear enough.

I think in the process of our every-day living, each of us is exposed to many things. I can't accept people spewing as fact: "American people are sick and tired of hearing about scandal" when each time a new one occurs, we (as a group) eat it up.

When scientific "fact" flies in the face of what we know to be true, many of us don't even think for ourselves: "Does this sound right, based upon my experience?" I think that's one of the major ways that faux-science has taken a foothold in our society.



Peace and comfort,



Michael

_____________________________

A Stone in My Shoe

Screen captures (and pissing on shadows) still RULE! Ya feel me?

"For that which I love, I will do horrible things"

(in reply to Musicmystery)
Profile   Post #: 15
RE: Ends and means; or the self-immolation of scientifi... - 3/1/2012 4:57:22 AM   
Musicmystery


Posts: 30259
Joined: 3/14/2005
Status: offline 		Michael,

This is actually a different matter. What's true in aggregate often defies what seems to be true on an individual level (I'm a specialist in organizational behavior). Interesting studies, many examples. Check out Peter Senge's "The Fifth Discipline" for a primer.

What I mentioned above your post is different--people actually not giving a damn that the facts/evidence dispute their beliefs.

There's a third matter, a gross misunderstanding about science, especially evidence-for vs. proof-of. Another day. Duty calls.

(in reply to DaddySatyr)
Profile   Post #: 16
RE: Ends and means; or the self-immolation of scientifi... - 3/1/2012 5:26:02 AM   
Exidor


Posts: 135
Joined: 12/31/2011
Status: offline
quote:

If scientific ethics are merely situtational, if scientists can feel free to fake and lie, is it even still science anymore?


99% of what the media present as "scientists" are university professors. Which makes them grant whores, who will say anything to keep the money coming in. Pretty much like TV "personalities".

Having a university degree and/or a job with a fancy title doesn't mean they're not eaten up with the dumb-ass, dishonest, or barking mad. However, those are the ones the media will flock to, because they typically give the best sound bites.

(in reply to TheHeretic)
Profile   Post #: 17
RE: Ends and means; or the self-immolation of scientifi... - 3/1/2012 6:08:02 AM   
LanceHughes


Posts: 4737
Joined: 2/12/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr
<snipped>
I think it's as interesting that common, every-day people spew scientific "fact" without even reasoning out the fact that they're regurgitating.

I can't think of an example but I think all of us have seen polls or surveys that state something as "fact" that is contrary to our own experience.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dihydrogen_monoxide_hoax  Many petitions against H2O. 




edited for quote thingies

< Message edited by LanceHughes -- 3/1/2012 6:14:42 AM >

_____________________________

"Train 'em the right way - my way." Lance Hughes
"Advice is what we ask for when we already know the answer, but wish we didn't." Erica Jong

10 fluffy points
50 nz points

Member: VAA's posse

(in reply to DaddySatyr)
Profile   Post #: 18
RE: Ends and means; or the self-immolation of scientifi... - 3/1/2012 6:31:38 AM   
Hillwilliam


Posts: 19394
Joined: 8/27/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Rule

Was his name mentioned too in an earlier thread? If so, I then got the impression that he was a hired hand laboring in the service of evil.

Carbon dioxide hasn't got anything to do with a purported heating up of Earth's climate.

It's nice to know that you just repealed chemical and physical properties of compounds. I, for one, will sleep better tonight because of it.

_____________________________

Kinkier than a cheap garden hose.

Whoever said "Religion is the opiate of the masses" never heard Right Wing talk radio.

Don't blame me, I voted for Gary Johnson.

(in reply to Rule)
Profile   Post #: 19
RE: Ends and means; or the self-immolation of scientifi... - 3/1/2012 6:39:53 AM   
DaddySatyr


Posts: 9381
Joined: 8/29/2011
From: Pittston, Pennsyltucky
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: LanceHughes

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dihydrogen_monoxide_hoax  Many petitions against H2O. 

edited for quote thingies


Thank you, Lance. That truly made me laugh, out loud!



Peace and comfort,



Michael

_____________________________

A Stone in My Shoe

Screen captures (and pissing on shadows) still RULE! Ya feel me?

"For that which I love, I will do horrible things"

(in reply to LanceHughes)
Profile   Post #: 20
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> Ends and means; or the self-immolation of scientific credibility Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.094