Announcement

Collapse

Natural Science 301 Guidelines

This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.

As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Scientist Resigns as Stem-Cell Creation Method Is Discredited

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    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.

    Comment


    • #47
      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.

      Comment


      • #48
        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, 12:46 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.

        Comment


        • #49
          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.
          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׃

          Comment


          • #50
            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׃

            Comment


            • #51
              I get the feeling you created this thread to intercept what you assumed would be religious naysayers from doing the same and then condemning science for being faulty. Like, you read the article, and quickly ran to TWeb to post about it first so that you could say to everyone "we science lovers know that fraud can happen sometimes, but because the process works they get caught!" Its almost like you had to post this because you were afraid that someone else would and take it in another direction.

              But the truth is, just about everyone here is okay with this, regardless of their worldview. Outside of maybe 1 or 2 bizarro exceptions, that are considered extreme even by those who share a similar world-view, everyone here appreciates the scientific method, and the processes that ensures its sound. I don't think any of us think any less of the scientific community because the occasional cases like this. It doesn't matter if you're Christian, Jew, Muslim, Agnostic, Atheist, or Bahai, I think we can all agree we all love science and the positive things its brought into our lives. The idea that there's some sort of religious based Illuminati that has it out for all things science I think is more in your head than actually in the real world.

              That said, what you will find resistance to are forms of scientism, which is essentially the worldview that all truths can only be known through science. It essentially makes a god out of science. And you're just as likely to find atheists and agnostics against that sort of extremist view of science as you are Christians, Jews, Muslims, etc.

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                Do you have anything constructive to add to this thread?
                No, I feel like I've said everything I wanted to say in this thread.
                ~Formerly known as Chrawnus~

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by Adrift View Post
                  That said, what you will find resistance to are forms of scientism, which is essentially the worldview that all truths can only be known through science. It essentially makes a god out of science. And you're just as likely to find atheists and agnostics against that sort of extremist view of science as you are Christians, Jews, Muslims, etc.
                  At the root of all scientific knowledge is Methodological Naturalism without any forms of scientism (whatever that means??), nor any metaphysical claims of atheism, agnosticism, theism nor deism. No, Methodological Naturalism does not remotely make the claim that all truths can only be known through science.
                  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.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                    ... No, Methodological Naturalism does not remotely make the claim that all truths can only be known through science.
                    Adrift did not claim this so if you are attempting to contradict him on this point, you are mistaken.
                    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׃

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      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.
                      The fraudulent research that began this thread passed muster of peer review and published. The bad and fraudulent research that is caught in peer review is not published. The principle way bad and fraudulent research that found most often occurs when others try and repeat the research and fail to replicate the results, as is the case here. It is mainly the redundancy of research, and research using modern methods that corrects older work.
                      Last edited by shunyadragon; 12-28-2014, 01:35 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.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                        At the root of all scientific knowledge is Methodological Naturalism
                        Yes. I agree that it is sensible that methodological naturalism be at the root of scientific knowledge, or at least, the hard sciences.

                        scientism (whatever that means??),
                        I believe I described what scientism is in the post you replied to. But here is a link to a dictionary definition of the term http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/scientism And another link to the wikipedia article on the term. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism

                        No, Methodological Naturalism does not remotely make the claim that all truths can only be known through science.
                        Did you imagine that I said that it did?

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                          The fraudulent research that began this thread passed muster of peer review and published. The bad and fraudulent research that is caught in peer review is not published. The principle way bad and fraudulent research that found most often occurs when others try and repeat the research and fail to replicate the results, as is the case here. It is mainly the redundancy of research, and research using modern methods that corrects older work.
                          Indeed. Do you believe there's room for improvement as far as the peer review process goes?

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            If the issue here is whether some theological or philosophical conviction can influence one's scientific research, this is pretty obvious. In the worst cases, scientists must sign a pledge that their findings must be frankly absurd, before being allowed in the door. We might laugh at the ICR, since such pledges NOT to find what's there are the opposite of good science, but it's probably good to recognize that most people do this sort of thing to themselves subconsciously. Hopefully, most scientists tend to avoid areas where they know their religious beliefs are strong.

                            As science atomizes into ever tinier fields of focus, the peer review process gets more problematic. Perhaps only one or two people in the entire world are sufficiently qualified to comment intelligently on a paper, and these tend to be competing scientists whose own work strongly flavors their reviews. How likely are you to approve a paper that purports to refute what you've been publishing for a decade? And conversely, how likely are you to approve work supporting your own, even if it fails to meet the usual requirements of originality or methodology? Peer reviewers, of course, do not attempt to replicate results as part of their reviews. It's not hard to see these tendencies as hindrance to good science, and to recommend a somewhat more open and transparent review process.

                            As a glamor field, stem cell research has now had a couple of major frauds, both of which sailed through peer review but foundered on inability to replicate. But softer sciences have had similar problems. Matina Horner famously "identified" womens fear of success in a study nobody could ever replicate. Turns out the study was riddled with confirmation bias, but it made her rich and famous. The temptation for fraud is always there.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by Adrift View Post
                              Yes. I agree that it is sensible that methodological naturalism be at the root of scientific knowledge, or at least, the hard sciences.

                              I believe I described what scientism is in the post you replied to. But here is a link to a dictionary definition of the term http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/scientism And another link to the wikipedia article on the term. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism
                              There is a problem with the use of the word 'scientism.' The only simple translation that is workable is 'Metaphysical or Philosophical Naturalism. This is the atheist perspective, and in reality not distinguishable from Methodological Naturalism except for the Metaphysical assumption.

                              I find it most often used as rhetorical accusation or a theological club against science without specific differentiation as to how the term scientism is differentiated form just plain old fashioned Methodological Naturalism science except for the metaphysical assumption.
                              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.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                                There is a problem with the use of the word 'scientism.' The only simple translation that is workable is 'Metaphysical or Philosophical Naturalism. This is the atheist perspective, and in reality not distinguishable from Methodological Naturalism except for the Metaphysical assumption.

                                I find it most often used as rhetorical accusation or a theological club against science without specific differentiation as to how the term scientism is differentiated form just plain old fashioned Methodological Naturalism science except for the metaphysical assumption.
                                There is no problem with the word "scientism". As the Wikipedia article I linked states, "In essence, scientism sees science as the absolute and only justifiable access to the truth." "and has been used by social scientists such as Friedrich Hayek,[5] philosophers of science such as Karl Popper,[6] and philosophers such as Hilary Putnam[7] and Tzvetan Todorov[8] to describe the dogmatic endorsement of scientific methodology and the reduction of all knowledge to only that which is measurable"

                                And there are people who hold this view of science. So its useful to put a label on it.

                                As far as I can see, scientism and Metaphysical Naturalism are not necessarily synonymous. One may hold that the material world is all that there is, and reject supernaturalism as does the Metaphysical Naturalist, but I don't see anything in the Metaphysical Naturalist's worldview that would prevent them from ascertaining truths through methods other than the scientific method. They may believe that we can obtain truths through the study of history, philosophy, literature, art, etc. It just needs to be grounded in materialism.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by shunyadragon, 07-25-2021, 08:57 AM
                                0 responses
                                14 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by shunyadragon, 07-23-2021, 06:14 PM
                                1 response
                                13 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by rogue06, 07-22-2021, 07:50 AM
                                1 response
                                15 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by Cow Poke, 07-21-2021, 08:13 AM
                                13 responses
                                42 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Cow Poke  
                                Started by Sparko, 07-20-2021, 06:52 AM
                                45 responses
                                138 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Sparko
                                by Sparko
                                 
                                Working...
                                X