General Discussion

AverageJoe90

(10,745 posts)

42. This is definitely true to an extent, including where scientific materialism is concerned.

Thu Mar 6, 2014, 04:01 AM

Mar 2014

Unfortunately, even basic science is sometimes subject to poor interpretation by bad actors, depending on the context. Like, for example, a study on the brain activity of mice just before death was used by so-called "skeptic" materialists to claim that this was solid, undeniable proof that all near-death experiences in humans were nothing more than chemical misfires.

And let's not get started on the bullshit that climate deniers, and doomers, too, try to pull whenever climate scientists admit that their calculations were incorrect on something, particularly if something turns out not to be quite as bad as they thought(doomers will claim that they're softpedaling or "minimizing" climate change, deniers will claim that it's proof of a supposed "hoax&quot .

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

53 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Good science is good. Poorly designed science is bad. [View all] pnwmom Mar 2014 OP

THANK YOU!! Now that's what I am talking about...Confirmation bias is the big one... Drew Richards Mar 2014 #1

Monsanto allows studies using their GMO seeds, as long as they're conducted by approved scientists pnwmom Mar 2014 #2

OH the Pain it hurts...this is the most basic in food safety and they get to shield from it. Drew Richards Mar 2014 #3

Actually, it's a little more, you know, complicated than all that. HuckleB Mar 2014 #33

It's much simpler than that: researchers can't use the GMO seeds unless they sign agreements pnwmom Mar 2014 #47

That's old information, and even then it was highly disputed. HuckleB Mar 2014 #51

It trumps everything you posted. And it's from a reputable source. n/t pnwmom Mar 2014 #53

Monsanto and Types Suck.. don't care who pimps for them Cha Mar 2014 #44

Science funded by large corporations is not simply bad... joeybee12 Mar 2014 #4

K&R Crunchy Frog Mar 2014 #5

I'm surprised the usual suspects haven't already. n/t pnwmom Mar 2014 #7

So here are the responses that show that this is just a game for you. HuckleB Mar 2014 #13

I'm serious about this. And no one's even paying me to be. n/t pnwmom Mar 2014 #18

In the first sentence, you claim to be serious. In the second, you show that you're not. HuckleB Mar 2014 #20

I couldn't have been more serious about both sentences. You? n/t pnwmom Mar 2014 #48

Thanks for the confession. HuckleB Mar 2014 #52

We don't love science enough.. we don't put all our trust in science. :( Cha Mar 2014 #45

I do love science. Crunchy Frog Mar 2014 #49

Only FREE science is real science. k+r Democracyinkind Mar 2014 #6

That's a very nice essay; thanks for the link! (nt) petronius Mar 2014 #8

You're welcome. n/t pnwmom Mar 2014 #9

Excellent point. Some charlatans will wrap themselves in "science" the way Neocons wrap Chathamization Mar 2014 #10

I know.. kinda weird. And, get all bent out of shape if Cha Mar 2014 #46

Confirmation bias is a very real issue. HuckleB Mar 2014 #11

When your opening premise is wrong, what follows either is also wrong, or has little to do with... Humanist_Activist Mar 2014 #12

Exactly. NuclearDem Mar 2014 #14

Yup. HuckleB Mar 2014 #16

This Cal Tech physicist disagrees with you. pnwmom Mar 2014 #24

Let's name that logical fallacy! HuckleB Mar 2014 #31

Actually there is a bright line between science and pseudoscience LostOne4Ever Mar 2014 #41

We do need to open it all up. Which is why I support Ben Goldacre's efforts. HuckleB Mar 2014 #15

The problem is science reporting, which is done by people who have, at best, a middle... Humanist_Activist Mar 2014 #17

I wouldn't say that's the only problem, but it is a big one! HuckleB Mar 2014 #19

I agree its not the only problem, its just the one that seems to start most of these discussion... Humanist_Activist Mar 2014 #35

The practice of science is subject to confirmation bias. pnwmom Mar 2014 #21

Of course it is, and that is done by people, hence the reason for the scientific method. Humanist_Activist Mar 2014 #22

I have this, which you have already ignored: pnwmom Mar 2014 #25

The first sentence of the bolded paragraph is factually incorrect... Humanist_Activist Mar 2014 #32

pretty much Johonny Mar 2014 #40

A fine piece on the issue: Confirmation bias in science: how to avoid it HuckleB Mar 2014 #23

If it were that easy, you would think this kind of problem wouldn't occur. pnwmom Mar 2014 #27

You did not have time to read what I posted. HuckleB Mar 2014 #28

You ignored it the first time, but since it answers your question, I repeated it. pnwmom Mar 2014 #29

Oh, goodness. HuckleB Mar 2014 #30

You're projecting again. n/t pnwmom Mar 2014 #36

You're not being honest again. HuckleB Mar 2014 #39

A Really, Really Good Piece On The Issue: The Power of Confirmation Bias HuckleB Mar 2014 #26

Excellent discussion and article. Thanks for posting! nt adirondacker Mar 2014 #34

C. Glenn Begley worked at Amgen, Inc., who could not confirm the preclinical studies FarCenter Mar 2014 #37

Thank you for this info. n/t pnwmom Mar 2014 #43

Okay lets go over this LostOne4Ever Mar 2014 #38

This is definitely true to an extent, including where scientific materialism is concerned. AverageJoe90 Mar 2014 #42

But it's science that corrects or refutes bad science... SidDithers Mar 2014 #50