Damnit, and I thought I would be able to get through this pile of bullshit with nothing more than sarcasm, dry wit, and full blown retardedness. Silly me...
rev_boy said:
Okay, I should have mentioned I don't actually take the article in the first post seriously - so we are in agreement there. What I was taking issue with was your outright statement that any piece of info not in peer reviewed articles/etc you refuse to even consider.
The first article was junk, I'm glad we're on the same page there. I'm still looking for the study in Br.J.Dev.Psych the BBC article cites, but can't find it in the September release. I guess Wiley has some sort of region lock, but that's not really important right now. At any rate, I wouldn't take the study too seriously. The number of subjects was far too small for any usable conclusions.
Falsifying data outright is career suicide indeed, which is what it's much more common for companies / scientists to manipulate data, though this is certainly seen more in some fields than others.
Of course none of this matters if people simply refuse to listen to science for example when making laws/government policies, or in the case of the DEA (who mentioned the DEA? Who even said I was talking about America? Surprisingly there are actually whole other countries in the world and the majority of people live in those, not in the US) regularly refusing allowance of legitimate research which might possibly bring into question government law/policies, while heaping funds and causing no hassle for those which support them. Getting licenses to do drugs / other taboo studies isn't exactly a walk in the park given that in the case of drugs, government organisations can deny permission for any reason or no reason at all with zero accountability.
No...data doesn't get falsified. It is really easy to catch falsified data, which is why only soon-to-be-unemployed idiots are trying to get away with it. What sometimes happens instead is that the conclusions get skewed, or bloated references values are used, or basically anything to make the sponsor look good. Sadly, this does occasionally happen, though there's never a true division in the scientific community. Shit, even research sponsored by Monsanto isn't purely positive with regard to their products. The reason is simply self-preservation. Shoddy research -> loss of future funding, quite simple. I should mention that a good chunk of food safety and related research is being done in China under sponsorship. There's nothing inherently wrong with either the Chinese institutions or this system. The same reasoning applies; shoody research -> no foreign investments.
Oh yeah, I mentioned the DEA, as most of the readers are from the states. Believe me, I had no intention of belittling whatever country you claim as home...
Not exactly what I was talking about.
Then you're quite incoherent...
And when would that be? History includes a very long period of time, and my patience for your stupidity is thin.
An analogous system to peer review, though in lieu of vying for publications, the scientists in questions opted to publicly humiliate each other in order to prove their ideas superior. I never said it was a good system...
Now that's some elitist bullshit if i've ever seen it. I submit that you are are happily subscribing to any nonsense that suits your preconceived notions - the only difference between you and the general public is that they don't have their heads stuck up their asses. What qualifies someone as an expert and from where does the authority come to label them so? Do you think the first "experts" had harvard science degrees? People are stupid, I get that - but any kind of qualifying factor in designating you a "smart person" or "expert" is completely and utterly arbitrary. As much as you might try to separate yourself from "lesser" people or "the public" you can't get around that fact, and the fact that even peer-review is basically democracy.
Not to mention, your view of intelligence seems to be primarily based on how closesly someone's views align with your own (big fucking surprise).
Ah, so you're as qualified as me - a lowly first year grad student - then? Great! Ok, if efficiency were an issue, would you use a DFT calculation or a semi-empirical calculation with a corresponding mechanism (eg PM3) to determine the IR spectrum of some large organic molecule (>500Da) with some qualitative accuracy?
Ok, this is a pretty stupid question, but I hope the point got across. If you don't recognize those terms, congratulations, you are not an expert! Now kindly stay the hell away from computational chemistry.
An expert is somebody who has studied the material in question in great detail, can offer explanations, and make predictions regarding the outcome of experiments. Degrees are not really the issue here (Few scientists will look to Harvard for the final word on anything), but rather experience. Would you seriously place the opinion of a random member of society on par with that of a true expert in any given field? Please tell me the answer is 'no.' Please?
Oh, and before you say anything, I'm no expert either. I happen to know far more than the layperson about a narrow branch of science, but hardly anything compared to what my mentors know. I'm just a student for now.
As for intelligence, I most certainly do not equate it with competence. I am about as competent in microbiology, geology, aerospace engineering, ancient Chinese literature, and Polish folk dancing as you are (presumably) with quantum mechanics. And whatever understand I may posses is dwarfed into nothingness by any of my professors'. Besides, I do not recall bringing up intelligence, so have fun mutilating that strawman of yours...
I think comparing even stem cell research (probably the most controversial out of the examples you listed) to something like Gallileo's persecution at the hands of the Catholic Church does not do the historical examples justice. Even in the most extreme cases of anti-stem cell research and religious hysteria, nothing nearly as severe occurs. Overall we are living in an age of enlightenment in comparison to the rest of history, and i'll even grant you it's mostly because of modern science doctrines and peer review. However to say what you said about peer review instantly lowers yourself to the level of these "plebians" and makes you a giant, narrow minded hypocrite.
*sigh* It took the church a few centuries too many to apologize for their treatment of Galileo, and you seek to set that equal to modern day idiots who hinder the progress of science? No, obviously nobody in our bloody civilized society is going to seriously attempt to burn somebody at the stake for *gasp* suggesting that terra firma might not be so unique after all. Still, they are a huge problem. Are you familiar with the creationism/evolution debacle in the US? There are still attempts made to get creationism, or its bastard clone intelligent design, to be taught alongside evolution by a sizable portion of the population. Should we listen to them, as their opinions are as you said just as valid as those of real scientists? No? Then perhaps you ought to reconsider your stance on that.
Known by who, a small handful of educated people, in isolated periods of history in certain specific societies? Your knowledge of history is lacking, man.
I'll give you this: if you're going to be a fanatical, close-minded, rigidly stupid elitist; then you're better off following peer-reviewed science than following some sort of religious dogma.
Yeah...a similar number of educated people who understand things you could never imagine. Get over yourself! You are not on the same level as a real scientist, nor is the general public. Does that make you or them any less important in the overall course of humanity? Of course not! Just. Not. In. Fucking. Science.
To be honest, you sound like somebody who got rejected from a science major. If that's the case, I really do wish you the best, and that you eventually get over it.
EDIT: stupid removed >_>