zn wrote:

Well actually, I did get the point. And it’s simple…there are flawed studies because there always are, as part of the process of scientific discussion. Everything for example said about the “steady state” theory of the universe before the big bang theory emerged was more than flawed, it was dead wrong—at least in this sense: in the end “steady state” theory could not account for the wide range of evidence that kept coming in, while its rival views did do so much more successfully. Science is a discussion, not a series of simple truths.

There are always some flawed studies because there are always competing views testing and pushing the consensus, and as time goes on, some work and some don’t.

The idea that there’s this universal simple unitary thing called Big Science and that it is ALL called into question is, frankly, absurd. Paleontologists in China owe nothing because a geographer in Chile made a claim in print that did not hold up.

It always was and always will be a long discussion with people correcting each other, disagreeing, bringing in new information and viewpoints, challenging old assumptions, making claims that can be dated within months and then trying over.

That just means it’s doing what it’s supposed to do.

And this strange idea you have that there’s this “conformity of belief” among scientists all over the world just tells me you probably don’t know any scientists. It’s just the kind of fiction a funded article like that would come up with. I do know scientists, I was raised by them and have always had scientists among my family, friends and colleagues (including my daughter). It always looks different when you actually know the thing. Science is one big noisy, multi-faceted ongoing argument. I have seen that process at work my whole life. The “they’re all the same” routines, it seems to me, comes from motivated outsiders with agendas. It’s not a real picture of actual science.

No you did not get the point. I specifically mentioned methodology and equations used in projecting data. That has nothing to do with scientific heresy nor a hypothesis proved wrong. It is completely within the mechanics involved in the study that corrupts the data thus corrupts the conclusions regarding the study. I can’t possibly elaborate more than that about this. You either understand or you don’t. If you don’t then I’ve failed in explaining it and will leave it to someone else.

As for Big Science I know it. I’m a part of it. I’ve trained and worked within it. The word science like engineering has been thrown around quite liberally. I’m referring to classically trained scientists. In my case the physical sciences. There are the gatekeepers I mentioned. That is irrefutable. A certified professional in I believe all 50 states is now limited to those who have the Big Science stamp of approval to merely begin the process of certification. It used to be one could claim work in an area over a period of years and get grandfathered in but not now.

You are also mistaken about conformity of belief. The student wishing to attend a graduate program that has professors involved in accepting grants that further the claims of man made global warming will not get past the interview process when the student does not believe in man made global warming. That is conformity of belief in action. In my case nearly 30 years ago such an example would be a student who believes in the Abiotic Oil Theory trying to get into any graduate program in petroleum exploration in the western world. Even today the ‘fossil’ fuel proponents are universally placed and remain well entrenched throughout the western world.

• This reply was modified 8 years, 6 months ago by bnw.

PA Ram wrote:

No offense bnw, but this is just another “think tank” guy promoting an agenda. In this case he works for “Ethic and Public Policy Center” which was founded by a minister and has been funded by some corporations(in this case Nestle)–the same way that the Kochs fund The Cato Institute and Heritage Foundation. They are tax write-offs masquerading as “charities” to push political agendas.

I don’t pay them much attention.

If you follow the thread of money in these cases you can usually find where the real interests are. They work primarily for political or corporate interests.

No offense taken. He may have an agenda. I don’t. I know what I’ve witnessed and I know history. Take the two examples of studies I mentioned. No agenda there just fact. What the layman doesn’t understand is that science is the pursuit of knowledge. That pursuit should not have any bias toward a particular outcome. A study tests a hypothesis and nothing more. When irrefutable information is obtained the scientific method works until proven otherwise. That information may be unfortunate for the sponsors of the study but in the two examples I gave still very much in the public’s interest yet was denied to the public for decades. We can only guess at what human cost.

• This reply was modified 8 years, 7 months ago by bnw.