What is the point of this forum?

This, of course, is a subjective opinion. I think special creation is true, does that make every proponents of evolution 'untrue' scientists in my world ? Of course not, being a scientist isn't about investigating a true or false idea.Of course, if he promotes a false idea, that he knows its false, I would consider him at the very least a bad scientist. See the post to coyote below.

If you would want to discuss this further, you can start a new thread.I don't think our comprehensions are so far apart. I'm not trying to rewrite the whole scientific method. It's just one aspect of it that has consequences in the way science is done, which philosophers of science have grasped very well.I certainly hope you are in a discussion mood, and not a debating one though.Edited by slevesque, : No reason given.

Of course, all way to debate aren't born equal. And I would never propose a debating method where you could Gish Gallop around. It would be focused debates on particular points. With the points being told in advance so the participants can come prepared.Besides, I'm creationist, are you implying I'm not looking for the truth ?PS I spotted a fallacy in your text, when you talk about '' ... most, the creationist press described the outcome of the debates as Miller being "one of the ablest opponents" they had faced, but still they had "significantly strengthening the creationist position in Tampa Bay". As in, the local school boards after the debates shelved their plans for any kind of creationist curriculum. In case your English didn't catch that, that means that the school board abandoned all its previous plans to teach any creationism. ''Temporal succession does not implie a causal relation (post hoc ergo propter hoc).

I remember an interesting study on this subjectHow Many Scientists Fabricate and Falsify Research? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Survey Data | PLOS ONEThe Times & The Sunday TimesBack in 1994 Gould did say something about this:''The stereotype of a fully rational and objective ‘scientific method,’ with individual scientists as logical (and interchangeable) robots, is self-serving mythology''I don't think that we need to fool ourselves, that either be it in religion or science. Humans will be humans. Results can and have been changed, peer pressure does have an impact.I do think, however, that religion such as christianity (or others such as Budhism) help favor righteous behavior amongst humans however (Is this not one of the advantages of religious behaviors that would have been favored by natural selection ?)Also this recent article by CMI on peer pressure in science: Science peer pressure - creation.com

Well global warming climate change is a subject on its own. But of course I would think that when a research like the GIEC claims there are 90% chance that humans are the cause, when in fact we still know very little about the causes of climate change, some scientists would like to point out how little we know about it.In other words, the GIEC made an unfounded claim (90%) with not nearly enough information, and some scientists would probably want to publish how many factors come into play that we cannot yet calculate their effects, and so that the truth is we don't know the cause of the global warming, then I would guess they would have probably a harder time then others to get published.One example is that even though water vapor is the biggest greenhouse gas of all, but that it's effects can't yet be simulated by any software today (because, as it seems, weather is a complex thing), then I think it is legitimate to want to cast doubt on the 90% figure. But of course, they won't be published, since it is feeding on our lack of knowledge ...AbE Yeah I know, way off-topic. You dont have to answer lolEdited by slevesque, : No reason given.

Why are yo ualways agressive like that ?I thought the study would have been interesting. You were saying how scientists disdain liying, and that it was so foreign to science. As if science was this great environment where lying cannot slip through, and if a scientist dared to lie, he was kicked out.In the light of this, I think the study is totaly legitimate. 2% of scientists admitted to having ''fabricated, falsified, or modified data or results''. That is, they personnally admitted it. When they were asked about their colleagues actions resgarding falsification, the figure was now 14%.And of course, they conclude that this is likely to be a conservative estimate.Additionally, I gave you the probable cause for this. Peer-pressure: ''around 46 per cent [of scientists] say that they have observed fellow scientists engage inpresenting data selectively or changing the conclusions of a study in response to pressure''.THis is not a debate, this is a discussion. Be less aggressive, it'll be better for everyone.

Yeah I just saw it. I'll participate as much as I can with the time I have on my hands (I'm in a couple other discussions as of right now around here, I'll maybe 'retreat' from those in order to concentrate on that debate)