most scientific papers are wrong?

Hi, rand--glad to see you back.However, in just two sentences, you have said it all.You can believe a tissue-thin (which is to say, transparent) load of...stuff that confirms your biases without any substantiation whatsoever.At the same time, you can slander millions of people you know nothing about, whose conduct you have never observed, without compunction--on the grounds of integrity, of all things!The irony is priceless.

---

"Dost thou think because thou art virtuous there shall be no more cakes and ale?"
-Sir Toby Belch, Twelfth Night Save lives! Click here!
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC!
---------------------------------------

quote:

---

as far as I can tell.

---

I think Rand that this is the operative phrase. As far as you can tell, up to the level that you understand the concept. From all that I have read of your posts it is very very clear that you know virtually nothing about evolution, science, etc. and furthermore have made a great effort to NOT learn more.Now to your suggestion about "no integrity". This is back to that same point you keep pushing and pushing. That because Kent Hovind (or some other such fraud) told you that all of evolutionary science rests solely on Haeckel's drawings and whether or not Pakicetus is drawn with webbed feet (did I leave anything out? Those are your two arguments you bring back to every thread over and over again) you can burst the evolutionary bubble by making those claims again and again.Here's a lack of integrity for you. What is it when you read something online that claims that a Physicist 'proved' ID, then the reader claims that they have been studying the primary literature which, btw, says nothing remotely close to your claims (at least not that I seen so far, I have been collecting papers). Rather than admit that they know nothing about the topic outside of regurgitating a creo source it is easier to continue using a physicist as a shield. All you have to do is keep claiming that since the physicist is obviously smarter than your opponent and mistakenly believing that the physicist supports your claim. Is that the kind of integrity you support, Rand?

Sorry, but your post is unsubstantiated nonsense. If I could find something worth responding to, I might.One of the funnier things you wrote is that my ideas on evolution and Haeckel come from Hovind. Sorry, but my ideas come from evos themselves, and when looking at what they teach and bothering to check to see if their facts are really facts, I found they were not. Hence, my extremely disparaging view of evos.

Sorry, but I don't believe you. You want me to believe that you were just browsing through an evo textbook one day and said, "Hey, those are the drawings that were discredited over 100 years ago, what are they doing in my textbook?". Or that while perusing National Geographic as a convinced evolutionist you noticed the webbed feet on the reconstruction and realized that the entire theory was resting on an artist's reconstruction in a pop-sci magazine? Or is it much more likely that you read these from creo sources as the exact same statements are made on pretty much every creo website in existence?I don't you want to think that I am maliciously attacking you. I have read your posts on religious topics with interest and respect. What I have a problem with is when you discuss science from an uniformed stance and claim it to be your own viewpoint based on research even though identical arguments are made on well-known creo websites, and those arguments have been discredited yet you bring them up repeatedly.If I sound like I am taking a harsh tone with you it is because I know from your other posts on other topics that you are intelligent and capable of making good arguments. There are several creos here (and you are one of them) that I feel can really contribute to a good debate which benefits us all (there is nothing that solidifies a concept better for me than trying to defend it as I have to go back and dust off old material and relearn stuff). I want you to use your intellect to search and find NEW defences of Creationism and critiques of evolution.

I suggest all review this topic from the beginning. In particular, I find Rahvin's message 14 to be particularly good. Off now to dig up the September 2005 POTM topic, to nominate that message.It has at least sort of been touched upon by others, that the message 1 cited example is to some degree bad writing. Despite the fact that the article is about medical/pharmaceutical issues publications, the headline is "Most scientific papers are probably wrong". Something such as "Most medical/pharmaceutical scientific papers are flawed" would (IMO) have been a better title.Moose

Several points were raised in Message 16 that you have not addressed.The Scientific Method includes early distribution of ideas and findings. They are published as widely as possible throughout the community so that they can be tested by others.If many or even most scientific papers turn out to be wrong, what is the problem?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

The experiment was to study the role of Zinc on the seizure response of rats.Addition of zinc to synaptosomes altered the uptake of tryptophan. I was advised to inject zinc by intracisternal injection in rats "EVERYDAY FOR 5 DAYS" and perform the study. It is common sense that when you puncture the cavity, the fluid drains. You can do once. But repeated injections will drain much of the fluid. This was my objection. My objections as overruled. All the animals died on the 3rd day which I predicted. Dr.Julius Axelrod gave a lecture on Acetyl choline receptors. After the lecture, I asked a simple question" When a neurotransmitter is attached to the receptor, the membrane fluidity around the receptor is decreased. If so, the complex must be floating. What holds the complex in place? He did not answer. I was punished for this. When you challenge the Ivory towers, your career is finished. This is how ideologies are perpetuated. In other words we see academic tyranny everywhere. Critical thinking is only a word in the dictionary of the past. If you draw a bell curve, you can classify 3 categories of scientists even with Ph.D's.15% on the left are the best and exceptional. 60% in the middle are the mediocre Scientists. The rest 15 % are good for nothing. If I had a choice between a First grade BS(Bachelor of Science) and 3rd rate Ph.D, I would only hire the First Grade BS. I have met few brilliant men who never had any degrees at all. They contributed more to the advancement of Science than Ph.D's from prestigious universities. There is no reason for you to become so angry at my remarks. If you are not aware of all these events, that does not mean that they do not exist. I am not discrediting the entire Scientific community. Thre are many brilliant men and women with Ph.D's and they are contributing a lot.Having a Ph.D is great. It goes with too many sacrifices. I had to struggle my way through "INCOMPETENT" bosses. In all my career, I was assigned difficult projects which were given up by others. They could not do. When I became successful, papers were published and I did not even have any acknowledgement.They received raises and promotions for the work they could not do. So, when I apply for jobs, they only count the NUMBER of papers.How am I supposed to get papers? I helped my colleagues with their work. My hobby is Electronic instrumentation and so, I modified the devices so that they could complete their studies. It was agreed that I would be an author in the publications. The papers were published. Once again, I was not even acknowledged. Where is Integrity in Science? No one cares about the quality of work.
Having a Ph.D does not make anyone a Scientist. A dog sitting in a garage does not become a car. Then, what makes a Scientist? It is not publishing papers. But, producing USEFUL work for the society. What good is it to measure the fat content of the adipose tissue in an African Elephant?You can add dust to a liver homogenate. You will always find something increse and something decrease. Paper can be published. What will make this more meaningful is to determine what causes the change, what is the magnitude and what are the implications. 80% of the papers published are not even worth reading. But, that is the only way for the survival. That is the way it will be.About the Ph.D dessertation, one of the examiners gave me the information. When Foxes are guarding the chicken house, where will the chickens be?

Lithod, I was challenged by a friend to look into what I was taught for myself to see if it was accurate. Over the years, that has included listening to creationists and evolutionists and looking at the data. Hovind had nothing to do with any of it.The first creationist I listened to, that was helpful, was a Botany professor at NC State. He was the first person that pointed out that Haeckel's drawings were fraudulent. This was back in the 80s, and despite evos over the years insisting to me, over and over again, that the drawings and claims were correct, evos began to admit to the truth in the late 90s, although of late they seem to be trying to resurrect the myth.Back in the 80s too, some other areas that I researched from various sources came to light as well. For example, a more clearer picture of what the fossil record showed; the abuse of science advanced with the peppered-moth story, etc,...Basically, all the icons of evolution were laid bare and found wanting, and it's been the same since.The only area of evidence, imo, that has some validity for evolution is genetics. I cannot say I properly or fully understand genetics and am not sure anyone knows to the degree that mutations are random, but pretty much all of the other evo claims are based on overstatements, exagerrations, false claims, and fallacious logic.

One problem appears to be the severe unwillingness of the evo community to admit to error if in doing so it creates a negative impression of evolution in general. For example, evos continued to maintain the false claim of the Biogenetic law for decades after it was known to be wrong, and then kept using the same term, recapitulation, to further describe false, watered-down versions of the same myth, sometimes with the same faked data.There is a reason evos kept using Haeckel's data 130 years after being exposed as fraudulent. Imo, I will not be surprised if evos start using it again. It is effective, as one evo said in a paper, as "teaching aide." Never mind it is fraudulent.

As we can see with the extreme reluctance of evos here to admit to error, we really cannot expect science to be properly self-correcting when arrogance and stupidity is advanced. Science is suppossed to be open-minded, but it doesn't really appear to be that way in some fields. What we need in the area of evolution/biology at least is for evos to quit defending evolution at all costs and start acknowledging the problems and not rely on overstatements.

Perhaps, but judging from your complete misunderstanding of Urey and Miller's work (as well as your misrepresentation of their results), your expression of outrage has little credibility with me.Are you certain that you really had the competency to question your superior? Judging from your post of the Urey and Miller experiments, I have reason to doubt your expertise.

---

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

The findings in scientific papers have to be replicable. When replication attempts fail then papers are called into question. Famous examples are the Fleischman/Pons cold fusion fiasco, and more recently Japanese Hwang Woo Suk's cloning claims. Current scientific papers are using Haeckel's data? Do you have any examples of this?--Percy

Are you serious? Sorry, but evo papers are generally not based on anything that can be replicated. Take Gingrich's depiction of Pakicetus as very whale-like based on part of a skull. There was no way to replicate or substantiate that claim at that time. If no more fossils were found, evos would still falsely present as fact the false claim and depiction of Pakicetus as diving with a large, blubbery body, webbed feet, and very whale-like.As it turns out, the claim was false, and subsequent depictions have consistently moved to depict Pakicetus as more and more terrestrial, with the latest showing Pakicetus as wholly terrestrial.But think about it. That didn't stop evos from overstating their case, and in general, that's the approach of evos. Overstate, exaggerate, and even adopt false data to make their case. it's not real science.

Sure evo papers are replicable. They have to be, else they wouldn't be science. You're confusing replication of the scientific process, which has to be possible to be considered science, with replicating history itself, which is obviously impossible. When reconstructing past events in any scientific field, it is the observations, measurements and analysis that are replicable. That's why digs take such care to either preserve or record the in situ environment.Pakicetus is an example of the scientific process as applied to paleontology. All scientific findings are tentative, and as the passage of time brought to light more fossils and allowed further analysis, our view of Pakicetus changed. This is an example of the very thing you say evolutionary scientists do not do, change their views in light of new evidence or improved insight.You didn't reply about Haeckel. Were you claiming that current scientific papers are still using Haeckel's data?--Percy

randman, other than repeating assertions that you have NEVER been able to support, what does that have to do with the question I asked?What difference does it make if many, most even, scientific papers are wrong?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion