ID and the bias inherent in human nature

quote:

---

Nobodys perfect, and scientists are people too. A mistake scientists have been known to make is to ignore or rule out data which do not support a hypothesis. Ideally, the experimenter is open to the possibility that the hypothesis is correct or incorrect. Sometimes, however, a scientist may have a strong belief that the hypothesis is true (or false), or feels internal or external pressure to get a specific result. In that case, there may be a psychological tendency to find "something wrong" with data which do not support the scientists expectations, while data which do agree with those expectations may not be checked as carefully.

​

If honest mistakes were all we had to worry about that would be one thing. But we also have to worry about the possibility of outright fraud.

---

Can you suggest a system to overcome this problem? Maybe you know of an existing system that we could use?

What more interesting is how the movement seems to have shifted away slightly from ID as a concept towards ID as "Controversial issues*". I think they realise it's a busted flush and are trying to spin it out as long as possible.*because there MUST be something to it.

Well, generally science isn't done by streaming audio.....Can you point us towards a paper or two that you feel best sums up the ID position?This message has been edited by General Krull, 28-Apr-2005 10:16 AM

Ah..Sir would like to try on a new jacket? Can I recommend the Cut'n'run. It's a fine fit.Out of interest - if anyone got the video to work, anything new? or just a rehash of old ideas?