Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Bad Science
bobbins
Member (Idle past 3614 days)
Posts: 122
From: Manchester, England
Joined: 06-23-2005


Message 1 of 4 (227186)
07-28-2005 8:04 PM


The Guardian (quick Faith, hide the kids) on Thursday has a column called 'Bad Science'. It tries to highlight science and the comments/quotes/claims made by people that are supposedly scientific, but are (bullshit) wrong. The aim of the column (being in the Guardian - subverting the youth of today in a far left/marxist agenda is a given) is to highlight that claims made by many (reputable) people are unsupported by scientific fact, despite their supposed scientific credentials.
They are currently running a thread (CanadianSteve is ahead of me because he reads the newspaper all the time) that invites people to write in with their best stories of scientific flim-flam. That is, stories of people who talk a good game scientifically, but who talk the universal language of garbage.
The question up for topic is , what is the best unscientific scientific explanation of anything that you have heard? (current posters and their comments not included)
Apologies for any (small) digs, but it is my birthday (35 today - I thank you [bow])and I have had a few more pints of Guinness than is usual.
A few examples:
"Not everything is scientific."
"Logic isn't real, you can prove anything with logic. It's meaningless."
and the prime example:
the discussion was flawed because it was based on logic.

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by AdminJar, posted 07-28-2005 8:09 PM bobbins has not replied
 Message 3 by bobbins, posted 07-28-2005 9:07 PM bobbins has not replied

AdminJar
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 4 (227188)
07-28-2005 8:09 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by bobbins
07-28-2005 8:04 PM


I'm putting this on hold for 24 hours.
Let's see if an older and wiser person will try to revise the Op tomorrow.
This message has been edited by AdminJar, 07-28-2005 07:09 PM

New Members should start HERE to get an understanding of what makes great posts.
Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
Message 1
Thread Reopen Requests
Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum
Other useful links:
Forum Guidelines, Style Guides for EvC and Assistance w/ Forum Formatting

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by bobbins, posted 07-28-2005 8:04 PM bobbins has not replied

bobbins
Member (Idle past 3614 days)
Posts: 122
From: Manchester, England
Joined: 06-23-2005


Message 3 of 4 (227199)
07-28-2005 9:07 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by bobbins
07-28-2005 8:04 PM


Bad Science
The Guardian on Thursday has a column called 'Bad Science'. It tries to highlight science and the comments/quotes/claims made by people that are supposedly scientific, but are misplaced/wrong and in some examples downright misleading. The aim of the column is to highlight claims made by many (reputable) people that are unsupported by scientific fact, despite their supposed scientific credentials and despite their context.
They are currently running a thread that invites people to write in with their best stories of scientific flim-flam. That is, stories of people who talk a good game scientifically, but who talk the universal language of garbage in the name of scientific discussion, or talk as though science is as much up for discussion as philosophy.
The question up for topic is , what is the best unscientific scientific explanation of anything that you have heard? Or what is the best unscientific explanation of science?
A few examples:
"Not everything is scientific."
"Logic isn't real, you can prove anything with logic. It's meaningless."
and the prime example:
"the discussion was flawed because it was based on logic."
Hopefully I have recovered from my overactive sarcasm gland and it will not happen again. By the way the aim is not to highlight people who purposely use science and scientific jargon for nefarious means but people who genuinely believe what they are saying.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by bobbins, posted 07-28-2005 8:04 PM bobbins has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by AdminJar, posted 07-28-2005 9:12 PM bobbins has not replied

AdminJar
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 4 (227200)
07-28-2005 9:12 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by bobbins
07-28-2005 9:07 PM


Happy Birthday.
Moving to is it science?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by bobbins, posted 07-28-2005 9:07 PM bobbins has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024