Does Peer Pressure stifle the acceptance of the obvious?

quote:

---

That is only university science, a small segment in the science field.

---

I believe you are mistaken. I am rather confident that most of the scientists in the world work for universities.You see, most scientists don't really want to be told what to research, and that is what one does if one works directly for a business or for the government.Of course, you may have information I am not aware of. Care to back up your claim that most scientists are not employed by universities?

quote:

---

There is a battle between what is right to study, and what is profitable.

---

University scientists are unconcerned with profit, as they do not work for a profit-driven business.They are concerned with funding, to be sure, and writing grant proposals to the NIH and the NSF is important, but the point of doing research is to to ask sscientific questions for the sake of asking them, not how the results might be applied in the future.

quote:

---

Military?
Drug companies?

​

That should cover it.

---

How many scientists work for drug companies and the military compared to all of the scientists working in all of the colleges and universities all over the world?I want numbers, otherwise you are making an empty, baseless assertion.

Well, RR, you tend to wander all over the place so it gets a tad hard to determine which facet of science you are refering to. You use 'science' as a blanket term, and rail against it. Then you dive into funding which is just a part. So are you talking about
* speculative science?
* theoretical science?
* research science?
* applied science?
* high school science?
* the laws of the universe science?
* big biz science?
* science as it affects our day-to-day existence?
* science as it affects the ignorance of religion?

Sorry about my lack of participation. I think Shraff gave better answers anyway. It's also little more than some text in a book. I might aswell exchange that for " a goblet of fire ". I think what you need to learn is that science and religion are not the same things because mistakes can occur in both. They are VERY different concepts, despite this.And even your own logic means that God can be a "mistake", as he is only found in religious texts made by corruptible man, as you have so tenaciously expounded on.The link I gave you explained this in very understandable terms.You're contradicting yourself now.You said you use logic, and science, yet science and logic are "cute sayings" that can make anything true/untrue etc...If A is B and D is B, that doesn't mean A is D.You need to seperate the wheat from the chaff. Religion is the latter, no doubt. Science has given great results. Look at medicine. Religion gave you bloodletting, science gives you proper cures. Are you saying that you'd prefer bloodletting as treatment because science and religion are both manmade? Good job nobody is then.It's infact like saying that tentative means has provided good results, so let's go along with it instead of pretending we know something when we don't [religion].This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 11-09-2005 07:56 PMThis message has been edited by mike the wiz, 11-09-2005 07:58 PM

Your right, I was guessing at who worked were. I just didn't think that the majority of scientists worked for non-biased universitys. So I started looking up some info on the internet.first link:
Sorry, the page you are looking for cannot be found.

quote:

---

Almost 4 in 10 agricultural and food scientists worked for the government. Some worked for agricultural service companies. Others worked for commercial laboratories, seed companies, and pharmaceutical companies. Some worked for wholesalers and food products companies.

---

The thing I found funny was that they create new foods for us. mmmmm make me a nice cancerous concocktion please.Page Not Found
50/50 there.Page not found
47/53 thereI can't spend too much time on this one. But it probably depends on what field of science we are talking about. Lets just say half and half ok, even though from the links I provided it is less than half that work at universities? In other words, your wrong....so I expect a full apology....come on say it.....I was wr..wr...wr.. wrong
Lighten up, its a forum. I happen to know a little about grants, and writing them, and following through on them. You are pretty much confined to what the grant specifies, so you are being told what to do. Which doesn't make it completely un-biased just because it is a grant, but sometimes you have to put food on the table, and maybe work on something that really isn't un-biased. That makes some of those university scientist biased, even if they aren't in their heart. How many university scientists are federally funded?You got your numbers.

Way off topic.
I do not rail against science, I love it.

I don't know enough to say the text's are corrupt. Right now I believe in the bible as containing God's Holy Word. It helped me to find God. Just how correct it is remains to be seen. I also don't think I will be studying any other religion anytime soon, but I plan to someday, just so I can see the differences. There are things about other religous texts, that I do not agree with, so I am leaving them out of my life for now.But I can say with great certainty, that man definatly does not interpret any of those texts 100% correctly.I see it as being split up 3 ways, God, texts, religion. That leads us to the question how do we find God?
I don't know, its up to the individual. I guess even some people find God through science.But I never see God as a mistake. Your bluring things together there. Thats all well and good, but unfortunatly we are not talking about A and B. It is much more complicated than that, and I do not think that theory applys here. There are many similarities, which I pointed out, so that we could sit back and say, hey they are similiar in some kind of way. Are they exactly the same? No, I never said that.BTW A is D, because they are both letters. Can you please show me a statistic that shows, how much desease science has caused, and how much it has cured. That would be the winner.

What are you talking about? God created disease.Col 1:16---'all things are created by him'---plus sundry other Scriptures.

Again, I witness a poor display of reading comprehension. In your efforts to thwart God, you hastily do not respond to things correctly.
Try leaving your hate for God out of it, or religion.God is the only one who can create anything, don't ever forget that. We just make stuff, from his creation. We hold the responsibilty of those things we make, not God.I said what desease has science CAUSED, not created. So now you can answer the question.

quote:

---

I can't spend too much time on this one. But it probably depends on what field of science we are talking about.

---

Correct.

quote:

---

Lets just say half and half ok, even though from the links I provided it is less than half that work at universities?

---

No, let's not say half and half. It is only even close to half and half in certain fields.The fact is, you don't know, and should therefore not be making any claims about it.And besides, you still haven't addressed the fact that the methodology followed and the peer-review process are exactly the same regardless of where the funding for scientific research comes from.

quote:

---

I happen to know a little about grants, and writing them, and following through on them. You are pretty much confined to what the grant specifies, so you are being told what to do.

---

But you are the one writing the grant. That means that you are telling the people with the money what YOU want to do. So unless you are saying that you don't like to tell yourself what to do, and that you are biased if you tell yourself what to do, then OK...

quote:

---

Which doesn't make it completely un-biased just because it is a grant, but sometimes you have to put food on the table, and maybe work on something that really isn't un-biased.

---

But what does this have to do with the scientific method being biased?Sure, there are limited funds, period. That means that federal agencies will tend to fund research which seems like it will be wothwhile (i.e. productive) from a scientific, not a profit-driven[ perspective.IOW, they are not likely to fund research on free energy machines.

quote:

---

That makes some of those university scientist biased, even if they aren't in their heart.

---

Right, this is a human-run system and therefore imperfect.Although you have yet to explain how does this affects the bias of the end result, the research?

quote:

---

How many university scientists are federally funded?

​

You got your numbers.

---

Here is a somewhat out of date breakdown for biomedical researchFunding for biomedical research doubles in la | EurekAlert!from the site Note, this is dollar amounts. The number of Ph.D. holding scientists funded by NIH (and NSF which did not show up) is likely higher than those sponsored by companies since public money goes to training and supporting labs whereas industry has other indirect costs such as advertising and distribution in addition to R&D.Nowhere in this is the military the biggest contributor.For someone who claims to love science, you have not demonstrated that you understand what science is in the first place.

Well you proved my point, but no, I am not writing grants, just trying to apply for them, to get money to build orphanages.The point was, that scientific research has the possibility of being biased when there is a grant involved, wouldn't you agree?The scientific method becomes biased in respect to the fact that we are limited in just what we can research. So how can certain things be up for peer review when we just aren't getting paid to research that right now. Well your gonna say that there is no time limit of the scientific method, so we will just have to accept things the way they are, well until they change again. Funny way to live.Maybe you'll never get my point. Thats ok.

Are you joking? What you posted is only a small protion of the overall picture. And as if you could actually ask the military where the money goes, and they would give you a 100% accurate answer. They research things we don't even dream about. We might have nightmares about them though. No one has asked me that question. I am mearly making a point of some similarities between religion and science. The fact that so many people are up in arms about this, should send up a signal to you, that something is wrong here.Science to me is the study of what God created, its awesome, and I enjoy reading about things, and I do a little amateur astronomy on the side. I also have to know about chemistry, for the company I own. Yes science is a huge part of my life, but I take responsibility in how I use it, and how God would want me to use it.Unfortunatly I have to use some science in a way that I feel would not be preferable to Gods ways, such as nuring fossil fuels. But it is a necessity at this point in time. I do not pocess the kind of faith it takes to walk away from all that. I just ask for forgivness.

At the risk of getting further off-topic---. I don`t HATE God or religion. However, I do hate ignorance and stupidity, because the ignorant and stupid are too dangerous to have around. Especially when they are in power. If, as religionists claim, God made everything, and is omniscient, then we can`t 'cause' anything without either His knowledge or without using His creations.
However, if you maintain we 'cause' disease, then either He isn`t omniscient, or we have powers equal to or superior to his creating skills.

This is perhaps the biggest line of crap that I read in these forums. At no point in my 40 years of living did I feel this is true, or does the bible confirm that. God cleary explains that we are responsible for our actions. This grace that has been given to us does not make him non omniscient.

Then, at least, I`ve achieved some degree of fame.