Bad science?

I once was ridiculed for claiming that not all science is good science.
Of course science by itself is not bad, but there is always a person behind science.While watching the news the other morning on CNN, there is an ex-washington post writer who is doing his own investagation about "scientists" who debunk the reasons for global warming, or that it was even happening at all. It seems they are funded by the oil companies. Too me, this is bad science.I could not find a link to the direct article, but here are some others.WashingtonPost.com Sends Readers To Blogs | Newsbusters (dam conservatives)
Oil firms fund climate change 'denial' | World news | The Guardian
Foes of global warming theory have energy tiesSounds like biased science to me.Meanwhile the earth is warming, and I believe it will be a snowball effect, and we will be in more trouble than we can deal with all to soon.

No-True-Science.

Same thing about Christianity. But what it comes down too is that if you say your a christian, then you are one.Of you say you are a scientist, then you are one. You may not be a good one, but you are one, according to the fallacy.The important thing is not to be hypocritical in your logic, or science. Emotion has no place in it, or does it?

I wasn't talking about being passionate about what you do. That's all something we should be lucky enough to be involved in, something we are passionate about.But I would say some are driven by money, and before you say scientists don't make much money, or are driven by money, read the OP.Probably not mauch passion towards science there.It's just that I've seen, even from the most respected logical thinkers on this board, their emotions get involved, a little bit too much.

Can you help me design a Christian method, so we can weed out all the fakers?

We agree. In religion it would be apologetics, in science it would be apocolypticgenetics, that is where people morph into the anti-logic monsters of science. Sort of like the Hulk, only it's a woman.

w00t !! Jackpot!!!
Too funny.You mean a well respected scientist, not a true one.But I know what your getting at. Just because I can pilot a plane, doesn't make me a pilot. Got to have a piece of paper saying your a pilot. Pass a test, get a degree. There's all different levels.I could consider myself a scientist, but it's not my main ID. I have passed several tests, and I am licsenced. I use the scientific method to make things, and test them. You may find that hard to believe, and will spend the next few thousand posts trying to disprove that.

So tell me, what is the difference between a person who claims he is a Christian, starts a church, and takes people money, when really deep down in his heart, he is just scamming people, and doing it for the money...and....a "scientist" who makes a bogus report on global warming and sells it to the public, and is funded by the oil companies?

Well you didn't say research scientist initially. That's a different story. There are several fields that use science, and the scientific method to accomplish their goals. Engineering can be one of them, astronomy another, and so-on.Also I respect a PhD, but it is relative to the person. There are many factors that determine just how efective a person will be regardless their education. Ever meet a doctor who can't tie his shoes, or perscribe the right medicine for your child? (you know what I mean?)

I don't know how ou qualify that. Either way I would feel like an asshole. The other has to worry about....God? I think that is just an opinion, but hey, you could be right.

That's a fair assessment. no-true scientist, and no-true christian.That is why I hate that fallacy.

I have to agree with schraf on this one.Someone labeled "scientist", should be someone who is either getting paid for it, or at least had the schooling to qualify them as one.Everyone else is just doing science. I suppose if you did enough of it in your spare time, and had no schooling, but you lay claim to something significant such as a discovery or something, you may earn the title scientist.If I was to relate it to myself, I am a HVAC mechanic for 23 years now. I have passed tests in sheet metal, and refrigeration. The last 6 years, I have had to start doing some plumbing. But I refused to call myself a plumber, since I have respect for the trade, and all that goes with it. I am slowly reaching that status with all that I have accomplished, and I am probably better than most who call themselves plumbers, but I won't officially call myself one, until I go and pass a test, that gives me a license to do plumbing. (right now where I do plumbing, no license is needed, just have to pass inspections, in other counties/states, I work under someone who has a license)There are periods when in my hobbies, and in my work that I use the scientific method, but I would never call myself a scientist.Edited by riVeRraT, : typing error

Yes, given the complexity of science today, your average person cannot really do effective science without some sort of education. It is very difficult to contribute something that hasn't already been done, unless you educate yourself.About the only field where amateurs can still contribute is astronomy. A field which I used to study on my own, and do observations of variable stars, and search for comets and near earth objects.So again I refer to my own experience with the plumbing. I do a lot of plumbing, but that doesn't make me a plumbers IMO. I might be able to answer 95% of all questions concerning house plumbing, but if you started asking me questions about commercial plumbing, I might give the wrong answer, or not know the answer. So I hesitate to call myself a plumber. With a little schooling, and maybe get a licenses or 2, then I could start to call myself a plumber. I am almost there, but not yet.