Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8913 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-20-2019 3:19 PM
31 online now:
AZPaul3, edge, Faith, kjsimons, PaulK, PsychMJC, ringo, Stile, vimesey, xongsmith (10 members, 21 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Post Volume:
Total: 854,304 Year: 9,340/19,786 Month: 1,762/2,119 Week: 522/576 Day: 117/80 Hour: 1/9


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1234
5
Author Topic:   Harvard Researcher May Have Fabricated Data
Vacate
Member (Idle past 2767 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 10-01-2006


Message 61 of 65 (578221)
09-01-2010 6:08 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by archaeologist
08-31-2010 4:25 AM


miracles
you all just do not want to admit that your precious scientific field is greatly flawed and cannot achieve what you all want.

Odd though that something so flawed works. An entire field full of liars and frauds who use a system that's flawed and "cannot achieve what you all want"... but it still works; Its like a miracle, or paranormal, or something.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by archaeologist, posted 08-31-2010 4:25 AM archaeologist has not yet responded

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3725
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 62 of 65 (578550)
09-01-2010 11:23 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by Blue Jay
08-31-2010 1:23 PM


Science fraud in the medical industry
I should also like to point out that the money in science isn't usually all that great, and that we generally know this when we sign up, and that most of us don't really delude ourselves into thinking we're going to ever be particularly powerful. It's more common that curiosity and fascination for intellectual puzzles is the reason for a scientist to be a scientist.

What I am about to say probably deserves a topic of its own, but I have too many things to do right now, to start it myself. So the following are just some quick points.

I think the medical industry (drugs etc.) is an example where the money really might sometimes drive the results. I don't know to what degree the scientists are getting a piece of the big money.

Drug testing is a prime situation for bad things to happen. Studies are very complicated and very expensive. It's hard for a company to write off a drug as being ineffective or bad after they've invested huge money in the development and testing.

Also, I'm think it's very hard to get a large enough human test group. Thus problems may later show up even if the study was entirely proper.

Much more can be said - Someone please start the topic. Now I got other work to do.

Moose


This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Blue Jay, posted 08-31-2010 1:23 PM Blue Jay has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by Blue Jay, posted 09-02-2010 12:15 AM Minnemooseus has acknowledged this reply

    
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 864 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 63 of 65 (578561)
09-02-2010 12:15 AM
Reply to: Message 62 by Minnemooseus
09-01-2010 11:23 PM


Re: Science fraud in the medical industry
Hi, Moose.

I guess I did generalize a bit. Even if there isn't a lot of money for medical researchers, there is certainly a good chance for fame and popularity. And, they surely get more funding to travel to conferences in posh resorts than I do.

I think the same might go for people who study monkeys and other charismatic animals: there are lots of opportunities to stand in the spotlight and to get press releases and news articles about them.

So, I suppose it makes sense to think people who are willing to distort facts and falsify data in order to get their name in the news may be more attracted to primate research or medical research than to spider research.


-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)

Darwin loves you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Minnemooseus, posted 09-01-2010 11:23 PM Minnemooseus has acknowledged this reply

  
Tram law
Member (Idle past 2871 days)
Posts: 283
From: Weed, California, USA
Joined: 08-15-2010


Message 64 of 65 (579953)
09-06-2010 8:49 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by Taq
08-30-2010 1:38 PM


quote:

So how did they determine that Piltdown Man is a fraud? Care to explain? From what I know, no one ever came forward and admitted that they faked it.


Wikipedia is your friend:

quote:

From the outset, there were scientists who expressed skepticism about the Piltdown find. G.S. Miller, for example, observed in 1915 that "deliberate malice could hardly have been more successful than the hazards of deposition in so breaking the fossils as to give free scope to individual judgment in fitting the parts together." In the decades prior to its exposure as a forgery in 1953, scientists increasingly regarded Piltdown as an enigmatic aberration inconsistent with the path of hominid evolution as demonstrated by fossils found elsewhere.[1] Skeptical scientists only increased in number as more fossils were found.

In November 1953, The Times published evidence gathered variously by Kenneth Page Oakley, Sir Wilfrid Edward Le Gros Clark and Joseph Weiner proving that the Piltdown Man was a forgery[citation needed] and demonstrating that the fossil was a composite of three distinct species. It consisted of a human skull of medieval age, the 500-year-old lower jaw of a Sarawak orangutan and chimpanzee fossil teeth. The appearance of age had been created by staining the bones with an iron solution and chromic acid. Microscopic examination revealed file-marks on the teeth, and it was deduced from this someone had modified the teeth to give them a shape more suited to a human diet.

The Piltdown man hoax had succeeded so well because at the time of its discovery, the scientific establishment had believed that the large modern brain had preceded the modern omnivorous diet, and the forgery had provided exactly that evidence. It has also been thought that nationalism and cultural prejudice also played a role in the less-than-critical acceptance of the fossil as genuine by some British scientists.[4] It satisfied European expectations that the earliest humans would be found in Eurasia, and the British, it has been claimed,[4] also wanted a first Briton to set against fossil hominids found elsewhere in Europe, including France and Germany.



This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Taq, posted 08-30-2010 1:38 PM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by Taq, posted 09-07-2010 11:47 AM Tram law has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 7905
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 65 of 65 (580042)
09-07-2010 11:47 AM
Reply to: Message 64 by Tram law
09-06-2010 8:49 PM


From Wiki:

"In the decades prior to its exposure as a forgery in 1953, scientists increasingly regarded Piltdown as an enigmatic aberration inconsistent with the path of hominid evolution as demonstrated by fossils found elsewhere."

"In November 1953, The Times published evidence gathered variously by Kenneth Page Oakley, Sir Wilfrid Edward Le Gros Clark and Joseph Weiner proving that the Piltdown Man was a forgery[citation needed] and demonstrating that the fossil was a composite of three distinct species. It consisted of a human skull of medieval age, the 500-year-old lower jaw of a Sarawak orangutan and chimpanzee fossil teeth."

In order for this evidence to work you first need to accept the theory of evolution and accept the accuracy of carbon dating. Archy (and most creationists) rejects both of these.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Tram law, posted 09-06-2010 8:49 PM Tram law has not yet responded

  
Prev1234
5
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019