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?
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 416 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 1 of 148 (310231)
05-08-2006 8:35 AM


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 ties
Sounds 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.

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Modulous, posted 05-08-2006 8:50 AM riVeRraT has not replied
 Message 4 by ramoss, posted 05-08-2006 9:19 AM riVeRraT has replied
 Message 5 by ReverendDG, posted 05-08-2006 6:21 PM riVeRraT has not replied
 Message 16 by EZscience, posted 05-15-2006 9:40 AM riVeRraT has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 2 of 148 (310232)
05-08-2006 8:36 AM


Thread moved here from the Coffee House forum.

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 3 of 148 (310237)
05-08-2006 8:50 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by riVeRraT
05-08-2006 8:35 AM


Good v bad
There are different varieties of good and bad. Normally when we speak of good science and bad science we are talking about the quality of the work or the quality of the science. We are not making moral judgments on the work. I don't know if it was you, but I remember having this discussion a while back, and that is perhaps what you alluded to in your OP. Whoever it was said that the science behind nuclear weapons was bad because of the consequences of nuclear weapons. Clearly, the work was of good quality - given the results. The morality of the work of creating more powerful weapons is for another thread
We can often doubt the results of scientists who are funded to find a particular outcome, since they have a clear interest in finding it, which results in bias. When bias affects the results, we can probably say that this is 'bad science' in the sense of low quality work. The same happens with pharmaceutical companies, and randman had a thread on it a while back.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by riVeRraT, posted 05-08-2006 8:35 AM riVeRraT has not replied

  
ramoss
Member (Idle past 612 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 4 of 148 (310248)
05-08-2006 9:19 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by riVeRraT
05-08-2006 8:35 AM


Well, you are right. Not all science is good science. There is a lot of 'junk science' out there. It is also known as 'psuedo-science'.
There are certain criteria that makes good science.
When it comes to climate change, there is no question that the earth is warming up. There is no question that green house gas emissions. The question is how much of the climate change is due to natural cycles, and how much of it is due to human activity?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by riVeRraT, posted 05-08-2006 8:35 AM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by riVeRraT, posted 05-09-2006 10:52 PM ramoss has replied

  
ReverendDG
Member (Idle past 4110 days)
Posts: 1119
From: Topeka,kansas
Joined: 06-06-2005


Message 5 of 148 (310382)
05-08-2006 6:21 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by riVeRraT
05-08-2006 8:35 AM


I would agree with this, theres tons of science that is produced by companies to show thier view is right and the other guy is wrong. remember all the stuff on colesteral and how bad eggs or bacon was?
like the other people have said when people use "bad" and "good" sometimes they just mean science is good because you can repeat the tests, if you can't do so it is bad science
i agree the scientists funded by the oil companies are making a bad ethical judgement, the judgment being money over objectively producing factual science
This message has been edited by ReverendDG, 05-08-2006 06:22 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by riVeRraT, posted 05-08-2006 8:35 AM riVeRraT has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by nator, posted 05-10-2006 6:30 PM ReverendDG has not replied

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 1255 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 6 of 148 (310627)
05-09-2006 10:45 PM


Ad hominem attacks
To suggest that scientists funded by oil companies are doing "bad science" is nothing more than an ad hominem attack. If research is funded by an organization with a stake in the matter such that it would like to see the research come out a certain way, that might be sufficient reason to question the work more closely, but at bottom, the validity of science is not based in any way on the motives of those doing the research, but the ability of others to verify the results produced.
The fact of the matter is that a great deal of research is conducted by someone who wants to see the results come out a certain way. I would venture to guess that most research is conducted by someone who has proposed a theory after observing a perceived regularity with a purpose to the research of gathering data to support the theory. Obviously, such a researcher hopes that the research will support the theory. That's precisely why it's important that results be repeatable.
It's my impression that the biggest threat, generally, to the reliability of scientific research is not the person who willfully skews results for neferious purposes, but the well-intentioned researcher who is unconsciously influenced by a desire to prove a proposed theory.

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Percy, posted 05-10-2006 9:25 AM subbie has not replied

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 416 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 7 of 148 (310629)
05-09-2006 10:52 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by ramoss
05-08-2006 9:19 AM


No-True-Science.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by ramoss, posted 05-08-2006 9:19 AM ramoss has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by ramoss, posted 05-10-2006 8:16 AM riVeRraT has replied

  
ramoss
Member (Idle past 612 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 8 of 148 (310685)
05-10-2006 8:16 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by riVeRraT
05-09-2006 10:52 PM


Nonsense. You are building up a strawman. There are specific requirements to make what is science, and what isn't science.
In 2002, Dr. Park was asked by a panel of Federal Judges for advice on how to reconise questionable scientific claims. (Dr Robert Park was a professor of physics at the university of Maryland). This is the list he came up with.
The Seven Warning Signs of Bogus Science
1. The discoverer pitches the claim directly to the media.
2. The discoverer says that a powerful establishment is trying to suppress his or her work.
3. The scientific effect involved is always at the very limit of detection.
4. Evidence for a discovery is anecdotal.
5. The discoverer says a belief is credible because it has endured for centuries.
6. The discoverer has worked in isolation.
7. The discoverer must propose new laws of nature to explain an observation.
There might be disagreement about climate change, but it IS based on empirical data.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by riVeRraT, posted 05-09-2006 10:52 PM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by riVeRraT, posted 05-14-2006 5:31 PM ramoss has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 9 of 148 (310702)
05-10-2006 9:25 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by subbie
05-09-2006 10:45 PM


Re: Ad hominem attacks
subbie writes:
...but at bottom, the validity of science is not based in any way on the motives of those doing the research, but the ability of others to verify the results produced.
I agree that replicability is is the overriding factor, but the part you began with also deserves comment:
To suggest that scientists funded by oil companies are doing "bad science" is nothing more than an ad hominem attack. If research is funded by an organization with a stake in the matter such that it would like to see the research come out a certain way, that might be sufficient reason to question the work more closely,...
I agree with this, too, but there *is* the example of some industries, like the cigarette industry for a long time, that makes it clear that while any industry can claim that their vested interests do not mean their research is biased, some industries *are* actually engaged in bogus research and/or lying to the public either directly or by proxy through filings with public agencies. There have been a couple recent examples of pharmacological research (I think results were withheld rather than being bogus, but I could be wrong). And then there's the example of Lysenkoism in the former USSR, an entire country engaged in bogus biological research, except those sentenced to Siberia.
I think it does all of us some good to consider how we would respond if a true moral issue arose at work. I'm sure we've all disagreed at times with upper management to the point where we believe they've going beyond optimism and into the realm of misrepresentation, but it isn't really a moral issue to disagree with management about schedules or product lines or competitive positions. We should ask ourselves that if faced with a situation where our job and our family's security depended upon buying into an untruth, what would we do? This is probably the situation that many researchers in the cigarette industry and in Lysenko USSR inadvertently found themselves in.
The fact of the matter is that a great deal of research is conducted by someone who wants to see the results come out a certain way. I would venture to guess that most research is conducted by someone who has proposed a theory after observing a perceived regularity with a purpose to the research of gathering data to support the theory. Obviously, such a researcher hopes that the research will support the theory. That's precisely why it's important that results be repeatable.
Agreed. Like you, I feel confident that we can rely upon the requirements of replicability to eventually help scientists identify the more valid result, but that doesn't mean there aren't some groups engaging in bogus science. I agree that the mere fact that a group has a vested interest in a certain outcome cannot be considered evidence of malfeasance. There has to be other evidence, otherwise the conclusion is, as you say, an ad hominem.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by subbie, posted 05-09-2006 10:45 PM subbie has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 10 of 148 (310832)
05-10-2006 6:30 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by ReverendDG
05-08-2006 6:21 PM


quote:
I would agree with this, theres tons of science that is produced by companies to show thier view is right and the other guy is wrong. remember all the stuff on colesteral and how bad eggs or bacon was?
Couple of problems with that example:
1) That was good science. It was the best information we had at the time which has since been corrected by new information.
2) Some of the problem with "eggs and bacon are very bad for you" as an idea was how the information was reported and disseminated to the public. It is very important to separate scientific findings from how those findings are reported.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by ReverendDG, posted 05-08-2006 6:21 PM ReverendDG has not replied

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 416 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 11 of 148 (311790)
05-14-2006 5:31 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by ramoss
05-10-2006 8:16 AM


There are specific requirements to make what is science, and what isn't 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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by ramoss, posted 05-10-2006 8:16 AM ramoss has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Quetzal, posted 05-14-2006 6:37 PM riVeRraT has replied
 Message 17 by nator, posted 05-15-2006 9:40 AM riVeRraT has not replied

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5872 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 12 of 148 (311795)
05-14-2006 6:37 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by riVeRraT
05-14-2006 5:31 PM


Emotion has no place in it, or does it?
Of course it does. I can't imagine doing what I do every day if I wasn't passionate about it. Can you? However, letting an emotional desire to be "right" get in the way of the facts is problematic.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by riVeRraT, posted 05-14-2006 5:31 PM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by riVeRraT, posted 05-15-2006 6:20 AM Quetzal has replied

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 416 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 13 of 148 (311879)
05-15-2006 6:20 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by Quetzal
05-14-2006 6:37 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Quetzal, posted 05-14-2006 6:37 PM Quetzal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Modulous, posted 05-15-2006 8:55 AM riVeRraT has replied
 Message 15 by Quetzal, posted 05-15-2006 9:13 AM riVeRraT has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 14 of 148 (311911)
05-15-2006 8:55 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by riVeRraT
05-15-2006 6:20 AM


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.
And not just that, but bias is a real problem. Fortunately science has developed methods to reduce this problem. Peer review and repeatability. The problem comes when the scientists are employed by private companies, who pay them to find a certain result, don't publish the work (business secrets and all), and don't ask independent labs to confirm the results. This is a major problem in the pharmaceutical industry, as I mentioned earlier. Check it out: most scientific papers are wrong?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by riVeRraT, posted 05-15-2006 6:20 AM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by riVeRraT, posted 05-16-2006 12:31 AM Modulous has replied

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5872 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 15 of 148 (311920)
05-15-2006 9:13 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by riVeRraT
05-15-2006 6:20 AM


Well Rat, I don't really disagree fundamentally with what you've written. I do disagree from the standpoint that you are generalizing from the specific. MOST scientists, in whatever field, really don't make that much money, ergo most aren't driven by monetary gain as a primary motivation for their work. Take our very own Mammuthus. Here is a scientist whose work I am familiar with to the point that I have referenced some of his papers in my own work (a bit of it is somewhat relevant). I've even seen a televised interview with him. I guarantee you he isn't getting rich off it.
SOME scientists, on the other hand, do indeed fit your description. I have long called them "corporate shills", and they work in several industries. However, even there, not all the scientists who work in these industries fit the description. As long as you are willing to admit that the "bad science" is limited to a vanishingly small subset of all scientists, then we have no further disagreement.
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.
Well, I'd say that has more to do with the subject matter than anything else. It's a topic that lends itself to emotional response. Some of that also has to do with the types of arguments - it's hard to stay dispassionate when someone comes on the board and claims that all scientists are dishonest hell-bound scumballs. What would your reaction be?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by riVeRraT, posted 05-15-2006 6:20 AM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by riVeRraT, posted 05-16-2006 12:35 AM Quetzal has not replied
 Message 131 by Nighttrain, posted 08-14-2006 8:42 PM Quetzal has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024