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.
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.
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.
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. 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 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. It satisfied European expectations that the earliest humans would be found in Eurasia, and the British, it has been claimed, also wanted a first Briton to set against fossil hominids found elsewhere in Europe, including France and Germany.
"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 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.