Bad science?

I agree that replicability is is the overriding factor, but the part you began with also deserves comment: 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. 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

Hi ENC,You neglected to address the main thrust of Chiroptera's post and focused on just the last sentence, which you might have misinterpreted. I don't think Chiroptera intended his use of the word "malleable" to imply that evidence changes - the context was still the interpretation of evidence.Chiroptera was mainly inquiring why you believe that the length of time an idea has been held is related to its accuracy. A good scientific approach would be to accept ideas according to the quality of their supporting evidence and the degree to which that evidence has been replicated.--Percy

You'll go crazy trying to figure out the logic behind naming something a law or theory. There are some general rules of thumb that sort of mostly apply, and then you have to take into account the historical context of the 18th and 19th century when they expected that all science would boil down to mathematical relationships that could be termed laws, like Boyle's Law, the Laws of Thermodynamics, etc.It turned out not to be so simple, and the general practice today is to use the word theory for new conceptual frameworks. Even so, new laws crop up in the modern lexicon all the time. For example, there's Moore's Law, named after the Intel co-founder who first noticed that computer power doubles every 18 months.--Percy

Despite the vague title, this thread is actually about whether scientists who reject global warming are practicing bad science. To this end, I think an exploration of what constitutes bad science along with examples would be a good idea. But this thread is not about specific objections to evolution except as they might bear on characterizing the nature of bad science.There have been many thermodynamic discussions here, and another one would be fine if you'd care to propose a new topic. There won't be any shortage of people willing to explain how you've been misled.--Percy

Despite Dr Adequate's apparent assurance, let me repeat what I said earlier in Message 103: You'll go crazy trying to figure out the logic behind naming something a law or theory.Quetzal's summary Message 126 is very good, so I'd recommend lending credence to that, too.Bottom line: if you want to look more deeply into law versus theory nomenclature in the history of science then continue delving, I think it's pretty interesting myself, but if you're trying to make overall sense out of it by seeking logic, order and hierarchy, then quit now.--Percy

With apologies to Rex Harrison: --PercyEdited by Percy, : Minor tweak.Edited by Percy, : Tweak end of last verse.Edited by Percy, : Another tweak.