Bad science?

If were are going to stay on topic with this, we need to restrict the term 'scientist' to those creating the 'bad science'. So my definition of creating something with the science would seem the most basic requirement. Whether this is an empirical data set that has been corrupted by biased sampling, or a bogus explanation being touted as theory to gratify some political or economic agenda, you become a 'bad scientist' if you do either. (Reminds of watching the television premiere of 'Bad Santa' last night ).But my contention is that most of the 'bad science' is paid for by the rich corporate private sector that has a vested interest in results that suit their economic agenda. Underpaid scientists just end up being the whores and slaves of industry if they are unlucky enough to be employed there.

Yes.

---

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

Yeah. I plant and infest experiments according to my boss's design, take data, enter and email it to my boss. I don't develop or test hypotheses, I don't have any advanced expertiese in the fields of either agronomy or entomology. I can actually post my government job description, if you like.Obviously, I don't do all of the scientific method; really, I assist with the middle two steps - I perform the experiments and I record the data. I don't develop hypotheses, analyze data, or publish. My boss does those things. What kind of experiments are these, exactly?

Don't feel bad, crash. By EZ's and schraf's definitions, I'm evidently not a scientist either. I'm thinking of changing my job title to "Used Tinkertoy Salesman". I've always liked tinkertoys.

Hey, if the used ones you are selling are the old wooden kind, I'm all over that! Much better than the new, plastic ones.

---

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

Well, I guess I don't feel bad. Just because I'm not a scientist doesn't mean that I'm not a part of the pursuit of science. That's something that I'm excited about, every day. I'm like the guy with the broom who's building a cathedral.

For some reason I don't want to get too detailed about my job. I'd like to remain anonymous, and although I've revealed enough information to ruin that, I don't want to make it too easy. I'm not really sure why, but I think I'm more open when anonymous. I don't remember everything I've typed on here and perhaps I've typed some things that I don't want some of the people who know me to know about me. Make sense? Well, its nothing developmental. Mostly basic laboratory chemistry. With technical service, someone might want some information that hasn't been measured or determined yet. I did a simple acid/base titration today that someone specifically asked about. I didn't have the information available to me so I went in the lab and figured it out.Sometimes I am involved in kinda developmental work. We have R&D chemists who develop formulas, like a cook book recipe if we were making food, and I'll aid them occasionally. This aiding might include some experimentation.The stuff I’m doing doesn’t require any advanced expertiese in any fields(The formulation does a little but I’m just aiding that). I’d bet that you could do it, or if you couldn’t you’d be able to find out how. I don’t even hypothesize what the result will be, I might “think up a guess” or expect a certain result though. Which will bring me back towards the topic of bad science.What about unexpected results?People have different opinions on what is unethical. We can probably agree that falsifying data is unethical. What about ignoring it? Failing to record it? Yadda yadda yaddaWhat about when someone pays for scientific data that they are hoping makes them look better. Money could change your ethics.Basically it comes down to the scientist(s) on whether or not the science is ”bad’, what I would call unethical. Does it happen? Of course.Is science ”bad’? Of course not. But it can be, just like religion.Were the individual cases in the OP 'bad' science? I have no idea.It could be either way. I think global warming could be anthing from natural fluctuations to our self created doomsday device to god's wrath pured onto the sinner's. I'd have to see more data to be able to tell. Its possible for the fossil fuel companies to pay for 'bad' science to thwart global warming, they have the money and the motive, but I'm still not convinced.ABE: But no one would no what you are talking about. Its possible that I'm not a 'scientist' by the most accepted definition but you could catch me at work in a lab coat with safety glasses, notebook, calculator and all that shit, looking like a scientist and using the method. I'd call you and crash a scientist too. I'd don't think the definition has to include developing and testing theory.Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.

I was trying to be a smartass by illustrating that a number of people on the topic were playing an almost creationist card by skirting a "no true scientist" kind of fallacy. I mean, I have a total of one, count 'em, one peer-reviewed publication in my entire career - and in an obscure journal to boot (EZ's definition). On the other hand, I can glance over at my filing cabinet and see what I calculate to be approx. 2 linear meters of reports I either authored or co-authored during the same time frame. Reports with titles like, "Preliminary Biodiversity Analysis of...", "Vegetation Density and Distribution Patterns in...", "Stream-Level Macroinvertebrate Census of...", "Historical Land-Use Patterns in...", "Proposal for Ecological Restoration and Rehabilitation of...". Etc.In addition, although I don't develop theories (schraf's definition), I routinely make observations in the field that lead to the "why" questions, develop hypotheses to explain the observations, design tests to eliminate or support the hypotheses, collect data, analyze myself or with colleagues or occasionally through use of relevant experts, and use the analyses to direct strategy, modify program implementation, or develop alternatives. All in the field, in a conservation biology context. But obviously, by the "no true scientist" definitions presented in the thread, I ain't one. I can live with that. Hence, changing my job description (I wonder if I can get a refund on the unused business cards with the wrong title on 'em?) Bottom line: science is what scientists do. Ergo, if someone is doing science, they are by definition scientists.Edited by Quetzal, : No reason given.

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.

No I couldn't unfortunately. There isn't any form of consensus as to what makes a Christian. I normally go with 'believes Christ is God, the saviour' as a general rule. Then you have bad Christians who don't follow the same interpretation of the rules that the community has, in general, developed.That would be the way to look at it if we compare the philosophy of science with the religion of Christianity. X is a disciplined pursuit of truth using a certain methodology. Interpretations vary between groups, but there is consensus on the broad details. Sometimes someone will claim to following the methodology, but they twist/break certain rules where it suits them. Replace X with Science or Christianity and we'd have ourselves a comparison.

I don't think you're reading carefully rat.
I think there are research scientists AND applied scientists who are both deserving of the appelation. Crash and CatholicScientist and Quetzal appear to be applied scientists, but they understand and use scientific principles in their professional work on a day-to-day basis. I agree with Schraf to the extent that I would prefer the term reserved for those who are directly involved with using science in their profession. No, I mean a true research scientist.But then, all academic qualifications tend to be ridiculed by those who lack them. And Ph.D. stands for "Piled Higher and Deeper", right?

You sound like a scientist to me, and moreover, what you do doesn't sound inconsistent with Schraf's definition.Maybe she'll clarify. I mean it sounds like you develop theory to me. Little-t theory, but surely Schraf did not mean to restrict the term to the one or two geniuses who come up with enormous scientific frameworks like "evolution" or "relativity", don't you think? I hope she'll clarify.

I think you're right, EZ. Kind of the point I was trying to make. Moreover, there is simply no way I could do my work without the theoretical and observational framework provided by research scientists like Terbourgh ("I am not worthy"), Janzen ("Look on his works, ye peasants, and dispair"), Whittaker ("All bow down"), Brown ("Landscape ecology R us") and the myriad of other researchers, almost all of whom are academics, who have laid the groundwork.It might be a more fruitful discussion - and actually bear some resemblance to the topic - if we came to a concensus on what "science" is, rather than trying to define what a "scientist" is. That way we could make a distinction between "good science" and "bad science".