Bad science?

Well, my on topic point was that it comes down to the scientist on whether or not the science is 'bad'. Thats where the ethics come into play. Thats where you'll find the distinction.

The overall enterprise of science is simply the systematic pursuit of mechanistic explanations for natural phenomena using the scientific method.Science can become 'bad science' at one of two levels:Data collection (intentional sampling bias).
Data interpretation (intentional distortion or selective presentation of data).The motivations are varied, but usually come down to material profit, either on the part of the individual who seeks to advance his career at the expence of the validity of his work, or the part of a company that sponsors research and has a vested interest in the nature and implications of the results. The latter is by far the most insidious and dangerous. It is one of the reasons we can never roll over to those conservatives who say 'government need not be involved with sponsoring research - any science worth doing can be done by the private sector' At that point, we completely surrender science to the profit motive and scientific research that is 'generally beneficial' to society, but doesn't yield profitable patents, will cease entirely. Edited by EZscience, : formating

So tell me, what is the difference between a person who claims he is a Christian, starts a church, and takes people money, when really deep down in his heart, he is just scamming people, and doing it for the money...and....a "scientist" who makes a bogus report on global warming and sells it to the public, and is funded by the oil companies?

Well you didn't say research scientist initially. That's a different story. There are several fields that use science, and the scientific method to accomplish their goals. Engineering can be one of them, astronomy another, and so-on.Also I respect a PhD, but it is relative to the person. There are many factors that determine just how efective a person will be regardless their education. Ever meet a doctor who can't tie his shoes, or perscribe the right medicine for your child? (you know what I mean?)

Absolutely. There are plenty of Ph.D.'s out there that aren't worth the paper they are printed on.(ABE: I can say that as I have one, but it doesn't quite carry the same weight if someone says that who only has a grade 5 education.)Edited by EZscience, : added content

It is far easier for the person who is getting money from the faithful than it is for the scientiest.The scientist has to worry about peer review and reproducable results. While that might delay things, the pigeons will come home to roost sooner or later.It is also not as financially lucrative as the religion game.

I don't know how ou qualify that. Either way I would feel like an asshole. The other has to worry about....God? I think that is just an opinion, but hey, you could be right.

Here we have perfect information. We know that he isn't a Christian because he is defined as not being a Christian. Whereas the 'scientist' may or may not actually be a scientist. No matter, they have done 'bad science' since they have not followed the methodology correctly. If the first gentleman truly believed in Christ as God, the saviour, but his greed led him to ignore parts of scripture that contradicted his desires...then the two would be comparable scenarios.

That's a fair assessment. no-true scientist, and no-true christian.That is why I hate that fallacy.

quote:

---

Interesting. If I'm following you, are you saying anyone who works in a scientific discipline outside of academia or a pure research position is not entitled to be called a scientist? Not that I personally give a hoot, but I have a number of colleagues who would likely disagree with this characterization. Assuming that's what you meant, of course.

---

Well, it depends.I am positive that there are people not working in the areas you mention whom I'd call scientists, but neither do I think that "people who use the scientific method in their work" is all that these people do to qualify as scientists.

So, when Michael Jordan says "I'm a basketball player" and I say "I'm a basketball player", it means exactly the same thing to each of us, and everyone else?

quote:

---

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.

---

No, no, of course not."Developing theory" means to me that you propose and test your ideas about some natural phenomena.That's all.

Okay. That was sort of the thrust of my question. What DOES qualify one for the term "scientists" in your view?

I have to agree with schraf on this one.Someone labeled "scientist", should be someone who is either getting paid for it, or at least had the schooling to qualify them as one.Everyone else is just doing science. I suppose if you did enough of it in your spare time, and had no schooling, but you lay claim to something significant such as a discovery or something, you may earn the title scientist.If I was to relate it to myself, I am a HVAC mechanic for 23 years now. I have passed tests in sheet metal, and refrigeration. The last 6 years, I have had to start doing some plumbing. But I refused to call myself a plumber, since I have respect for the trade, and all that goes with it. I am slowly reaching that status with all that I have accomplished, and I am probably better than most who call themselves plumbers, but I won't officially call myself one, until I go and pass a test, that gives me a license to do plumbing. (right now where I do plumbing, no license is needed, just have to pass inspections, in other counties/states, I work under someone who has a license)There are periods when in my hobbies, and in my work that I use the scientific method, but I would never call myself a scientist.Edited by riVeRraT, : typing error

I guess this is probably where I'm having difficulty with your's and schraf's definitions. If you're "doing science", aren't you (almost by definition), a "scientist"? It's not really important - it's just one of those issues to which I have some kind of visceral (rather than logical) reaction. Indeed, it probably has more to do with being vaguely uncomfortable about a feeling that we're setting science and scientists up for accusations of "elitism" than anything else. My feeling is that many non-scientists often perceive practioners as equivalent to some kind of "priest-hood": exclusive, unapproachable, and given to making pronouncements from on high that mere mortals aren't given to understand. Since nothing could be further from the truth, the more restrictive the term we use, the less likely we are to make science and scientists more "trusted" by the general populace. I'm sort of groping blindly for a way to bridge this gap. The pursuit of knowledge was once considered the great leveller. Unfortunately, given the incredible complexity of most scientific disciplines today, and the years of training and experience that are required to understand the details, it really IS becoming "unapproachable" to the average person. I'm not sure there's any way around it. I'm open to suggestions.