How Many Scientists Fabricate and Falsify Research?

[cardero]

Accuracy, Objectivity, and Logic.

These are good too.

 

[UnTheist]

Well, let's watch two cats reproduce and see what we get. If we get a banana, then ToE wins.

OMFG

I'll be right back, I need to go tell my kids that they are the same species as an orange.

OMFG

 

[Morse]

That brought my chuckle meter to a new extreme.

 

[darkendless]

That brought my chuckle meter to a new extreme.

Lucky you. Reading the original post dropped my IQ 10 points.

 

[Morse]

Ignorance brings bliss, and bliss brings happiness, laughter is a known form to express happiness.

I too share your fate.

 

[ragordon168]

maybe science has gone a bit off course now but no scientist would outright lie about anything just for the hell of it.

with research controlled by corporations who want the right answers that will get them more profits the results may be changed. but when the peer review gets a hold of it they tear a new one and bin it.

science needs to return to return to pure research, where scientists can do anything without having to pander to money. then results wouldnt be changed as there would be no point

 

[tumbleweed41]

Well, let's watch two cats reproduce and see what we get. If we get a banana, then ToE wins.

This is the very definition of willful ignorance, someone who attempts to disclaim evolution without any understanding at all of what the ToE is.

 

[idea]

“willing to select, omit or fabricate data to win a grant or publish a paper”

In many cases, you will not get funding for your research unless you promise those who give you a grant what your research will show. Before doing the experiment, you tell them what the experiment will show, and then they give you money to show everyone what they want you to show them.

"I am going to do an experiment that will show xyz"

How do you know that your experiment will show xyz before doing it? You don't.

There are many ways to tell white lies... lies of omission, how you present your data (zooming in on a graph to make small steps look HUGE when they really are not, throwing out "outlier" data points, etc. etc.) There is no such thing as "exact science".

 

[idea]

This one does NOT come from a creationist.

The Truth About Evolution By Duncan Long

fossil records don't lie.

According to evolutionists, there should be about 100-million-years worth of "missing links" during the time it took for fish to evolve from invertebrates, for example. Instead there are no intermediate fossils, only full-sprung fish or well developed invertebrates. No fossil that looks even remotely like an invertebrate on the road to evolving into a fish has ever been discovered.

Evolutionists claim it took upwards of 50 million years for a fish to evolve into an amphibians. But again, there are no transitional forms. Not a single fossil with part fins/part feet has ever been discovered. That there would be 50 million years of creatures living and dying without a single fossil being produced again stretches the credibility of those defending evolution by an enormous factor.

Fossil ants look like today’s ants; fossil cockroaches look like today’s cockroaches; etc., with no intermediate "ancestors" leading up to their appearance. Fossils that scientists claim are 50 million-year-old bats have the bone structure that is identical to today’s bats. This pattern remains true with every major plant and animal line. All higher categories of living things, such as complex invertebrates, fishes, amphibians, reptiles, flying reptiles, birds, bats, primates and man, appear abruptly without any "missing links" preceding them.

read on.

(PS this person is not pushing creationism, they are supporters of this:
COSMIC ANCESTRY: The modern version of panspermia. by Brig Klyce )

 

[Alceste]

idea, just so you know, the formulation of a hypothesis is a valid and necessary stage of the scientific method. You're right, nobody gets a research grant by saying "I'm just going to chop up a rat and see what's in there." Nor should they.

 

[idea]

idea, just so you know, the formulation of a hypothesis is a valid and necessary stage of the scientific method. You're right, nobody gets a research grant by saying "I'm just going to chop up a rat and see what's in there." Nor should they.

you describe the American sci method. In China, and other parts of the world, they do things differently.

In any event, when there is monetary gain for some results and not for others... experiments tend to show - not the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth - but tend to selectively show what will get them money... ignore all the data no one wants to see, and publish all the data that brings in the DOE grant money.

what??? the temperature of the earth is not corrolated to polution, it is corrolated with... what the sun is doing???? You mean it's the sun's fault the Earth is heating up and not our fault???? but then that does not bring in Carbon tax revenue, does not make the feds happy, this research will never be funded by DOE/NSF, etc. etc.

 

[Nepenthe]

This one does NOT come from a creationist.

Is this the same Duncan Long who's a writer/artist, a firearms expert, and has written extensively about the End Times, Biblical literalism, as well as his devout Christianity which he claims healed his wife of cancer by prayer? Oh, and the same Long who authored such sci-fi fantasy treasures as this:

I wonder where he got his biology/anthropology/geology/etc. degree? Oh wait....

 

[Alceste]

Idea, I'm sorry but everything you are saying is nonsense. I've got no desire to pursue a debate with you. I simply wanted to point out to you that a hypothesis is REQUIRED, and not a symptom of rampant scientific dishonesty.

 

[Nepenthe]

you describe the American sci method. In China, and other parts of the world, they do things differently.

There's no such thing as the "American scientific method" no more than there's a Western science or Eastern science.

 

[themadhair]

This one does NOT come from a creationist.

The Truth About Evolution By Duncan Long

fossil records don't lie.

Anyone who refers to people as 'evolutionists' is probably not a scientist. Just saying.

 

[themadhair]

Instead there are no intermediate fossils, only full-sprung fish or well developed invertebrates. No fossil that looks even remotely like an invertebrate on the road to evolving into a fish has ever been discovered.

You mean nothing like this?:

 

[themadhair]

what??? the temperature of the earth is not corrolated to polution, it is corrolated with... what the sun is doing???? You mean it's the sun's fault the Earth is heating up and not our fault????

If the sun were responsible then wouldn't the increased temperature over the last century be uniform through the atmosphere? Why don't you go check if that is the case.

 

[Autodidact]

This one does NOT come from a creationist.

I believe you're mistaken. Duncan Long is an illustrator, not a biologist, and the author of fascinating articles such as: Are We Nearing the End Times? In other words, a religious nut-job without a shred of scientific training.

http://duncanlong.com/christian/evolut.html

The Truth About Evolution By Duncan Long

fossil records don't lie.

Second, all of his facts are incorrect. They're gathered from well-known creationist liars such as Duane Gish (famous for perfecting the art of lying) and Michael Denton. He does not cite a single actual Biologist.
He makes such bloopers as denying the actual millions of transitional fossils that fill the world's museums.

Statements like: Fossil ants look like today’s ants; fossil cockroaches look like today’s cockroaches; etc., with no intermediate "ancestors" leading up to their appearance.
are either false or based on false premises. They're just complete, well, frankly lies.

So is this: All higher categories of living things, such as complex invertebrates, fishes, amphibians, reptiles, flying reptiles, birds, bats, primates and man, appear abruptly without any "missing links" preceding them. It's simply not true. He either doesn't know what he's talking about, or is a liar. My guess is the usual creationist combo plate, of accepting lies as truth and deliberately refusing to find out the truth.

 

[idea]

If the sun were responsible then wouldn't the increased temperature over the last century be uniform through the atmosphere? Why don't you go check if that is the case.

If pollution was the problem, wouldn't the holes in the ozone be over cities instead of over the uninhabited poles?

Belief can alter observations; those with a particular belief will often see things as reinforcing their belief, even if to another observer they would appear not to do so. Even researchers admit that the first observation may have been a little imprecise, whereas the second and third were "adjusted to the facts," until tradition, education, and familiarity produce a readiness for new perception.[18]

Needham's Science and Civilization in China uses the 'flying horse' image as an example of observation: in it, a horse's legs are depicted as splayed, when the stop-action picture by Eadweard Muybridge shows otherwise. Note that at the moment that no hoof is touching the ground, the horse's legs are gathered together and are not splayed, but for when a horse is jumping. Earlier paintings depict the incorrect flying horse observation.
This demonstrates Ludwik Fleck's caution that people observe what they expect to observe, until shown otherwise; our beliefs will affect our observations (and therefore our subsequent actions). The purpose of the scientific method is to test a hypothesis, a proposed explanation about how things are, via repeatable experimental observations which can contradict the hypothesis so as to fight this observer bias.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

http://science.howstuffworks.com/scientific-method10.htm
Limitations of the Scientific Method

Clearly, the scientific method is a powerful tool, but it does have its limitations. These limitations are based on the fact that a hypothesis must be testable and falsifiable and that experiments and observations be repeatable. This places certain topics beyond the reach of the scientific method. Science cannot prove or refute the existence of God or any other supernatural entity. Sometimes, scientific principles are used to try to lend credibility to certain nonscientific ideas, such as intelligent design. Intelligent design is the assertion that certain aspects of the origin of the universe and life can be explained only in the context of an intelligent, divine power. Proponents of intelligent design try to pass this concept off as a scientific theory to make it more palatable to developers of public school curriculums. But intelligent design is not science because the existence of a divine being cannot be tested with an experiment.

[FONT=arial,helvetica][SIZE=+1]It's a wave, it's a particle, it's a wave ...
[/SIZE][/FONT]Most of the time, two competing theories can’t exist to describe one phenomenon. But in the case of light, one theory is not enough. Many experiments support the notion that light behaves like a longitudinal wave. Taken collectively, these experiments have given rise to the wave theory of light. Other experiments, however, support the notion that light behaves as a particle. Instead of throwing out one theory and keeping the other, physicists maintain a wave/particle duality to describe the behavior of light.

Science is also incapable of making value judgments. It cannot say global warming is bad, for example. It can study the causes and effects of global warming and report on those results, but it cannot assert that driving SUVs is wrong or that people who haven't replaced their regular light bulbs with compact fluorescent bulbs are irresponsible. Occasionally, certain organizations use scientific data to advance their causes. This blurs the line between science and morality and encourages the creation of "pseudo-science," which tries to legitimize a product or idea with a claim that has not been subjected to rigorous testing.
And yet, used properly, the scientific method is one of the most valuable tools humans have ever created. It helps us solve everyday problems around the house and, at the same time, helps us understand profound questions about the world and universe in which we live.

one theory is not enough.
incapable of making value judgments
certain organizations use scientific data to advance their causes

 

[arimoff]

well atheist or not scientist or not everybody want to make money, so everyone once in a while will lie, especially those who believe in nothing, so I lie and I won't get nothing for it.

my point is just because he is a scientist doesn't mean he is not going to lie, science doesn't make you holly, so to claim that a scientist will never lie is just foolish, same as claiming that this article is not fabricated also a high risk, you never know.