What is "Bad" Science?

[Pogo]

Everyone knows that a "conclusion" is FINAL. No more revisions. No more variations. No other possible outcomes. Everyone knows this. And yet here you are just blatantly ignoring the obvious because you can't accept the possibility of being wrong when it comes to your sacred cow; mythical 'scientism'.

But science never becomes "final". It never rejects the significant possibility of variation or unforeseen outcome. It never proclaims a "conclusion" regardless of how many scientists did how many experiments and misused that term when they meant, 'a viable theory or a hypothesis'.

Everyone does not know this and only scientifically illiterate people mistake conclusion meaning the end of a process such as a war with a thought process where you look back over the work you have done and summarize what you have learned, what needs to be done next, where there are limitations etc. in the ending section of the paper and that summary is called a conclusion. It is not dissimilar to any other reasoned conclusion at the end of a thought process. Nothing in science is considered set in stone,science is not in the process of compiling a book of infallible statements..

Drop this idea, it is just totally false.
A conclusion in this use is just an end (not necessarily final) to an organized study.

 

[sayak83]

It was a stupid choice of words. And it's still a stupid choice of words. They are simply reporting the "RESULTS" of the experiment, they are not drawing any "conclusions"; not if they are practicing science, and not playing at scientism.

"Question" was also a stupid choice of words in this diagram when what one is seeking are the unknown causes behind the current observations. "Questions" and "conclusions" belong in the area of philosophy, not science. In the practice of science it's all about causes and results. Not questions and conclusions.

Words mean what they mean and are used as they are used. You creating different meaning to them and calling widely used meanings stupid, is not going to change that. Scientists do ask questions and do draw conclusions as per the usual meaning of these words, whether you like or not.

 

[Pogo]

It was a stupid choice of words. And it's still a stupid choice of words. They are simply reporting the "RESULTS" of the experiment, they are not drawing any "conclusions"; not if they are practicing science, and not playing at scientism.

"Question" was also a stupid choice of words in this diagram when what one is seeking are the unknown causes behind the current observations. "Questions" and "conclusions" belong in the area of philosophy, not science. In the practice of science it's all about causes and results. Not questions and conclusions.

No, results are the data the experiment I performed I then analyze these results in respect to the hypothesis that was being tested and report my analysis as the conclusion and conclusions to be drawn from the whole process.


That you think it is anything else is only indicative of your lack of familiarity with the subject.

 

[PureX]

Everyone does not know this and only scientifically illiterate people mistake conclusion meaning the end of a process such as a war with a thought process where you look back over the work you have done and summarize what you have learned, what needs to be done next, where there are limitations etc. in the ending section of the paper and that summary is called a conclusion. It is not dissimilar to any other reasoned conclusion at the end of a thought process. Nothing in science is considered set in stone,science is not in the process of compiling a book of infallible statements..

Drop this idea, it is just totally false.
A conclusion in this use is just an end (not necessarily final) to an organized study.

This is why scientism is 'cult'. It's adherents are absolutely blind to any possibility of being wrong. And if anyone dares to contradict their scacred cow of science-as-truth-oracle, they must fight it to the death no matter how silly their arguments are. And it's always the same cult members whining and crying that their sacred cow is being violated.

 

[shunyadragon]

Of course they don't. But the scientism crowd does.

You have failed to demonstrate that the scientism crowd (?) or aliens exists,

Of course they do. But they call them "theories" and "hypotheses", instead, because real scientists are trying to avoid making presumptions.

The concept of the falsification of theories and hypothesis as subject to change and negation based on future evidence is universal in academic science.

You're the only one even mentioning religion. And you're the one that can't understand the difference between science and scientism.

I understand your "red herring" accusation of scientism very well, and in reality it does not exist to any extent in academic science.

There's no splitting hairs to it. A "conclusion" is final. And in science nothing is ever final. So it's a misuse of that term plain and simple. The real question is why you can't just acknowledge the obvious?

Academic science does not ever consider any falsification of theories and hypothesis or the results of research absolutely conclusive. This is a delusion of illusions on your part. The advancement and change in the knowledge of science over time is a witness to the conclusion that nothing in science involves absolute conclusions.

Then why do they call it a conclusion? Hint: because it's just the conclusion of that specific, isolated, experimental process. It's not a conclusion about the true nature of reality. Which is how the scientism crowd interprets it.

The use of conclusion on research papers only involves the results of that particular research and in science has never had the connotation of being absolutely true,

Scientific Conclusions | Definition, Steps & Examples | Study.com

Learn the scientific conclusion definition and understand the scientific method and conclusion. Discover how to write a scientific conclusion and...

study.com

How do you write a conclusion for science?​

Scientific conclusions should be written after the first four steps of the scientific method are completed. They are Question, Hypothesize, Experiment, Analyze, and then finally Conclude. The conclusions should include contextual information, experimental results, analysis, and the conclusion drawn from that data.

 

[Pogo]

This is why scientism is 'cult'. It's adherents are absolutely blind to any possibility of being wrong. And if anyone dares to contradict their scacred cow of science-as-truth-oracle, they must fight it to the death no matter how silly their arguments are. And it's always the same cult members whining and crying that their sacred cow has been contradicted.

Yeah, that's why one of the most common conclusions is well that didn't work, back to the drawing board. Sounds like the final word to me, not.

Science is not a cult, but there are a lot of jealous wannabes who don't understand why their ideas are not even wrong.

 

[We Never Know]

So have youns narrowed down what is bad science yet?

 

[Revoltingest]

Data can be used to draw hypotheses, which are the basis of tests that can lead to conclusions.

Conclusions themselves aren't absolutes. All science is a work in progress. The justification for science is not that it can make absolute statements, since it can't, but that the statements it makes work in reality.

The statements of supernatural belief may have social benefits for their particular tribes, and may (or may not) be the incentive for wider social effects, as with hospitals, care for the aged, and charities; but it was astonishing to see the number of right-wing believers who opposed Obamacare (and here's a toast to the memory of John McCain!).

The John McCain I remember believed that
USA didn't wage enuf war. He wanted one
with Iran. He was also a fan of censoring
political speech.

 

[shunyadragon]

So have youns narrowed down what is bad science yet?

Narrowing down "Bad Science is like trying to narrow down pandemics. "Bad Science" represents intellectual pandemics that plague our culture like herds of Memes. I consider "Bad Science" a form of Mental illness,

Pretty much. "Bad Science" is not science. Examples provided are "Bad Science" based on a religious agenda (ie fundamentalist Creationist agenda). conspiracy agendas,(ie David Martin), fraud in science mostly uncovered by further research in science, and the misuse of science to justify political, c commercial and industrial goals.

To add: "Bad Science" is advocated almost entirely by those outside academic science, with the exception of fraud in science. It is most often the result of an anti-science agenda.

 

[Ebionite]

You falling back on personal interpretations of words and avoiding how humans can acknowledge facts illustrates a mind that prefers an illusion and rejects reality.

Keep believing that I did that.

 

[Ebionite]

Covid-19 nor a model (?) of the Covid-19 virus was isolated in 1965.

Why don't you address the actual claim instead of building a strawman?

 

[Revoltingest]

**** off.

• Dr. David Martin, MD: Dr. Martin is a Cardiovascular Disease specialist in Boston, MA. He graduated from University College, University of London, London Hosp Med Coll, and works at a hospital in Boston, MA.
• Dr. David E. Martin, PhD: Dr. Martin is the founding CEO of M∙CAM Inc., an international leader in intellectual property-based financial risk management. He has worked closely with the United States Congress, numerous trade and finance regulatory agencies, and has founded several for-profit and non-profit companies and organizations.
• Dr. David Martin, Mosaic Technologies Inc.: Dr. Martin was the founding CEO of Mosaic Technologies Inc., a company that developed and commercialized advanced computational linguistics technologies, dynamic data compression and encryption technologies, electrical field transmission technology, medical diagnostics, and stealth/anechoic technology.
• Dr. David W. Martin - Otolaryngology: Dr. Martin is a Castle Connolly Top Doctor whose specialty is Otolaryngology and is located in Tarzana, CA.
• Dr. David T. Martin - Cardiac Electrophysiology: Dr. Martin is a Castle Connolly Top Doctor whose specialty is Cardiac Electrophysiology and is located in Boston, MA.
• David P. Martin, M.D., Ph.D. - Mayo Clinic: Dr. Martin is a researcher at the Mayo Clinic, with a focus on cutting-edge research and care in medicine.

I notice that there's not one epidemiologist in your list.
That is the one field that addresses the total picture
regarding vaccination efficacy & morbidity.

What are the claims made by each of them?

 

[Ebionite]

I notice that there's not one epidemiologist in your list.
That is the one field that addresses the total picture
regarding vaccination efficacy & morbidity.

Ethics are relevant when considering public policy.

 

[shunyadragon]

Why don't you address the actual claim instead of building a strawman?

I addressed the fallacy of the actual claim, which David Martin concludes that it resulted in the manufacture of Covid-19 by the pharma industry.

Not a strawman by definition, because it is entirely false that Covid-19 or a model(?) of Covid-19 was isolated in 1965. You have failed to address the actual facts that this is false and tantamount to a down right lie, One of many sensationalist conspiracy lies by David Martin

 

[Revoltingest]

Ethics are relevant when considering public policy.

What is the point of that seeming non sequitur?

 

[shunyadragon]

I notice that there's not one epidemiologist in your list.
That is the one field that addresses the total picture
regarding vaccination efficacy & morbidity.

What are the claims made by each of them?

The real David Martin is #2 not really a scientist at all.

 

[Ebionite]

I addressed the fallacy of the actual claim, which David Martin concludes that it resulted in the manufacture of Covid-19 by the pharma industry.

Why would anyone believe you?

 

[We Never Know]

Source video:

5:50 "Coronavirus as a model of a pathogen was isolated in 1965"

Misreported by todaynewsafrica.com as:

Dr. Martin ... commenced his speech by asserting that COVID-19 was first isolated in 1965

Related: https://www.davidmartin.world/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/The_Fauci_COVID-19_Dossier.pdf

Coronaviruses are a large family of viruses.
It wasn't covid-19 virus. It was another corona virus.

First human coronavirus isolated at U. Of Chicago more than 50 years ago.

First human coronavirus isolated at UChicago more than 50 years ago

How a study of medical students with upper respiratory infections in 1962 helped lay the groundwork for research on coronaviruses, including the virus that causes COVID-19.

www.uchicagomedicine.org

​

 

[Ebionite]

What is the point of that seeming non sequitur?

It really doesn't surprise me that you can't figure out why ethics are relevant.

 

[Revoltingest]

The real David Martin is #2 not really a scientist at all.

It's easier to debunk science if one
uses non-scientists....& the Bible.