What is "Bad" Science?

[shunyadragon]

No I didn't, coronavirus and covid-19 are not the same thing.

Problem not addressed related that pharma companies used the isolated coronavirus to Create SARS and Covid-19. They lies can be worded many different ways, but they are still lies.

Also . . .

Another You Tube Conspiracy unqualified idiot clearly and specifically what you believe without question. Note Bold.



In his 20-minute presentation to the summit, Martin argued that the U.S. government and leading vaccine-maker Pfizer nefariously manufactured and released coronavirus before both the 2003 SARS pandemic and COVID-19 pandemic in order to ensure that the world would accept a universal vaccine template. While he claimed to present evidence of U.S.-sponsored biological terrorism on slides during his presentation, none of the summit recordings showed these slides and therefore leave most of his claims without proof of hard evidence for viewers.

Though the evidence needs to documented beyond slides.

 

[shunyadragon]

Objection here being the definiton of layman. none of these should be beyond anyone with a basic HS education, so just what are laymen?

It is likely the tunnel vision of those focused on "proving" areligious agenda, and not education. Many with a college education still will misuse these terms to justify their agenda like claiming the Bible is evidence..

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Because they were not, in fact, conclusive. They were speculative. Hypothetical. And everyone else understood this.

I didn't say they were conclusive. They are hypotheses. Suggestions for further work. I understand too.

You don't seem to like science or those that accept it. It leaves a huge blind spot in you that you can't see or recognize is there. I think it is such a part of you that you don't see it and I don't think there is anyway to fix either. But the fact remains that scientists do draw conclusions. Like it or not.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Bad habits are hard to break.

They sure are. I can see that.

And there is a lot of bad science just like there us a lot of bad religion, bad politics, bad philosophy, bad art, and bad commerce.

Of course, I expect you see a lot of bad science.

Science is not the sacred oracle of truth that the scientism cultists here believe it to be.

You see a lot of scientism and scientism cultists too.

And you can tell who they are by their complete inability to recognize that fact.

I recognize that you have some major blind spots when it comes to science. There is no doubt in my mind regarding that. I don't think there is any easy way to help you gain the ability to see it. I see you as a true believer in what amounts to denial in my view.

What you're referring to are essentially speculative conclusions which is a contradiction in terms. And is why the term "conclusion" should not be used when the term "hypothesis" is the actual appropriate term to use in this instance.

What I'm referring to hypotheses, extension of the work to other areas, possible expectations of the sort of results that might come of it, suggestions for further research. What you see is that I claimed that my results would apply everywhere and all should bow down to me. Nothing like that happened or is true.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

As a matter of interest, were your conclusions challenged? Acted on? Opposed? (I take it from your post that they weren't ignored.)

No. They were not challenged. They were consistent with work in other crops on non-target species. Some of the compounds I used are fairly toxic, but engineered to be substrates for microbial degradation in the soil to limit persistence and wider activity on non-targets while still lasting long enough to be effective in controlling pests. Based on the statistical similarity between end of season population levels between treatments and controls, this was indicated. The conclusions I drew were consistent with those expectations and other work as well as providing the basis for further study with different compounds, different geographies and different crops.

I know that this causes some great upset, but they are not the sort of conclusions that they want to walk on with disdain. I didn't make the sort of absolutists claims about my work that they seem to with their unsupported opinions.

I would add, that I started science with an interest in natural history, but found those jobs to be fewer and occupied. There was more money for doing important work in focusing on applied questions. it was my first foray into serious, independent science.

 

[PureX]

A working hypothesis is different from a conclusion in scientific papers. See post #296

No, in fact they are not different. What you are calling a "conclusion" in science is not a conclusion at all, it's a working hypotheses. But because your sacred cow science-the-oracle-of-all-truth cannot ever do anything wrong, or be wrong about anything, you must fight to defend even a silly errant choice if words. The sacred cow must be defended in all things and at all cost! Because it's the source of the scientism cults self-righteousness.

 

[shunyadragon]

No, in fact they are not different. What you are calling a "conclusion" in science is not a conclusion at all, it's a working hypotheses. But because your sacred cow science-the-oracle-of-all-truth cannot ever do anything wrong, or be wrong about anything, you must fight to defend even a silly errant choice if words. The sacred cow must be defended in all things and at all cost! Because it's the source of the scientism cults self-righteousness.

You have not responded to the scientific definitions of "conclusion" in post #206.

Intentional ignorance does not forgive your emotional anti-science rants.

 

[PureX]

I didn't say they were conclusive. They are hypotheses. Suggestions for further work. I understand too.

You don't seem to like science or those that accept it.

Just because I don't worship science as the mighty oracle of all truth and righteousness does not mean I don't like science. Science has plenty of fools and idiots engaged in it just as every other human endeavor does. And a good example of this sort of foolishness is the inability to recognize that science doesn't deal in "conclusions". Nor does it presume to define truth or reality for anyone. Yet there are plenty of fools both in and around science that think it does.

It leaves a huge blind spot in you that you can't see or recognize is there.

Not bowing to the sacred cow of science is not a blind spot any more than not bowing to the sacred cows of religion is.

I think it is such a part of you that you don't see it and I don't think there is anyway to fix either. But the fact remains that scientists do draw conclusions. Like it or not.

Rejecting the sacred cows of others is the beginning of honesty and honesty is the beginning of wisdom. Why aren't you understanding this? Perhaps you have a few sacred cows of your own to let go of.

 

[Pogo]

Just because I don't worship science as the mighty oracle of all truth and righteousness does not mean I don't like science. Science has plenty of fools and idiots engaged in it just as every other human endeavor does. And a good example of this sort of foolishness is the inability to recognize that science doesn't deal in "conclusions". Nor does it presume to define truth or reality for anyone. Yet there are plenty of fools both in and around science that think it does.

Not bowing to the sacred cow of science is not a blind spot any more than not bowing to the sacred cows of religion is.

Rejecting the sacred cows of others is the beginning of honesty and honesty is the beginning of wisdom. Why aren't you understanding this? Perhaps you have a few sacred cows of your own to let go of.

You have made a sacred cow of your own wisdom.

 

[PureX]

You have made a sacred cow of your own wisdom.

At least I have some, and can know it for what it is.

 

[shunyadragon]

At least I have some, and can know it for what it is.

So circular it bites you in the butt

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Just because I don't worship science as the mighty oracle of all truth and righteousness does not mean I don't like science. Science has plenty of fools and idiots engaged in it just as every other human endeavor does. And a good example of this sort of foolishness is the inability to recognize that science doesn't deal in "conclusions". Nor does it presume to define truth or reality for anyone. Yet there are plenty of fools both in and around science that think it does.

Not bowing to the sacred cow of science is not a blind spot any more than not bowing to the sacred cows of religion is.

Rejecting the sacred cows of others is the beginning of honesty and honesty is the beginning of wisdom. Why aren't you understanding this? Perhaps you have a few sacred cows of your own to let go of.

I told, you I don't know of any way to help you and I'm not interested in a rambling sermon about your unusual beliefs.

You don't reject sacred cows. You seem to attack anything that you don't understand or that doesn't fit with your personal beliefs about things. I wouldn't call that honesty or even approaching it. You have some blind spots that others aren't so blind to.

 

[PureX]

I told, you I don't know of any way to help you and I'm not interested in a rambling sermon about your unusual beliefs.

There is nothing "unusual" about being skeptical of science as a human endeavor. And the fact that you think it is unusual only reveals YOUR unrealistic opinion of science.

You don't reject sacred cows.

I reject this one. It's why you're arguing with me about it.

You seem to attack anything that you don't understand or that doesn't fit with your personal beliefs about things.

I understand science as a human endeavor better than you do.

I wouldn't call that honesty or even approaching it.

Of course you wouldn't, because you aren't being honest about science, yourself.

You have some blind spots that others aren't so blind to.

That's most certainly true, but this isn't one of them.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

There is nothing "unusual" about being skeptical of science as a human endeavor. And the fact that you think it is unusual only reveals YOUR unrealistic opinion of science.

I stand corrected. Your message isn't unusual. Similar messages divide and further divide this country.

I haven't seen skepticism though. I see attack for no other reason than what you are attacking is the work, methods and products of science. The attack seems based on a conflict between what you want to believe and what others have found from actually looking.

I don't have an unrealistic opinion of science. That which does not exist cannot be revealed. Certainly not by you.

I reject this one. It's why you're arguing with me about it.

Again, you don't reject sacred cows. You manufacture them from the nebulous ether of your own bias, to your specifications and then attack those.

I understand science as a human endeavor better than you do.

There is no evidence to that effect, but believe whatever you want about your own personal magnitude. I don't anticipate anything of consequence coming from it.

Of course you wouldn't, because you aren't being honest about science, yourself.

I am honest and that seems to be a real issue for you. An honest assessment of your work product and how it is biased to miss what you claim only you see. You need to take your untrammeled visions to the world instead of isolating them here spouting vitriol to all that choose not to blindly follow you.

That's most certainly true, but this isn't one of them.

It is a glaring one. But one that you have incorporated so furiously, that you don't even realize it is there.

Truly being skeptical, learning, understanding and evaluating something to the point where you can praise, ignore or damn it doesn't seem to fit
all the discernable effort I have witnessed you to expend.

Claim it solely for yourself all you like, but what blossoms out here for all to see is rage against any position contrary to your own for the fact that it is contrary to yours and not on any merits of either. I think I can comfortably conclude on the evidence that it is an blind spot obvious to all but you.

 

[PureX]

I stand corrected. Your message isn't unusual. Similar messages divide and further divide this country.

I haven't seen skepticism though. I see attack for no other reason than what you are attacking is the work, methods and products of science. The attack seems based on a conflict between what you want to believe and what others have found from actually looking.

You see an attack because you have made science into your sacred oracle of all truth and definer of all reality. So you consoder any criticism of any kind an "attack" on your sacred cow.

I don't have an unrealistic opinion of science. That which does not exist cannot be revealed. Certainly not by you.

So, no errors exists in science. (Just like the religious zealot's inerrant Bible)

Again, you don't reject sacred cows. You manufacture them from the nebulous ether of your own bias, to your specifications and then attack those.

There is no evidence to that effect, but believe whatever you want about your own personal magnitude. I don't anticipate anything of consequence coming from it.

I am honest and that seems to be a real issue for you. An honest assessment of your work product and how it is biased to miss what you claim only you see. You need to take your untrammeled visions to the world instead of isolating them here spouting vitriol to all that choose not to blindly follow you.

It is a glaring one. But one that you have incorporated so furiously, that you don't even realize it is there.

Truly being skeptical, learning, understanding and evaluating something to the point where you can praise, ignore or damn it doesn't seem to fit
all the discernable effort I have witnessed you to expend.

Claim it solely for yourself all you like, but what blossoms out here for all to see is rage against any position contrary to your own for the fact that it is contrary to yours and not on any merits of either. I think I can comfortably conclude on the evidence that it is an blind spot obvious to all but you.

More cultish gibberish and insult-whining. Exactly as to be expected. I have to be the bad guy because I dared to impugn the sacred cow of science.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

You see an attack because you have made science into your sacred oracle of all truth and definer of all reality. So you consoder any criticism of any kind an "attack" on your sacred cow.

So, no errors exists in science. (Just like the religious zealot's inerrant Bible)

More cultish gibberish and insult-whining. Exactly as to be expected. I have to be the bad guy because I dared to impugn the sacred cow of science.

Thank you for your opinions, but all indicators are that I have already found whatever useful information there is to be mined from them. Nothing new seems to have been added.

Ta-ta.