What is "Bad" Science?

[PureX]

Just like in science we need evidence of this. If you have one example in 10,000 then it is not a very significant problem even though you can point to it as a stand alone data point and not assess it to the 9999 contrary data points.

Well there have to be evidence. The scientific method is very clear about its ethics, and if there are researchers or facilities foing bad science then it tells us something about them, not the method. But there has to be evidence.

See post above.

 

[shunyadragon]

As usual, you cannot differentiate between science and scientism. So there is no point to my bothering to answer. Science is just science. Scientism is bad science pretending to be (bad) philosophy.

Can you give an example where scientists are drawing conclusions without consideration that new information may influence or change results of their research?

 

[dybmh]

@F1fan ,

Thanks for coming to the thread. I was not sure if you would appreciate being tagged on this considering our previous, rather heated, arguing. But I did have you in mind as a good resource on this.

I'm not sure how much time I'll have today to read and reply to this thread. But, I wanted to send you this personal message, none the less, to let you know I appreciate that you're here.

Sincerely,

 

[dybmh]

Can you give an example where scientists are drawing conclusions without consideration that new information may influence or change results of their research?

Bro. The Temple Tel Arad. In your own research.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Are any of you able to assist with this?

The Intelligent Design movement was bad science because it began with an assumption - that a god exists - and then set out to demonstrate that, which caused them to see what they were looking for when not there: irreducible complexity. Science must follow the evidence where it leads, not pull it to a desired conclusion.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Fauci, an immunologist, was making the point that the criticisms of his Covid performance had no foundation in science, whereas what he did was based on science.

He wasn't just making it up. Since 1988 he'd been head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases under the Department of Health.

One's credentials and record might be one thing , but it doesn't make scientists immune from becoming political hacks and warping their profession to accommodate a given agenda.

 

[shunyadragon]

Bro. The Temple Tel Arad. In your own research.

Actually the archeological conclusions concerning the Temple Tel Arad are not controversial as to it was a temple built around 950 BCE, but the religious conclusions made by some without evidence are not scientifically justified, base on the evidence, There are questions as to whether it was a Canaanite or Hebrew temple or both. I believe it was a Canaanite temple originally.

 

[Pogo]

I think statistical centric science is bad science since this approach to science starts with a black box and not even a hypothesis. You run the tests and let the data and model tell you what to think. Using this method, coffee can be bad for you today, but not as bad tomorrow. It does not get to the heart of the matter, since this approach is not fully rational. Margin of error adds subjectivity to the data; fuzzy dice data. It is like a theory of grass based on collecting grass and weeds and averaging the two and calling that grass within a margin of error.

Fauci of the CDC had a connection to black box science; life science, which shares the same methodology used by pollsters, marketeers and gaming parlors. Fauci took advantage by blending these common subjective applications together; mixed science with politics.

Risk analysis, which uses this same math, is a strange form of bad science, that bets on the long short; theory of the exception instead of the rule. This niche of bad science makes use of fear to help make the long shot feel like the sure thing. The COVID bogeyman risk factor had half the country; Liberalism, hiding away when this was not even necessary. A little fuzz dice science, and then add splash of fear and risk and you can get the herd to turn on a dime.

Bad science is science that can be promoted by shady politicians since they use the same math foundation. Man made climate change uses this methodology and is divided down political lines. That is a tell. Climate science is just like weatherman science, which is never held fully accountable if wrong.

In the early days of global warming science, the black box science conclusions were always over shooting, helping to add fear to the theory, but also adding doubt in the theory. There were even cases of data fudging to get the proper political fear ambiance back. People caught on and it became necessary to rebrand the black box conclusion as climate change, since that term is very nebulous, and the line between natural and manmade, routine, unique and old songs sold as new is blurred by the black box risk and fear. Who gets blamed for over preparing? Doesn't that mean you care a lot; Caring Science?

Black box science can do a blind taste test of a new soft drink. It is also the science of subjectivity and manipulation based on personal preferences. It can be subjective. When you have a rational theory such as Relativity, if one exception could be found, the entire theory would need to be retool. But with black box science, bad data and wrong conclusions is given a pass, if risk is involved.

I think this was supposed to be a rag fest against religion and conspiracy theory trying to use science. But in reality, if marketing, politics and much of science gets to use black box science, why does religion and conspiracy theory have to stay rational, and avoid using black box science? There is risk you may go to hell is you do not eat your peas.

You and Homer seem to have a lot in common.

 

[dybmh]

Can you give an example where scientists are drawing conclusions without consideration that new information may influence or change results of their research?

The vast examples of divergence between the Canaanite mythology And Hebrew mythology which overwhelm any and all correspondence found by researchers.

 

[dybmh]

Actually the archeological conclusions

What are those conclusions? If you articulate those accurately, it will be a perfect example of a researcher ( yourself ) ignoring new relevant data.

 

[F1fan]

One's credentials and record might be one thing , but it doesn't make scientists immune from becoming political hacks and warping their profession to accommodate a given agenda.

Correct. This is what we saw with oil companies who hired corrupt researchers as "hired guns" to conduct research that did not support the prevailing concerns aboit global warming. Republicans clinged on to these bad scientists and fraudulent reports to help bolster the oil drilling, pumping, and burning. The majority of climate scientists were ignored by those with an interest in some social/political/economic dogma, and they are equally at fault for the consequences. The researchers surely knew better, but they got paid well for their fraud.

There were also the cigarette companies that denied that nicotine was addictive in a famous congressional hearing.

the 5 ways tobacco companies lied about the dangers of smoking cigarettes

Tobacco companies are back on our TV screens — not to promote cigarettes, but to correct the lies they told for decades about the dangers of smoking them.

truthinitiative.org

They had their own researchers, and they knew it was dangerous. They even added nicotine to some products to get smokers more addicted.

How Big Tobacco made cigarettes more addictive

The tobacco industry has leveraged modern science for more than 50 years to manipulate their products to make them even more addictive.

truthinitiative.org

So while reseachers are hired to study how nature works, that doesn't mean that businesses can't use those results against their own customers and against public health.

 

[shunyadragon]

The vast examples of divergence between the Canaanite mythology And Hebrew mythology which overwhelm any and all correspondence found by researchers.

This is not an example of what I asked for. See post #47.

Divergence? In academic archeology simply considers the evidence of the ancient Phoenician/Canaanite/Ugarit, texts to later Hebrew compilations of the Pentateuch. This changes over time with new discoveries,

Again religious considerations and bias does represent a controversial interpretations of the results, but over time science prevails in science,

 

[shunyadragon]

What are those conclusions? If you articulate those accurately, it will be a perfect example of a researcher ( yourself ) ignoring new relevant data.

I already gave examples of conclusions of archeological results are subject to change with new discoveries, and the problems will unfortunately remain with religious bias in the interpretation of the evidence. The lack of Hebrew text and other specific evidence makes it difficult to differentiate Canaanites/Phoenicians and Hebrews before 800-600 BCE since Hebrews were basically Canaanites

 

[Whateverist]

Bad science happens when peer review becomes for-profit, whenever data is groomed to make a more remarkable impression, whenever an established authority slips in a pronouncement on something outside their field and whenever the provisional nature of its assumptions is forgotten. Good science requires integrity.

 

[shunyadragon]

Correct. This is what we saw with oil companies who hired corrupt researchers as "hired guns" to conduct research that did not support the prevailing concerns aboit global warming. Republicans clinged on to these bad scientists and fraudulent reports to help bolster the oil drilling, pumping, and burning. The majority of climate scientists were ignored by those with an interest in some social/political/economic dogma, and they are equally at fault for the consequences. The researchers surely knew better, but they got paid well for their fraud.

There were also the cigarette companies that denied that nicotine was addictive in a famous congressional hearing.

the 5 ways tobacco companies lied about the dangers of smoking cigarettes

Tobacco companies are back on our TV screens — not to promote cigarettes, but to correct the lies they told for decades about the dangers of smoking them.

truthinitiative.org

They had their own researchers, and they knew it was dangerous. They even added nicotine to some products to get smokers more addicted.

How Big Tobacco made cigarettes more addictive

The tobacco industry has leveraged modern science for more than 50 years to manipulate their products to make them even more addictive.

truthinitiative.org

So while reseachers are hired to study how nature works, that doesn't mean that businesses can't use those results against their own customers and against public health.

This neglects the historical evidence that science changes over time, and eventually prevails as far as following the evidence, but unfortunately financial commercial, and religious opposition to science stoically resist change, and often down right lie to justify an agenda.

 

[PureX]

The Intelligent Design movement was bad science because it began with an assumption - that a god exists - and then set out to demonstrate that, which caused them to see what they were looking for when not there: irreducible complexity. Science must follow the evidence where it leads, not pull it to a desired conclusion.

It was not science at all. And it was only tangentially philosophical (as theology). It was a religious proposition pure and simple. And is an example of how trying to draw philosophical truisms from scientific data is a clear sign of 'bad science'.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

See Our definition of science

 

[shunyadragon]

I think statistical centric science is bad science since this approach to science starts with a black box and not even a hypothesis.

Actually there is some validity to the above. The problem with the fundamentalist Creationist unethical misuse of statistic centric science as a basis for rejecting evolution is indeed bad science

Legitimate academic science is NOT statistical centric it is objective evidence based, Statistics is used mostly to test the results of research in applied sciences like medicine.

 

[dybmh]

This is not an example of what I asked for. See post #47.

Sorry, Post 47....

I'm replying to post #42.

Anyway. It's a great example. Perhaps you're avoiding considering it fairly.

In academic archeology simply considers the evidence of the ancient Phoenician/Canaanite/Ugarit, texts to later Hebrew compilations of the Pentateuch. This changes over time with new discoveries,

What I saw in your own posts and in many academic research papers is simply this:

The researcher is neglecting the CONTENT of the Pentateuch. It's not new information. They're ignoring OLD information. In my conversations with you, however, you don't know the Pentateuch or Judaism, so, when I bring YOU information it is new for you. And... you ignore it.

It's because you're Bahai, isn't it? The information I bring conflicts with your religion?

 

[shunyadragon]

Bad science happens when peer review becomes for-profit, whenever data is groomed to make a more remarkable impression, whenever an established authority slips in a pronouncement on something outside their field and whenever the provisional nature of its assumptions is forgotten. Good science requires integrity.

This is sort of true conditionally, but for the most part involves applied sciences where there is an economic benefit, and like all sciences the bad science is weeded out. In the basic sciences and the sciences of evolution there is insufficient economic benefit to make research fraudulent.

Though there have been fraudulent research that was found and corrected, because the unscrupulous scientists were in it for personal gain

Recalling the Gupta Scandal | Evolution News

The greatest scientific fraud of the 20th century is not so well known outside of professional paleontologist circles.

evolutionnews.org

This Fossil Friday features conodont microfossils from the Triassic of the Himalaya region in India (Goel 1977) to illustrate a veritable crime story. You may have heard of cases of fraud in paleontology such as the famous hoaxes of Piltdown Man and Archaeoraptor, but the greatest scientific fraud of the century is not so well known outside of professional paleontologist circles. It was Indian scientist Vishwa Jit Gupta, professor of geology at Panjab University, who played the “star role” in this biggest case of fraud in paleontology and maybe all of science ever (Lewin 1989).

A Dubious Accident​

Gupta was India’s most celebrated paleontologist, with 455 scientific publications (including two Nature papers and five books), when the scandal started to come to light in 1989 (Talent 1989, Lewin 1989, Anderson 1991, Nature 1993), but it took nine years for the total truth and magnitude of the scandal to be revealed (Ruffell et al. 2012, Webster 2016). It turned out that over 30 years of research with 126 gullible co-authors, Gupta had falsified data, stolen fossils from colleagues and collections around the world, and then claimed to have found them in the Himalayas, often in made-up localities and layers. Gupta’s “fraudulent practices have involved most invertebrate phyla as well as the vertebrates and include fossils of Cambrian to Cenozoic age” (Webster et al. 1993). Gupta did not only commit scientific fraud on an unprecedented scale, but he even issued death threats with head money to whistleblowers including Australian geologist John Talent, one of whom one was actually killed in a dubious accident (Carleton 2005, Ruffell et al. 2012). After a final report in 1994 found Gupta guilty of all charges, “an article in the Indian weekly The World called for Gupta to be stripped of his PhD and DSc degrees, both of which had been demonstrated to be based upon fraudulent work.

Though the academic world outright condemned Gupta, and corrected his work. Corruption among authorities in India limited their criticism.