Ebionite
Well-Known Member
Bull****. Fauci's so-called science is based on the restriction of access to data, not testability.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
What is "Bad" Science?
- Thread starter dybmh
- Start date
Based on an intentional ignorance of science, and an emotional attachment to an ancient tribal religious agenda.
dybmh
דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
OK. I think 2 things:
First: I think it would be good to simply look back and consider what are the things Fauci was right about, and what are the things Fauci was wrong about:
- He was right about the vaccines
- He was wrong about the masks
Being wrong about the masks did virtually no harm.
Are you aware of how many people died because of the BS that the anti-vaccine covid conspiracy theorists put out there? People, lots of them, died. I had people telling me that I was going to be dead in 5 years. That I had murdered my children by giving them a vaccine. At this point, I've had probably 10 vaccines including the boosters. The people who were complaining about Fauci were utter lunatics. And people died because of it. That's first.
Second: It is a terrible method to make claims based on sliced and diced audio. If the assertion is: He's not being scientific. He's a bad scientist, then I think it's important to hold oneself to a much a higher standard than this. I always try go back to the original source, especially when the allegations are being made using something which was clearly produced and framed to lead the individual to a preconceived conclusion. That's me. It has served me well for over 20 years. I am successful like you wouldn't believe in life, love, and profession. Take it or leave it.
Ebionite
Well-Known Member
No, the origin of the Canaanites from Noah's grandson Canaan is documented in the Pentateuch.
I see. And what are your qualifications in immunology, and how much service have you done in the National Institutes of Health and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases? Which medical degrees do you possess? What are your credentials in STEM subjects of any kind?
The Pentateuch compiled after 600 BCE without provenance and known authorship cannot be used as an accurate historical document to document anything.
This represents "bad science" based on a religious belief without evidence.
The Pentateuch is not "documentation." It is an invention by a people trying to establish an origin story for themselves. The Israelites ARE Canaanites, who imagined for themselves are different god and then had to explain why.
Ebionite
Well-Known Member
No, he wasn't.
Data compiled by the Office of National Statistics (ONS) in the U.K. had shown that children who received the Covid vaccine were 4,423 percent (over 44 times) more likely to die than children who did not get the shot.
COVID Vaccinated Kids 4,423% More Likely to Die Than ‘Pureblood’ Kids
The shocking figures were revealed in a UK government report.
vigilantnews.com
Ebionite
Well-Known Member
You don't get to define what is and isn't reliable historical evidence.
firedragon
Veteran Member
Mate. It was the so called "religious people" who invented the scientific method.
Where did you come from?
Thanks, this is very helpful. I suppose I didn't really run into anything like this when I was working as a scientist. It is interesting to consider that research ethics was not broadly discussed during my program of study, though. Because I also studied philosophy of science it was brought up in that capacity, but it should have gotten more of a forward treatment for any student in the program. Instead we talked about proper methodology and intrinsic to that was, I suppose, a certain standard of integrity that one could describe as research ethics. Unlike the OP, I don't really think about it as a list of "don't do this" or framing it in the negative. That's not how I was taught research methods, you are taught it in the positive - what you should do. Perhaps because of that, the framing the OP was very confusing to me.
For example, the first line of the OP is described as "improper or limited sampling of data" and I kind of went "huh?" No, what we talked about in graduate school was "create a sample frame that is appropriate to your research goals and is methodologically sound, and when you draw conclusions bear in mind the limitations of your data." You are always going to have limited sampling (we're not omniscient) - what you learn to do is construct a proper sample frame that aims to be more or less representative of what you need to test your hypothesis.
For example, if you are wanting to know the species diversity of a particular area, you use random sampling techniques to get a limited sampling of data that is then presumed (within reason) to be representative of the entire study area. You understand that this sampling has limits, that it may not apply to other forests in that area, or that you may have missed something. For some kinds of questions you don't do random sampling at all, say, you want to survey threatened and endangered species in that land. Random samples aren't good enough there and if you can, you want to do a really wide sweep of the entire area to identify populations of the T/E species. I did work like this once, and you maybe stumble upon a handful of locations with that species, then survey them from year to year. Point is, you develop methods based on your objectives and those methods always come with limits.
Whateverist
Active Member
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.
This case of institutional failure makes me wonder how well peer review can play its vaunted role in the practice of science. All quotes below come from this article: "Get Me Off Your ****ing Mailing List" is an actual science paper accepted by a journal
The paper .. titled "Get me off your ****ing mailing list," was accepted by the International Journal of Advanced Computer Technology.
The journal, despite its distinguished name, is a predatory open-access journal, as noted by io9. These sorts of low-quality journals spam thousands of scientists, offering to publish their work for a fee.
In 2005, computer scientists David Mazières and Eddie Kohler created this highly profane ten-page paper as a joke, to send in replying to unwanted conference invitations. It literally just contains that seven-word phrase over and over, along with a nice flow chart and scatter-plot graph:
Instead, they automatically accepted the paper — with an anonymous reviewer rating it as "excellent" — and requested a fee of $150.
Last edited by a moderator:
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
You really need to edit your post and get rid of the image.
"Shocking Bad science" intentional ignorance and citing sensationalist "Yellow Journalism."No, he wasn't.
Data compiled by the Office of National Statistics (ONS) in the U.K. had shown that children who received the Covid vaccine were 4,423 percent (over 44 times) more likely to die than children who did not get the shot.
COVID Vaccinated Kids 4,423% More Likely to Die Than ‘Pureblood’ Kids
The shocking figures were revealed in a UK government report.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
He was right about masks as well. They do lower the rates of transmission. They are not perfect. A mask does not do all that much as a preventive measure for the wearer. It does help to protect people from those that are infected and do not know it. One of the reasons that this disease was so contagious is that one can have it and be contagious for days before one feels the effects of it. So all of the people that insisted "Why do I need to wear a mask, I am not sick" were merely making claims that could very easily have been false.
OK, actually it was Islamic scholars that first proposed Scientific Methods, but nonetheless there is a history of Bad Science to justify a religious agenda.
Kathryn
It was on fire when I laid down on it.
Including the Islamic scholars or not?
Peer review does not paly a vaunted role in science. It is part of the process over time. Much of the critique, repeated research toconfirm or rejct research takes place over time after one research is published,
Selective misrepresentation big time base don an anti-science agenda.
Open access without any peer review is aproblem here. I do not consider open access journals to be reputable.In 2005, computer scientists David Mazières and Eddie Kohler created this highly profane ten-page paper as a joke, to send in replying to unwanted conference invitations. It literally just contains that seven-word phrase over and over, along with a nice flow chart and scatter-plot graph:
According to the blog Scholarly Open Access, this PDF made the rounds, and an Australian computer scientist named Peter Vamplew sent it to the International Journal of Advanced Computer Technology in response to spam from the journal. Apparently, he thought the editors might simply open and read it.
Instead, they automatically accepted the paper — with an anonymous reviewer rating it as "excellent" — and requested a fee of $150.
Including Islamic scholars, For the most part Jewish scientists have cleaned up their act.
Whateverist
Active Member
I doubt anyone does. But when **** happens how does the practice of science note and deal with transgressions. Mostly by pushing an image of institutional purity and questioning the motives of anyone who calls attention to them, as you have here.
As for,
It comes off as whining if you respond to clear cases of bad science by crying about misrepresentation. Obviously no one case can be representative and my point was to give a single instance of science being done badly. Scientists are people and people often enough behave badly. There is nothing about putting on a white lab coat that puts scientists above anyone else.