Science lies

[infoterror]

Few scientists fabricate results from scratch or flatly plagiarize the work of others, but a surprising number engage in troubling degrees of fact-bending or deceit, according to the first large-scale survey of scientific misbehavior.

More than 5 percent of scientists answering a confidential questionnaire admitted to having tossed out data because the information contradicted their previous research or said they had circumvented some human research protections.

Ten percent admitted they had inappropriately included their names or those of others as authors on published research reports.

And more than 15 percent admitted they had changed a study's design or results to satisfy a sponsor, or ignored observations because they had a "gut feeling" they were inaccurate.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...5060802385.html (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/08/AR2005060802385.html)

[LSD]

Notice that the majority of infractions from that study stem from wanting to satisfy sponsors and, no doubt, hoping to secure their sponsorship in the future.

It makes sense when you think about it. If a company hires you to test whether or not their flagship product is dangerous ...what do you think you're going to say! :lol:

Just another example of the destructive effects of capitalism upon science.

[redstar2000]

A useful warning.

What would really be interesting is a survey broken down by particular fields of study.

Which scientists are "most likely" to cheat?

My hypothesis is that scientists who study fields that are far removed from daily human concerns (particle physics, astronomy, quantum chemistry, mathematical theory, etc.) are least likely to cheat.

But the closer you get to research with social policy implications or that directly promises big corporate profits, the more the pressures to cheat become substantial.

If my hypothesis could be confirmed, it would have serious implications for the capitalist system itself. "Bad science" is unprofitable...the technology based on it won't work.

In addition, there is -- as the Washington Post story indicated -- a "credibility" problem.

A recent study indicates that regular marijuana smokers are up to ten times more likely to die from ingrown toenails.

:lol:

I am highly skeptical of present-day "science" that purports to explain or guide human behavior...I think, in time, a good deal of it will turn out to be junk.

Junk Science -- How Can You Tell? (http://redstar2000papers.com/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1083030045&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid [email protected] 9 2005, 05:48 AM
Just another example of the destructive effects of capitalism upon science.
What has capitalism to gain from the pseudoscientific scam known as global warming ?

[truthaddict11]

none, most scientists reject global warming theories, they are mainly supported by people with anti-capitalist or anti big buisness tendencies "its all the corportation's/bush/ ect fault" it is thier battle cry. you can read my posts on global warming in the Ecology part of the forum i am not allowed to post there anymore.

[monkeydust]

Redstar's right regarding science and human affairs. I personally suspect the worst area to be the pharmeceutical industry. A number of scientists are bankrolled by them, and "gloss over" the side-effects of certain drugs.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Professor Moneybags+Jun 9 2005, 09:59 AM--> (Professor Moneybags @ Jun 9 2005, 09:59 AM)
Lysergic Acid [email protected] 9 2005, 05:48 AM
Just another example of the destructive effects of capitalism upon science.
What has capitalism to gain from the pseudoscientific scam known as global warming ? [/b]
I think the evidence in favor of global warming is pretty robust...it's not "junk".

On the other hand, the hypothesized consequences of global warming readily lend themselves to flights of fancy which, if taken seriously, could result in increased profits for some capitalists and decreased profits for others.

Suppose, as some capitalists have suggested, that it's decided to establish a trading market in carbon dioxide emissions permits. A given corporation may "clean up" a "dirty" plant...and then sell its permits to be "dirty" to another corporation that wants to continue "dirty" operations. Clearly there is money to made in this sort of environmental "three-card monty". (The money ultimately comes from reduced wages for workers or higher consumer prices or both.)

Another and very large source of potential profit would be rebuilding the world's major port facilities to withstand higher sea levels -- financed, of course, by increased consumption taxes on the working class.

Or imagine a special emissions tax on older cars (used by working people) to subsidize the production of "green cars" (purchased by the upper middle class).

Your problem, Moneybags, is that you're concerned with "libertarian purity"...real capitalists are concerned with making money.

Out of every situation.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

This is one of the primary reasons I am against capitalism - pursuit of capital stunts human development over time.

[Clarksist]

Originally posted by Professor [email protected] 9 2005, 02:59 PM
What has capitalism to gain from the pseudoscientific scam known as global warming ?
Capitalism has chance to be damaged by global warming, that's why the science behind it is so credible.

Basically Global Warming is the statement that all over the world slight increases in temperature have accumulated. It's hard to argue, I mean just look at the gradual raise in temperatures from across the globe (not just in your city or state or even country). And since the conditions the burning of fossil fuels create is about exaclty like a green house and since almost all energy is based on the burning of fossil fuels, it makes a pretty easy link.

I don't know how that's pseudoscience. Or a scam. A scam would be saying that burning fossil fuels is helping the environment to sell gas.

[Andy Bowden]

It's possible global warming may be exaggerated - but even the developed nations (with the exception of the US) have signed the Kyoto treaty, something which could reduce profits, even if it isn't by much.

[Professor Moneybags]

I think the evidence in favor of global warming is pretty robust...it's not "junk".

On the other hand, the hypothesized consequences of global warming readily lend themselves to flights of fancy which, if taken seriously, could result in increased profits for some capitalists and decreased profits for others.

How myopic can you get ? The goal of the global warming crowd is strict regulation (read : nationalisation) of all industry, which lends itself well pretty much all left-wing ideologies.


Another and very large source of potential profit would be rebuilding the world's major port facilities to withstand higher sea levels -- financed, of course, by increased consumption taxes on the working class.

:lol:


Or imagine a special emissions tax on older cars (used by working people) to subsidize the production of "green cars" (purchased by the upper middle class).

Tax ? That's your game, not mine.


Your problem, Moneybags, is that you're concerned with "libertarian purity"...real capitalists are concerned with making money.

I am a real capitalist, Red. These other people you describe are straw men constructed for the convenience of socialists.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Yeah, we all know that capitalists in real life are nice guys and don't initiate force :rolleyes:

[LSD]

I am a real capitalist, Red. These other people you describe are straw men constructed for the convenience of socialists.

Yes because real capitalists don't care about money! :lol:

You're a libertarian who believes in the "free market" ideologically. Real capitalists don't give a damn what system their operating under so long as it makes them profit.


Tax ? That's your game, not mine

Right... and that staunch socialist Ronald Reagan's too.

[Urban Rubble]

I am a real capitalist, Red. These other people you describe are straw men constructed for the convenience of socialists.

You are so ridiculous. You really are. If you think Socialists are the ones who came up with the idea that bug business is greedy you have serious, serious mental problems.

It kind of reminds me of the other thread where you said there was no such thing as sadistic U.S. soldiers who shoot innocent people for target practice. Then when I mentioned a friend of mine who was in Fallujah saw this very thing happening, you just happened to miss that post.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by Urban [email protected] 10 2005, 02:51 PM
If you think Socialists are the ones who came up with the idea that bug business is greedy you have serious, serious mental problems.


Who was it then, if not you ?


It kind of reminds me of the other thread where you said there was no such thing as sadistic U.S. soldiers who shoot innocent people for target practice.

I didn't say that. I said the idea that they were sadistic as a rule was absurd.


Then when I mentioned a friend of mine who was in Fallujah saw this very thing happening, you just happened to miss that post.

You'd say anything, even if it contradicted something you'd already said.

[Professor Moneybags]

Yes because real capitalists don't care about money! :lol:

You're a libertarian who believes in the "free market" ideologically.

Yes, also known as a capitalist.


Real capitalists don't give a damn what system their operating under so long as it makes them profit.

You mean pragmatists ? (There are plenty of those amongst your ranks.)


Right... and that staunch socialist Ronald Reagan's too.

He was a conservative.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2005, 01:42 PM
Yeah, we all know that capitalists in real life are nice guys and don't initiate force :rolleyes:
Are you saying that the initiation of force is wrong ? They why do you advocate it so often ?

[LSD]

You mean pragmatists ?

Sure.

Realists, pragmatists, whatever...

Real capitalists in the real world, not think-tank libertarians in the fucking CATO institute.


Yes, also known as a capitalist.

Ideological capitalist, not practicing capitalist.

Look, answer the question. Are you denying that real people in the real world are willing to do what it takes to make money, even if their actions are not ideologically in tune with the idealized "free market"?


He was a conservative.

Which proves my point that taxes are not "my game".

[Professor Moneybags]

Sure.

Realists, pragmatists, whatever...

Real capitalists in the real world, not think-tank libertarians in the fucking CATO institute.

This does little to refute "libertarianism".


Ideological capitalist, not practicing capitalist.

I'm both, thanks.


Look, answer the question. Are you denying that real people in the real world are willing to do what it takes to make money, even if their actions are not ideologically in tune with the idealized "free market"?

Yes there are, some of them are even socialists.


Which proves my point that taxes are not "my game".

They belong at your side, tax baron.

[LSD]

This does little to refute "libertarianism".

Most practicing capitalists are not libertarian. For the most part, they don't care about the system so long as they can make money in it.


Yes there are, some of them are even socialists.

:lol:

Yeah, the Fortune 500 list is full of socialists.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2005, 05:07 PM
I don't want you genes around, threatening the quality of our species.
It's okay, I don't plan on breeding with monkeys any time soon.

[LSD]

It's okay, I don't plan on breeding with monkeys any time soon.

As with most things you write, Moneybags, I have a hard time believing that.

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid [email protected] 9 2005, 06:48 AM
Notice that the majority of infractions from that study stem from wanting to satisfy sponsors and, no doubt, hoping to secure their sponsorship in the future.

It makes sense when you think about it. If a company hires you to test whether or not their flagship product is dangerous ...what do you think you're going to say! :lol:

Just another example of the destructive effects of capitalism upon science.
Here is an example of the destructive effect of capitalism on medicine:

"The creation of the medical institute that bears his name stands as Hughes' most enduring accomplishment. His vision of scientific philanthropy was neither modest nor ordinary." - http://www.hhmi.org/about/

Here is an example of the destructive effect of capitalism on art:

"J. Paul Getty viewed art as a civilizing influence in society, and strongly believed in making art available to the public for its education and enjoyment" - http://www.getty.edu/about/getty/history.html

Both from stinking rich capitalist.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid [email protected] 18 2005, 02:19 PM
As with most things you write, Moneybags, I have a hard time believing that.
He/she sounded just like a nazi calling for racial purity. I guess he/she will have to be re-educated after the revolution too.