It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: GetHyped
originally posted by: rickymouse
a reply to: Greggers
It often takes ten to fifteen research articles to find the uncut truth about a matter.
But only one blog post from collective-evolution.com, apparently.
The hypocrisy of OP being so credulous with unscientific, sensationalist sources but apparently oh so skeptical of mainstream science is astounding.
originally posted by: GetHyped
originally posted by: BO XIAN
a reply to: schuyler
Oh, Dear me, Schuyler,
We HAVE to quit meeting this way and agreeing so much.
People will start to talk!
I don't think your primary reference group could TOLERATE THAT! I'd hate to see you ousted!
Nevertheless, I agree with your post wholesale. Yet again.
Another miracle. Clearly Jesus is coming soon.
Is there an ATS rule against sh!tposting? Because this seems to me the definition of sh!tposting. Low effort "rofl i agree lol" posts add nothing to the discussion and merely clutter up threads.
originally posted by: Chadwickus
a reply to: schuyler
Climate change was one of two examples that Oliver used to make his point about how many just choose which study they want to believe is fact and ignore the rest, the other was vaccines causing autism.
originally posted by: schuyler
originally posted by: GetHyped
originally posted by: BO XIAN
a reply to: schuyler
Oh, Dear me, Schuyler,
We HAVE to quit meeting this way and agreeing so much.
People will start to talk!
I don't think your primary reference group could TOLERATE THAT! I'd hate to see you ousted!
Nevertheless, I agree with your post wholesale. Yet again.
Another miracle. Clearly Jesus is coming soon.
Is there an ATS rule against sh!tposting? Because this seems to me the definition of sh!tposting. Low effort "rofl i agree lol" posts add nothing to the discussion and merely clutter up threads.
You mean like yours? Same rule applies
originally posted by: Nochzwei
a reply to: BO XIAN
einsteins gr is a case in point
originally posted by: BO XIAN
THAT'S the real title, folks.
I find this a great article with lots of clarity and accuracy.
I hope the scientific minded among us can approach it with a scientific mind and scientific objectivity vs with RELIGIOUS FERVOR AND HOSTILITY.
This is a problem WITHIN SCIENCE.
It is NOT the problem of traditional religion.
It is a problem OF SCIENCE in that it is inherently rooted in the SCIENTIFIC ESTABLISHMENT.
Religion cannot mandate a fix for this problem.
Blaming religion will not fix this problem.
It is a SCIENTIFIC ESTABLISHMENT PROBLEM that requires that institution/set of institutions to fix it.
Trouble is, they are peopled by . . . uhhhh . . . people. Therefore, it is highly unlikely to ever be fixed in our lifetimes.
originally posted by: Chickensalad
Soooo
Isn't that actually a problem with the scientific method itself?
If the method can be tinkered with to produce a desired outcome, then how is the scientific method even sound?
originally posted by: boomstick88
As scientist, i can absolutely assure you that all research had been performed for "somebodys" money, oh well there are always agenda.....in todays world there are no place for Copernicus, Bruno and Tesla.......untill its not profitable of coarse. If you see a science paper published something about anything, agenda pushing.
Thank you
originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: TzarChasm
It's true but there are serious problems arising.
Like I posted from the nejm with conflicts of interest or the government studies on fabricating studies. It's not just some bad journalism it's actual evidence tampering especially in pharmaceutical companies. They even hire ghost writers to manipulate peoples opinions.
Science has a lot of ethical questions that are being left in answered and while it's not the fault of science this age of corruption has also significantly corrupted science standards as far as research studies.
Literally 1/3 of the expirements the retried in my article couldn't be reproduced and 1/2 of the studies were fabricated or had significant conflicts of interest
That is capitalism perverting science if you ask me. Sure it costs money but that doesn't mean standard and ethics go out the window.
It's possible 1/2 the pharmaceutical drugs in circulation had falsified trials.