ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2017 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Friday, February 21, 2014

Where science goes wrong

Coming Untrue helpfully provides a primer:
In case you’ve never thought it through, here’s a quick list of where the scientific method can go wrong, and these days, almost invariably does:

The hypothesis can be nonsense, wish fulfillment or fantasy.
  1. The “falsifiable prediction” or predictions may not be falsifiable. How, for instance, could one disprove the existence of God? It’s a classic case of a non-falsifiable prediction.
  2. The experimenter may stack the deck by faking results or discarding those that that don’t agree with his hypothesis.
  3. The experimenter may refuse to discard his theory no matter how much proof accrues against it, or may adopt it without legitimate evidence.
  4. At the peer review stage, the “scientist” may stack the deck by submitting only to those who already agree with his hypothesis and dismissing those who disagree as “deniers”, or refuse to show his results in full or at all in order to allow replication of his experiment.
 You may say, “Those things could never happen”. Except they do, on a regular basis.
It's very strange that it is those who criticize the misuse and abuse of science that are most often accused of being "anti-science". It's like complaining that the person who calls the paramedics when they see someone is injured are "anti-patient".

Labels:

114 Comments:

OpenID simplytimothy February 21, 2014 5:31 PM  

That blog is a treasure trove. Thanks for the link.

Anonymous Luke February 21, 2014 6:07 PM  

Semi-OT... Satphone or something claiming uber-high privacy (e.g., NSA-proof), called the Blackphone. Anyone know if this could be legit?

https://www.blackphone.ch/

Anonymous dh February 21, 2014 6:09 PM  

Luke, not a satphone, just a regular android device with closed source security upgrades.

Blogger Lud VanB February 21, 2014 6:09 PM  

So Vox, am I to understand that your main problem with science is that it is an imperfect means of establishing the truth of things that can be and often time is used by men of low moral fiber or even well meaning fools to advance their personal agenda?

Anonymous LL February 21, 2014 6:13 PM  

There is also this problem. So even if a scientist tries to base a study on previous results, the raw data is no longer available to verify, so he oe she has to take a previous study on "faith." Funny that.

Anonymous materialist February 21, 2014 6:15 PM  

science is the only means if true truthy truth

Anonymous jack February 21, 2014 6:17 PM  

@ dh February 21, 2014 6:09 PM

Luke, not a satphone, just a regular android device with closed source security upgrades.

I have heard of these. I need to check Denninger's Market Ticker site. I've come to trust his knowledge and opinion on devices computational and communication. If he says it's legit it probably is. Besides, I love his gentle prose and soft spoken way with the written word. [grins]

Anonymous jack February 21, 2014 6:19 PM  

@simplytimothy
Agreed. Took a quick glance there. I think I will be spending some time on his site.

Lord, I do like this site, the posts, commentators, and the information forthcoming. Talk about a treasure trove!

Anonymous Harold Carper February 21, 2014 6:20 PM  

I actually saw someone reply to a similar conversation lately, saying, "Why are you Westerners so hung up on the idea of 'falsifiability?' The rest of the world doesn't worry about that."

To the rest of the world: You're welcome.

Anonymous WaterBoy February 21, 2014 6:22 PM  

dh: "android device with closed source security upgrades"

Modified Android OS which is probably closed source. But the secure phone and secure text apps are open source and can be found out on the Web to compile for your own phone, now. Unfortunately, it seems to use their private VPN, which requires an additional subscription fee. That's fine if you have something you really need to protect, but it doesn't seem like it would work if the other end doesn't also employ it.

Anonymous VD February 21, 2014 6:28 PM  

So Vox, am I to understand that your main problem with science is that it is an imperfect means of establishing the truth of things that can be and often time is used by men of low moral fiber or even well meaning fools to advance their personal agenda?

My main problem with science is the false advertising. I have no objection to actual science, except sometimes with the nature of its funding. I object to what is very clearly not science being advertised as science.

Blogger Lud VanB February 21, 2014 6:40 PM  

"My main problem with science is the false advertising. I have no objection to actual science, except sometimes with the nature of its funding. I object to what is very clearly not science being advertised as science."

I agree 100%. Fortunately, actual science can usually be distinguished from junk science through all the false advertising with just a little work on one's part.

Anonymous Big Bill February 21, 2014 6:44 PM  

Another problem is the data mining of research for "good" (i.e. Progressive) results. If you create a Social Sciences questionnaire and it shows that blacks are worse than whites, just mention the white statistics. If you gather data on domestic assaults and find that lesbians are as violent as heteros, just report the white results. If you gather statistics on spousal murder and find that blacks kill their spouses at 3-5 times the rate of whites, just report the white statistics. And then don't share the raw data.

Probably the first major meta-analysis of some 50 previous smoking studies (ca. the late 70s) showed a statistically significant increase in disease for spouses of smokers who smoked a pack a day.

This was reported widely.

It also showed that smoking two packs a day actually reduced the risk to the side-smoking spouse.

This was not reported.

You can run an experiment to prove or disprove a general thesis such as "all men are ...". When the data does not show the results you are expecting, but it is true of a small subset of males (such as 15-24 year old males) you can write your research paper as though you INTENDED from the beginning to test a (negative) thesis about 15-24 year old males. That way you don't have to report the raw data that disproves your general thesis.

OpenID simplytimothy February 21, 2014 6:55 PM  

Luke, not a satphone, just a regular android device with closed source security upgrades.

Luke.....may the force be with you....

(sqkli prxqit trooki@!) <--R2D2 says hello.

Anonymous VD February 21, 2014 6:55 PM  

Fortunately, actual science can usually be distinguished from junk science through all the false advertising with just a little work on one's part.

True. The problem is all the scientists and science fetishists who insist otherwise and that it is too Science because Consensus.

Anonymous bob k. mando February 21, 2014 8:11 PM  

Lud VanB February 21, 2014 6:09 PM
used by men of low moral fiber or even well meaning fools to advance their personal agenda?




uh ... that's pretty much the human condition? called by Christians, "The Fallen Nature of Man"?

i also question your choice of adjectives. if they are doing something they think may not be correct 'to advance their personal agenda' that pretty much precludes 'well-meaning'.

Anonymous bob k. mando February 21, 2014 8:28 PM  

i'm so going to laugh my ass off if Rice pleads self defense:
http://baltimore.cbslocal.com/2014/02/19/shocking-video-of-ray-rice-incident-surfaces-online/


seriously, you're dating a professional football player and you think it's a good idea to *HIT* him? you are one stupid fucking cunt.

Blogger Glen Filthie February 21, 2014 8:38 PM  

Well Vox, you know as well as I what a complete fuck up the average human is. Back in the day Bible thumping holy rollers were on TV bilking mindless Christian zealots out of their life savings and then living it up on yachts and private islands with mansions.

Today, religion is no longer viable for stupid people so they flock to Warble Gloaming and prophets like Fat Al Gore and his elderly hippy disciples like David Suzuki.

Science is being abused by the same uneducable f-tards that used to abuse the faith. The result will be the same too - nobody will trust the real McCoy when they see it and the entire community will be discredited.

Anonymous Luke February 21, 2014 8:58 PM  

jack February 21, 2014 6:19 PM @simplytimothy
"Agreed. Took a quick glance there. I think I will be spending some time on his site.

Lord, I do like this site, the posts, commentators, and the information forthcoming. Talk about a treasure trove!"


You'd likely also love Taki's Magazine (a site), steyn.com, Vdare, lewrockwell, Roissy's site, and lagriffedulion then (I think they're invaluable).

Anonymous Black Hat SEO Tools February 21, 2014 9:49 PM  

great share, thank's for good job

Anonymous The Faithful Materialist February 21, 2014 9:58 PM  

It's a startling claim, that science sometimes gets it wrong or even is the subject of abuse or fraud within the scientific method. Startling I tell you!!

What's equally startling is the amount of knowledge that the scientific method and scientists have produced.

Saying that science can be abused or that there is abuse and fraud carried out in by scientists is no different than saying that there is abuse and fraud committed by law enforcement, religious institutions, in business, in politics, inside families. It's everywhere.

The point is interesting, but no more groundbreaking than proclaiming that knowledge accrues from science, family, religion, politics and business.

Perhaps the author at Coming Untrue will next regale us with tales of how waiting for the light to turn green before moving the car forward is prudent.

Blogger Paul, Dammit! February 21, 2014 10:43 PM  

Vox, each of these does show where the scientific method *can* be exploited or where in the case of #1, doesn't apply. #1 is a stretch because anything revealed via the scientific method must be tested by exposure to negative hypotheses- you have to try to disprove it, too.

The issue of repeatability mitigates all of these points. The fact that people are claiming that consensus has value is an exploit, not a feature. The Reproducibility Group has already shown that a significant portion of published research isn't repeatable, which makes it suspect at best. This self-policing shouldn't be necessary, but it is a very good thing. It does show the impact of bias. The scientific method isn't a primer to higher truth, but a stepping stone, nothing more, nothing less.

Conformation bias and taking emotional ownership of hypotheses gives us things like AGW theory, which should be a cautionary tale, but isn't, except to people with high standards. So too, with Journal Shopping, looking for a sympathetic ear. The wheels do turn slow, but they do turn.
I've had to sweat it out with a bunch of ivy league questioners at a presentation I gave at a conference years ago- they couldn't wrap their heads around the crude methods I was using to blow up nerve cells to cause them to have to regrow, and I ended up having to argue a point of minutia rather than defend my study... it worked, but killed any real questioning at that symposium. Thing is, for people with the time and money, there's a good market for publishing work that refutes the ideas of people you don't like. My boss at that time got into a fussing match with E.O. Wilson and got 5 years of grant money specifically to try to piss on his lawn. On the upside, this strengthened both of their arguments, and made for better science.

It's dead wrong, however, to say that fraud is everywhere, as you imply in your last sentence. This is not borne out in truth, and is logically unsound, as well as being manifestly unfair to the thousands of people who are doing a good and careful job.

Not to say there aren't terrible problems, along with the pervasive issue of fraudsters, politicians, social scientists, idiots and even people of only average intelligence hijacking or outright misapplying conclusive studies for their own ends. Being able to end-run good standards is a disgrace. Not having those standards at all is infinitely worse.

Blogger William Smith February 21, 2014 10:46 PM  

The Faithful Materialist,
There is a difference. People from the institutions you mentioned usually do not go around claiming to be the only source of epistemological certainty, human progress, and over all goodness and excellence. A number of very vocal self-proclaimed science lovers do claim such things. Robert Park, in his book Superstition, claims that scientific method is the only way to true knowledge. Sam Harris implies the same in The Moral Landscape. The list goes on. The point is that such obviously true things unknown to the public precisely because those who are "in the know" make outrageous claims for the pristine nature and supernatural infallibility of science.

Blogger Lud VanB February 21, 2014 11:02 PM  

"True. The problem is all the scientists and science fetishists who insist otherwise and that it is too Science because Consensus."

Science, like everything else that humans do, is done by humans. Can you name any human activity that is not subject to the very same failings you seem to hold adamantly against the scientific community?

Blogger Lud VanB February 21, 2014 11:05 PM  

"There is a difference. People from the institutions you mentioned usually do not go around claiming to be the only source of epistemological certainty, human progress, and over all goodness and excellence."

religion does that very thing continually and has been doing so for as long as can be remembered.

Anonymous Augustina February 21, 2014 11:15 PM  

"Fortunately, actual science can usually be distinguished from junk science through all the false advertising with just a little work on one's part."

Lud, if this is true, then why is so much junk being published in peer reviewed scientific journals? If it's so easy to spot, then highly regarded journals should not be so easy to fool. Yet they are taken in all the time.

Anonymous Y Not. February 22, 2014 12:35 AM  

**The “falsifiable prediction” or predictions may not be falsifiable. How, for instance, could one disprove the existence of God? It’s a classic case of a non-falsifiable prediction.**

A prediction that is not falsifiable is meaningless, and completely useless other than as some sort of justification for oppressing others. You can propose almost anything you like and give it qualities that make it non-falsifiable, such as an invisible pink unicorn that hates people with red hair. But unless you can show some difference that would necessarily exist in a world with an invisible pink unicorn vs a world without an invisible pink unicorn (in other words, your statement becomes falsifiable), you statement is meaningless, and useless other than as a justification for oppressing redhaired people. And then you can pretend to be an innocent little flower who is mystified as to why redhaired people and their friends constantly attack your pink unicorn theory.

Anonymous Y Not February 22, 2014 12:41 AM  

**So even if a scientist tries to base a study on previous results, the raw data is no longer available to verify, so he oe she has to take a previous study on "faith." Funny that.**

So, what you are claiming is that the universe has somehow inherently changed in the recent past, such that the laws of physics are different, and that experiments that were done in the past can't be repeated, and any objective records of them (such as chemicals made in the experiment or videotapes of the experiment being carried out are all missing?

Because THAT is what is claimed in regards to religion, but unless that is true in regards to science, past experiments most certainly do not have to be taken 'on faith'.

Anonymous Y Not February 22, 2014 12:44 AM  

Look, Ma! I dropped a weight off the Leaning Tower of Pisa, and it's FLOATING! I guess I'll have to take the results of past experiments in gravity on FAITH!! Because it's impossible to ever repeat past scientific experiments to verify them! Because Bible.

Blogger Lud VanB February 22, 2014 12:53 AM  

"Lud, if this is true, then why is so much junk being published in peer reviewed scientific journals? If it's so easy to spot, then highly regarded journals should not be so easy to fool. Yet they are taken in all the time."

Maybe if you would be so kind as to give me a number or a % so I could understand what exactly you mean by "so much junk being published in peer reviewed scientific journals"

Anonymous bob k. mando February 22, 2014 1:16 AM  

Lud VanB February 22, 2014 12:53 AM
Maybe if you would be so kind as to give me a number or a % so I could understand what exactly you mean by "so much junk being published in peer reviewed scientific journals"


47 of 53 medical studies impossible to replicate, Bayer does slightly better with reproduction of ~25% of results
http://voxday.blogspot.com/2013/10/science-has-lost-its-way.html


Nature notes that published malfeasance has increased by an order of magnitude
http://voxday.blogspot.com/2013/11/nature-on-science-fraud.html

Blogger Lud VanB February 22, 2014 1:23 AM  

"uh ... that's pretty much the human condition? called by Christians, "The Fallen Nature of Man"?"

When you say nature, what do you mean exactly? do you mean the essence of being human?

Anonymous kh123 February 22, 2014 1:38 AM  

"47 of 53 medical studies - published malfeasance has increased by an order of magnitude"

And watch as, once again, this will go conveniently unaddressed by Mr. Beethoven's corpse.

Anonymous kh123 February 22, 2014 1:55 AM  

"And on the 10 billionth day, Science brought forth a tree in the garden, and the butterfly collectors saw it, and called this tree cladistics. And they saw that its branches gave forth many results, some convenient, others contradictory. And they saw that ancestry nor descent were necessarily implied by - or even relevant to - this tree of life. And lo, they saw that the tree was pleasing to the eyes, and good for fudge."

~ The Book of Amazingly Accurate Results; 3:5

Anonymous VryeDenker February 22, 2014 2:27 AM  

One of the greatest pieces of wisdom a man can learn is that the most beautiful and exquisite set of laws and regulations will mean shit if they aren't actually adhered to.

Anonymous The Faithful Materialist February 22, 2014 2:36 AM  

"Because THAT is what is claimed in regards to religion, but unless that is true in regards to science, past experiments most certainly do not have to be taken 'on faith'."

This should go without saying, but I guess it needs to be said occasionally. But, it's not the point.

The real point is that a system that provides truth, religion's truth bounty is fairly sparse and of not much value. The truths associated with religion are scarce: There is a god, they want x, y and z. Don't do x,y and z and you won't be in god's presence when you die. Even if you were to grant this, it doesn't help much when your daughter or son is threatened with a disease or if you house is burning or if you want to fly to the moon or if you want to splice the gene or....well, in the case of science, the list goes on and on. With religion, the case is list is pretty darned short.

Anonymous VanDerMerwe February 22, 2014 2:42 AM  

"Saying that science can be abused or that there is abuse and fraud carried out in by scientists is no different than saying that there is abuse and fraud committed by law enforcement, religious institutions, in business, in politics, inside families. It's everywhere."

The problem is that scientific findings are always tentative and probabilistic. They're often later disproved or drastically modified even when the investigations which led to their discovery followed the leading science of the day. However scientific findings are held up as a more accurate truth by mostly non-scientist science fetishists such as many we have on this forum. The of course these findings are used with ideological non-scientific import to bolster other ideological ways of thinking, you know the way science is abused by science fetishists. What you people do, namely mostly ideological bigoted atheists in abusing science, is that you further erode scientific credibility by hijacking the thing for yourselves. This leads to unnecessary and silly conflicts. And you guys are mostly to blame.

Anonymous George of the Jungle February 22, 2014 2:44 AM  

VD: Why doesn't your comments application accept comments posted via anyonymous browsers such as Tor? Please note that the comments themselves are not anonymous, i.e., in my case I provide a profile name.

In these days of government tyranny and their associated snooping and profiling, you should allow your commenters to engage in as much protection as possible.

Anonymous VanDerMerwe February 22, 2014 2:45 AM  

"Don't do x,y and z and you won't be in god's presence when you die. Even if you were to grant this, it doesn't help much when your daughter or son is threatened with a disease or if you house is burning or if you want to fly to the moon or if you want to splice the gene or....well, in the case of science, the list goes on and on. With religion, the case is list is pretty darned short."

It's crazy I know but Christianity has a philosophical underpinning which also goes hand in hand with scientific inquiry.

Blogger Lud VanB February 22, 2014 3:32 AM  

"And watch as, once again, this will go conveniently unaddressed by Mr. Beethoven's corpse."

I asked a question and it was answered to my satisfaction.

Anonymous kh123 February 22, 2014 3:43 AM  

Aye your highness, that it was.

Anonymous VD February 22, 2014 4:09 AM  

VD: Why doesn't your comments application accept comments posted via anyonymous browsers such as Tor? Please note that the comments themselves are not anonymous, i.e., in my case I provide a profile name.

No idea. Not under my control.

Blogger JP February 22, 2014 5:20 AM  

Scientists are human, just like us. If someone waves a big wad of cash in their face and demands that they come to a certain conclusion, they are no more or less likely to comply than doctors, auto technicians, lawyers, insurance assessors or art appreciators.

And as was demonstrated by the SFWA, if a sufficient number of similar-minded and vengeful people take over an organization, they can and will silence all dissent.

It's human nature.

Blogger IM2L844 February 22, 2014 6:33 AM  

Even if you were to grant this, it doesn't help much...

Some value systems are less prescient than others. Time preferences and methods of prioritization always have consequences.

OpenID simplytimothy February 22, 2014 6:42 AM  

The real point is that a system that provides truth, religion's truth bounty is fairly sparse and of not much value. The truths associated with religion are scarce: There is a god, they want x, y and z. Don't do x,y and z and you won't be in god's presence when you die. Even if you were to grant this, it doesn't help much when your daughter or son is threatened with a disease or if you house is burning or if you want to fly to the moon or if you want to splice the gene or....well, in the case of science, the list goes on and on. With religion, the case is list is pretty darned short.

I am curious to your opinion of religious people who do good science. Do you agree that such scientists have existed and do exist?
Do you think them mad? Misguided? incomplete scientists? flawed? exemplary?

Anonymous bob k. mando February 22, 2014 8:22 AM  

Lud VanB February 22, 2014 3:32 AM
I asked a question and it was answered to my satisfaction.




and?

now that you're aware of the scientifically proven fact that 'scientific research' is rife with fraud, have you any thoughts on the implications? especially for fetishists in intellectual gimp suits like Y Not?




Lud VanB February 22, 2014 1:23 AM
When you say nature, what do you mean exactly? do you mean the essence of being human?



English, mofo, do you speak it?

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/nature?s=t
8-11+17

Anonymous Not Y February 22, 2014 9:42 AM  

What do you mean by this? You are attacking science by questioning its faithful practitioners! Well, science is still better than religion, so your observation that many scientists are dishonest or irrational is both invalid and meaningless! Because gravity.

Anonymous The Faithful Materialist February 22, 2014 10:03 AM  

"I am curious to your opinion of religious people who do good science. Do you agree that such scientists have existed and do exist?
Do you think them mad? Misguided? incomplete scientists? flawed? exemplary? "

It's always seemed an odd claim that some huge percentage of scientists are atheists or agnostic. You hear this now and again. Given the very small percentage of atheists, agnostic, etc, it seems unlikely that such a huge percentage of sceintists would hold these beliefs.

Anyway, as for the religious scientists, I'm sure they are just good at compartmentalizing.

OpenID simplytimothy February 22, 2014 10:31 AM  

Anyway, as for the religious scientists, I'm sure they are just good at compartmentalizing.

Are you aware of any? Have you met any?

If so, are they any good at science itself or are they just good at compartmentalizing to the detriment of their scientific abilities?


Anonymous The Faithful Materialist February 22, 2014 11:01 AM  

"If so, are they any good at science itself or are they just good at compartmentalizing to the detriment of their scientific abilities?"

I have an older second cousin who was a contractor to the CDC and did scientific research into communicable disease. He is a religious man and a good researcher.

He was a good scientist and likely a very good compartmentalizer. But this doesn't matter I don't think. Religion, faith and scripture has very little to offer the scientific endeavor. So, you don't combine them. Im not even sure how you would.

Anonymous bob k. mando February 22, 2014 11:04 AM  

simplytimothy February 22, 2014 10:31 AM
Are you aware of any? Have you met any?



*poke, poke*

ask him if he's ever heard of the psychological term, "projection".

there could, of course, be no correlation between the advent of large numbers of agnostic/atheist faithful to materialism into the scientific fields and the corresponding increase in rates of published fraud that Nature had found.

Anonymous The Faithful Materialist February 22, 2014 11:11 AM  

"there could, of course, be no correlation between the advent of large numbers of agnostic/atheist faithful to materialism into the scientific fields and the corresponding increase in rates of published fraud that Nature had found."

That's possible. It's equally possible that there is a direct connection between publishing fraud and the fraudsters being religious.

Seems as unlikely as a connection between atheists and fraud, but that's the point isn't it.

Anonymous bob k. mando February 22, 2014 11:50 AM  

The Faithful Materialist February 22, 2014 11:11 AM
It's equally possible that there is a direct connection between publishing fraud and the fraudsters being religious.




oh, sure. every single one of the fraudsters COULD BE Bible thumping Christians.

MAYBE the christ-tards are panicking at being driven out of the research fields and are trying to bolster their positions with fraudulent papers?

that's a perfectly 'plausible' hypothesis.

now, don't you go and do anything silly ... like trying to research the religious beliefs of the paper writers in question ...

OpenID simplytimothy February 22, 2014 12:06 PM  

Religion, faith and scripture has very little to offer the scientific endeavor. So, you don't combine them. Im not even sure how you would.

I agree.

It is the wholesale rejection of religious thought by irreligious men that I find puzzling.

You yourself admit that faith is not an impediment to wielding reason as you have observed scientific competency by your cousin.

You mention compartmentalization--do you mean by this that your cousin manages to put aside his self delusion for a bit while doing his job? or do you mean something different?

Anonymous Not Y February 22, 2014 12:22 PM  

Religion, faith and scripture has very little to offer the scientific endeavor.

That's right! One's worldview has absolutely no correlation with how he/she/it approaches the question of whether reality is objective or subjective and whether he/she/it should be honest about his/her/its findings!

The fact that the Christian West has been the historical leader in scientific advancement is completely coincidental. Because Bible.

Blogger Larry February 22, 2014 12:27 PM  

It is a shame you can't have an intelligent conversation about science with atheists or agnostics without them bringing religion into it.

Anonymous Not Y February 22, 2014 12:54 PM  

It is a shame you can't have an intelligent conversation about science with atheists or agnostics without them bringing religion into it.

Deus delenda est! Because gravity.

Anonymous The Faithful Materialist February 22, 2014 1:28 PM  

Timothy,

I mean that while his faith is an important element in his life and guides him, I don't think it has anything to offer him that will help him in his investigations or anAlyses...so, they are separate realms.

Blogger RobertT February 22, 2014 1:40 PM  

So, as practiced, the scientific method is an effluvious bouquet. OK. I can accept that.

Blogger Lud VanB February 22, 2014 2:12 PM  

"English, mofo, do you speak it?"

I do which is why the term fallen nature of man makes no sense because nowhere in the story of Adam does it say that his nature became altered from its original inception. After eating the fruit, its not the nature of man that changed...just his living condition and the geographic location where that living takes place.

Blogger Lud VanB February 22, 2014 2:25 PM  

"It is the wholesale rejection of religious thought by irreligious men that I find puzzling."

Well I for one don't reject religious thoughts per say but I do reject unsubstantiated or illogical ideas like magic creation, fallen nature, sin, global floods or resurrections.

Blogger Lud VanB February 22, 2014 2:33 PM  

"now that you're aware of the scientifically proven fact that 'scientific research' is rife with fraud, have you any thoughts on the implications? especially for fetishists in intellectual gimp suits like Y Not?"

assuming those figures are accurate, the implications are troubling although not necessarily all that surprising. the popular things are often the most prone to misuse...religion is a perfect example of that. That being said, my original point stands...all that's required to distinguish the good from the junk in science is to read beyond the headline.

OpenID simplytimothy February 22, 2014 2:34 PM  

@The Faithful Materialist.

Thank you. Some would call your cousin "barking mad" ; I was curious if you where of that sort. You are not.

OpenID simplytimothy February 22, 2014 2:48 PM  

Well I for one don't reject religious thoughts per say but I do reject unsubstantiated or illogical ideas like magic creation, fallen nature, sin, global floods or resurrections.

What sort of religious ideas do you not reject?

Anonymous kh123 February 22, 2014 4:10 PM  

"the popular things are often the most prone to misuse...religion is.."

Does your monomania about religion get in the way of your work at the geochem lab, Lud.

Blogger Lud VanB February 22, 2014 4:43 PM  

"What sort of religious ideas do you not reject? "

Meaning and purpose. Both are very religious ideas or rather I d call them spiritual ideas...and yes they are also unsubstantiated to a very high degree but they are actually not contradicted by any known observable facts. And so I don't have any problem with them.

Blogger Lud VanB February 22, 2014 4:43 PM  

"Does your monomania about religion get in the way of your work at the geochem lab, Lud."

not really

Anonymous bob k. mando February 22, 2014 5:20 PM  

Lud VanB February 22, 2014 2:33 PM
all that's required to distinguish the good from the junk in science is to read beyond the headline.




which is why so much PUBLISHED RESEARCH has turned out to be fraudulent and unreproducible?



Lud VanB February 22, 2014 2:33 PM
assuming those figures are accurate,


i suggest you direct your skepticism to 'the international journal of science' ( Nature; http://www.nature.com/ ) and the medical research companies in question.



Lud VanB February 22, 2014 2:12 PM
its not the nature of man that changed...just his living condition and the geographic location where that living takes place.


the text states directly the opposite. you may assert that the curses which God placed upon Eve and Adam did not affect their fundamental nature ... you cannot deny that the eating of the fruit is asserted to have done so:
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+3%3A22&version=KJV
...Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil...

Anonymous damntull February 22, 2014 5:20 PM  

@Lud VanB
To say that the notion of man's "fallen nature" is unsubstantiated or illogical is the height of cluelessness. Just look around you (or in the mirror for that manner) to see the dysfunction.

Blogger Lud VanB February 22, 2014 5:57 PM  

"which is why so much PUBLISHED RESEARCH has turned out to be fraudulent and unreproducible?"

isent that something you need to take up with the publisher?

Blogger Lud VanB February 22, 2014 6:01 PM  

"i suggest you direct your skepticism to 'the international journal of science' ( Nature; http://www.nature.com/ ) and the medical research companies in question."

I suggest you direct your attention to the inherent contradiction in using the findings of a scientific publication that proves the unreliability of scientific publications

Blogger Lud VanB February 22, 2014 6:11 PM  

"To say that the notion of man's "fallen nature" is unsubstantiated or illogical is the height of cluelessness. Just look around you (or in the mirror for that manner) to see the dysfunction."

actually the height of cluelessness is to use the observed world to illustrate its inherent dysfunction to which you claim it fell without first demonstrating that the ideal against which you are comparing the world is really other than a figment of your imagination.

Blogger Lud VanB February 22, 2014 6:29 PM  

"the text states directly the opposite. you may assert that the curses which God placed upon Eve and Adam did not affect their fundamental nature ... you cannot deny that the eating of the fruit is asserted to have done so:
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+3%3A22&version=KJV
...Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil..."


What you fail to understand is that the story of Adam and Eve is actually an allegory of the passage from innocence to responsibility. Eden is the parental home. Adam and Eve are the children. The fruit of the tree of knowledge is sexual copulation mixed with the understanding that one day your life will come to an end which is the reason to have children to begin with (its worth noting that this is further evidenced by the fact that throughout the bible, to know is the term that is used to mean having sex.) The serpent is the curiosity inherent to all children. The tree of eternal life to which their access is barred once they ate the fruit of the other tree is the impossibility to return to innocence once responsibility is attained. And God's "judgement" is the consequence of acting in the world. Adam and Eve chose to end their childhood and became adults and eventually parents. Adam is now required to work to sustain his new family. Eve will now experience what it is to have children of her own, birthing pain and all. And the serpent, the childish curiosity, must now be tampered with wisdom, lest it leads the new adults to their doom as a result of carelessness and as such is now to be kept at bay. And the adults are now required to leave the parental home (Eden) in order to lead their new existence of responsibility. And they can never go back to that time of innocence. The idea that this story represents some curse on humanity is mind bogglingly silly when you think about it.

Anonymous Loki Sjalfsainn February 22, 2014 7:28 PM  

its worth noting that this is further evidenced by the fact that throughout the bible, to know is the term that is used to mean having sex

((It's worth nothing that out of all the meanings of that word, you picked "have relations", particularly as the context of the word does not support that particular translation.

((But you probably giggle every time someone mentions verb "conjugations", too, so it stands to reason your linguistic skills are lacking.))

Anonymous damntull February 22, 2014 7:44 PM  

@LudVanB
The fact that we can identify it as dysfunction presupposes a proper function, idiot. Try to figure out the rest.

Anonymous The Ghost of Charles Lyell, ca. 1 Million BC February 22, 2014 7:55 PM  

I choose you, Pikachu... I mean, B Van Lud.

Anonymous kh123 February 22, 2014 7:58 PM  

I would also suggest Lud that you direct your attention to the inherent contradiction in using the writings of scripture to prove the unreliability of scripture.

Where is Idle to commence the healing.

Anonymous kh123 February 22, 2014 8:00 PM  

"actually the height of cluelessness is to use the observed world to illustrate its inherent dysfunction to which you claim it fell without first demonstrating that the ideal against which you are comparing the world is really other than a figment of your imagination."

Is the appendix vestigial. Is there DNA that is junk.

Anonymous buy-bull-is-lies February 22, 2014 8:54 PM  

Bill Maher speaks truth to power...

"The reason so many Americans, for example, think climate change is a hoax is that their only source for science news is Glenn Beck, Fox and Matt Drudge, the cracker trifecta."

Blogger Lud VanB February 22, 2014 9:11 PM  

"The fact that we can identify it as dysfunction presupposes a proper function, idiot. Try to figure out the rest."

you presuppose that the world should be operating in a way completely different than what is observed today and you use that presupposition as the basis of your claim that the world is dysfunctional...am I reading this correctly?

Blogger Lud VanB February 22, 2014 9:13 PM  

"I would also suggest Lud that you direct your attention to the inherent contradiction in using the writings of scripture to prove the unreliability of scripture."

I use observable reality to illustrate the bible's unreliability in many of its claims about observable reality.

Anonymous Loki Sjalfsainn February 22, 2014 10:57 PM  

I use observable reality to illustrate the bible's unreliability in many of its claims about observable reality.

((The observable reality is that you have no idea what you're talking about when it comes to the Bible, and reach for the most exotic possible explanation where the straightforward interpretation does not match your personal biases, e.g. your eisegesis of Gen. 3:5 upthread.

((Rather like the average scientist, in point of fact, so this does not come as a surprise.))

Blogger Lud VanB February 22, 2014 11:23 PM  

"((It's worth nothing that out of all the meanings of that word, you picked "have relations", particularly as the context of the word does not support that particular translation."

the context of the story actually does support this interpretation. we are talking about a naked couple in a very intimate setting so the sexual angle here is very much implied.

Blogger Lud VanB February 22, 2014 11:27 PM  

"The observable reality is that you have no idea what you're talking about when it comes to the Bible, and reach for the most exotic possible explanation where the straightforward interpretation does not match your personal biases, e.g. your eisegesis of Gen. 3:5 upthread."


the straightforward interpretation of the Adam story is that the world was magically summoned out of nothing 6000 years ago, that man was constructed from mud, that woman was constructed for rib, that snakes and humans have verbal conversations, that fruits transfer knowledge from the mouth to the brain...so find me a parallel to any of that in observable reality and we ll have something to talk about...otherwise don't want my time.

Anonymous kh123 February 23, 2014 2:49 AM  

"I use observable reality to illustrate the bible's unreliability in many of its claims about observable reality."

That's a neat trick. I'll remember to close my eyes extra tight as well next time something becomes even remotely difficult to parse.

Anonymous kh123 February 23, 2014 2:52 AM  

"so find me a parallel to any of that in observable reality and we ll have something to talk about."

Urslime and cladograms. Surely these are observable. Or at the very least, just as fantastical. Now let's discuss.

"otherwise don't want my time."

Fairly sure no one requested it; you're the repeat visitor after all.

Anonymous kh123 February 23, 2014 2:56 AM  

Bill Maher speaks so much true truthy truth it almost masks the fact that he's a failed actor trying to ride the Grodin ticket.

Blogger Lud VanB February 23, 2014 7:52 AM  

"That's a neat trick. I'll remember to close my eyes extra tight as well next time something becomes even remotely difficult to parse."


Allow me to give you an example then...Mt Everest is 29 000 feet at its peak...in order to cover that with water, you would need 3 times the amount of water that can be found on the entire earth, ice poles included.

OpenID simplytimothy February 23, 2014 8:07 AM  

the straightforward interpretation of the Adam story is that the world was magically summoned out of nothing 6000 years ago, that man was constructed from mud, that woman was constructed for rib, that snakes and humans have verbal conversations, that fruits transfer knowledge from the mouth to the brain...

Yes. There are Christians (who I disagree with) that insist on that interpretation--Tim Ham (A wonderful man, btw) is one. He is the guy who just "debated" Bill Nye the propaganda guy.

I am aware of two more interpretations, there may be others. There are heated differences in opinion among Christians about the faith.

It is an error to think that one "deduces, infers or constructs" ones faith. After one has faith, deducing, inferring and what not happen all the time, but they are very different things.

I think a big problem for you unbelievers is the rationality, intelligence, sanity and happiness of many believers--The Faithful Materialist's cousin for example--Vox for another. These people are not nuts, not crazy are intelligent are successful and still have faith.

Because of your sinful nature you cannot see what they see and yet there they are.

OpenID simplytimothy February 23, 2014 8:12 AM  

Speaking of Genesis interpretations, is anybody familiar with the superfetation interpretation of the fall?


I find it compelling but have not studied it in depth.

Anonymous damntull February 23, 2014 10:56 AM  

@Lud Van Dolt
"you presuppose that the world should be operating in a way completely different than what is observed today and you use that presupposition as the basis of your claim that the world is dysfunctional...am I reading this correctly?"

When a pedophile priest abuses a young child, I identify that as an example of dysfunction. Do you disagree, asshat?

Anonymous bob k. mando February 23, 2014 11:09 AM  

Lud VanB February 22, 2014 6:29 PM
What you fail to understand ...



so ... all this blathering, inane stupidity on your part is merely to avoid admitting that the text of the Bible directly asserts that the fundamental nature of man was changed?

duly noted.



Lud VanB February 22, 2014 9:11 PM
use that presupposition as the basis of your claim that the world is dysfunctional...am I reading this correctly?



in which Lud expresses amazement that any part of a world in which mass murderers like Mao, Stalin and Hitler can exist is in any way "dysfunctional".




Lud VanB February 22, 2014 5:57 PM
isent that something you need to take up with the publisher?



you mean, the publisher using peer review and "all that's required to distinguish the good from the junk in science is to read beyond the headline" is not sufficient to determine real science after all?

amazing.



i'd also like to point out some things that Lud has asserted earlier:
a - he asserts that he works in a geochem lab

b - Lud VanB February 22, 2014 2:33 PM
assuming those figures are accurate, the implications are troubling although not necessarily all that surprising.



if i were a research scientist, indications that fraud and malfeasance had exceeded 5% of published papers would be extremely disturbing to me. simply on the basis that MY WORK and reputation is being slandered by association.

Lud's response to reports of +75% fraud? he's remarkably sanguine about that ( except for where he tries to shift blame onto the chrazy christians for even noticing ), don't you think?



Lud VanB February 21, 2014 11:02 PM
Can you name any human activity that is not subject to the very same failings you seem to hold adamantly against the scientific community?



the problem is not that WE hold these things 'against the scientific community'. that is a precise inversion of the problem.

to whit; the scientific community seeks to specifically exclude itself from being held to account for these behaviors. THIS is the problem.

Anonymous bob k. mando February 23, 2014 11:31 AM  

Loki Sjalfsainn February 22, 2014 7:28 PM
((It's worth nothing that out of all the meanings of that word, you picked "have relations", particularly as the context of the word does not support that particular translation.



far be it from me to presume to instruct the Trickster God on his own paradigm ... but shouldn't you just be telling him that he is evolutionarily predisposed to kneeling to his superiors?


also, to see some others ( French .mil ) who have responded in exactly the same way as modern scientists to critique watch these movies:
The Life of Emile Zola ( culminates with the Dreyfuss Affair )
Paths of Glory ( WW1 )

Blogger Lud VanB February 23, 2014 2:25 PM  

"When a pedophile priest abuses a young child, I identify that as an example of dysfunction. Do you disagree, asshat?"

only to the degree of comparing this behavior to that of what we personally believe the behavior of a priest should be based on our own preferences. But to go from that to "the world used to be a place where such things could not physically occur until Adam ate the fruit" is to jump squarely into the realm of wishful make believe.

Blogger Lud VanB February 23, 2014 2:32 PM  

"so ... all this blathering, inane stupidity on your part is merely to avoid admitting that the text of the Bible directly asserts that the fundamental nature of man was changed?"

No it doesnt...i pointed out that its an allegory because it is but even if you go by the strictest literal interpretation of the story of Adam and Eve, the only things that changes after their ingesting the fruit is an aquisition of new knowledge, their respective living conditions, and the geographic location where that living is to take place. I would even go one further and say that the story stipulates that God took steps to make sure their nature did not in fact undergo any change in making sure that they could not become immortals by eating the fruit from the other forbidden tree as immortality would have been a fundamental change in the nature of a mortal.

Blogger Lud VanB February 23, 2014 2:38 PM  

"I think a big problem for you unbelievers is the rationality, intelligence, sanity and happiness of many believers--The Faithful Materialist's cousin for example--Vox for another. These people are not nuts, not crazy are intelligent are successful and still have faith."

Isaac Newton was a very successful man who first elaborated the principles of gravity...he was also a staunch believer in alchemy. I have no doubt that it is possible to be successful and still believe silly things...people do it every day...and i do not have a sinful nature for the reason that sin is something that cannot exist. Its not possible for a non-omnipotent entity to thwart the will of an omnipotent entity in anyway shape or form.

Blogger Lud VanB February 23, 2014 2:40 PM  

"the problem is not that WE hold these things 'against the scientific community'. that is a precise inversion of the problem.
to whit; the scientific community seeks to specifically exclude itself from being held to account for these behaviors. THIS is the problem."

If that was really the case that they wish to hold themselves beyond account, they are doing a very bad job of it since it was the scientific community itself that brought these problems to the worlds attention.

Blogger Lud VanB February 23, 2014 2:42 PM  

"in which Lud expresses amazement that any part of a world in which mass murderers like Mao, Stalin and Hitler can exist is in any way "dysfunctional"."

Do you believe that death is dysfunctional? that it was not part of the original design?

Anonymous bob k. mando February 23, 2014 3:13 PM  

Lud VanB February 23, 2014 2:42 PM
Do you believe that death is dysfunctional? that it was not part of the original design?



1 - 'design' is a creationist paradigm. you don't get to use it unless you stipulate to the rest of the creationist prerequisites. by your paradigm, death is either accidental OR a means of furthering evolutionary success.

2 - don't think for a moment that it has escaped my attention that you have completely abandoned the field vis-a-vis "scientific" malfeasance

3 - you have reduced yourself to defending genocide.

you are beyond parody.

i think i'm done here.

Anonymous kh123 February 23, 2014 3:34 PM  

"Allow me to give you an example then...Mt Everest is 29 000 feet at its peak...in order to cover that with water..."

To take a page from Nate's book:

BWAHAHAHAHAHA.

And now from Markku's:

Would you agree that tectonic uplift is a very real phenomenon.

Anonymous kh123 February 23, 2014 3:55 PM  

"only to the degree of comparing this behavior to that of what we personally believe the behavior of a priest should be based on our own preferences."

So you're cool with this so long as it was done by a devotee of Ba'al who's also part time NAMBLA. Because Urslime.

Blogger Feather Blade February 23, 2014 4:14 PM  

bob k. mando February 23, 2014 11:31 AM

Loki Sjalfsainn February 22, 2014 7:28 PM
((It's worth nothing that out of all the meanings of that word, you picked "have relations", particularly as the context of the word does not support that particular translation.


far be it from me to presume to instruct the Trickster God on his own paradigm ... but shouldn't you just be telling him that he is evolutionarily predisposed to kneeling to his superiors?


The doubled parentheses indicate that he is responding to the post out-of-character.

Anonymous damntull February 23, 2014 5:29 PM  

@LudVanB

"only to the degree of comparing this behavior to that of what we personally believe the behavior of a priest should be based on our own preferences"

The actions of the pedophile are contrary to the good of the child, and those can be determined by objective measures. Your view that goods are just subjective preferences are morally repugnant and provide ample ammunition for those who say that atheism = moral nihilism.

From this point forward, every time you make a moral claim, I will simply dismiss what you say as a statement of your irrelevant personal preferences.

OpenID simplytimothy February 23, 2014 5:45 PM  

and i do not have a sinful nature for the reason that sin is something that cannot exist. Its not possible for a non-omnipotent entity to thwart the will of an omnipotent entity in anyway shape or form.

This is your version of the Problem of Evil--simply stated it is a not possible that an omniscient benevolent God would create a world where you would be born, suffer, be tortured, die a slow painful agonizing death and after all that spend eternity in hell. The problem is that scripture tells us that He did create the world with full fore-knowledge and that it suited His purposes (I don't have the verse handy).

The natural human response to this is revulsion--I used to share it. Because of your sinful nature (you do know the difference between Sin and sins, yes?) you think the moral universe revolves around your sense of right and wrong and you rebel against the idea--that is to be expected--you are dust and to dust you will return. But, then something happened about 2K years ago ....

See Lud, you have a problem. Every Christian on this blog has been what you are at one time and then has turned into something else. They have been there done that. They don't pretend, they don't fake it and they do not lie. They are not stupid, they are rational and in many ways more fully human than you are. They are that way because they approached God and God answered.

Blogger Lud VanB February 24, 2014 3:32 AM  

"1 - 'design' is a creationist paradigm. you don't get to use it unless you stipulate to the rest of the creationist prerequisites. by your paradigm, death is either accidental OR a means of furthering evolutionary success."

Well since i m addressing a creationist, i am using lingo that is appropriate to the discussion. I would also point out that i m not required to check my choice of vocabulary with you so any further whining on your part to that effect can be directed to my complaints dept...the phone number being 1 800 PISS OFF...its open 24/7 for your convenience.

"1 - 'design' is a creationist paradigm. you don't get to use it unless you stipulate to the rest of the creationist prerequisites. by your paradigm, death is either accidental OR a means of furthering evolutionary success."

then it seems obvious that your attention is centered squarely on the figments of your imagination because i did nothing of the sort. I still maintain that junk science is very much identifiable with a little work and the only point you have made so far is that the average person seems unwilling to put in this effort.

"3 - you have reduced yourself to defending genocide."

so now you are accusing me of defending genocides because i dont believe their absence is a necessary requirement for the world to be function. yes, you are made of stupid.

i know i m done with you

Blogger Lud VanB February 24, 2014 3:54 AM  

"Would you agree that tectonic uplift is a very real phenomenon."

they are and i m familiar with their function in this regard. it is for this reason that i know that they dont create mountain ranges at running speed. the Himalayas mountain range began forming between 70 and 50 million years ago. Mt Everest's yearly rise has been calculated at about 4 mm...it now stands at 8848 meters above sea level. this means that 4600 years ago, it would have been a whopping 19 meters shorter than it is today...i ll leave you to do the math of the required volume of water needed to cover a 8839 m high mountain by 15 cubits.

Anonymous kh123 February 24, 2014 2:17 PM  

In other words, both you and I agree that the past... was appreciably different than the present.

But... I thought the present was the key to the past.

Oh, the paradox. You geochem kids be so deep.

Blogger Lud VanB February 24, 2014 7:36 PM  

"In other words, both you and I agree that the past... was appreciably different than the present.

But... I thought the present was the key to the past.

Oh, the paradox. You geochem kids be so deep. "

The present is the key to the past in terms that the laws of nature operate much the same way now that they did back then. This is what allows us to project images of the past even though no humans were present at the time

Anonymous kh123 February 24, 2014 10:20 PM  

Well here, let me spell it out for you a bit more slowly, since all of that geochem work is apparently occupying your higher faculties at the moment:

Even if you don't agree with or are even able to caricaturize it properly, the flood concept would state that the Himalayas - wait for it - weren't as high then as they were today. So when you state "But the water would have to exceed a height of...", you come across as not even being on the Hovind-bashing level of science fetishist.

It would be similar to me stating that Darwinism is dumb because there's no way you could go from a tetrapodomorph to a fully terrestrial organism during the time of the patriarchs, (+/-10k y). I may not believe the model, but I can at least grasp what its claimed key components are before critiquing it.

You've got several other questions to field, btw.

Blogger Lud VanB February 25, 2014 8:43 PM  

"Even if you don't agree with or are even able to caricaturize it properly, the flood concept would state that the Himalayas - wait for it - weren't as high then as they were today. So when you state "But the water would have to exceed a height of...", you come across as not even being on the Hovind-bashing level of science fetishist."

But the Himalayas were not as high 4600 years ago...they were 20 meters shorter. But their presence at heights that make it impossible for their highest peak (or even their lowest one for that matter) to be covered by the body of water present on earth by 15 cubits is...wait for it...an indisputable fact of earth geology. And the reason for this is very simple...when tectonic plates, moving at about 15 centimeters per year slam into each other, they create earthquakes that have the potential to kill thousands. the order of magnitude of the energy released by a force necessary to cause the Himalayas to form at tens of thousands times their known speed of formation would have been enough to blow a hole in the earth 3 times the size of the moon and that would have reached all the way to the core. Is there currently a 3 times moon sized hole in the earth at the site of the Himalayas?

Anonymous Trik Mudah Desain SEO panduan terpadu blogs March 30, 2014 2:39 AM  

great share, thank's for good job....

Anonymous Cara Cepat dan Mudah Mendapatkan PageRank di Google April 11, 2014 9:53 AM  


article highly qualified friend .., thanks for sharing information, if interested please visit my blogs there is a lot of articles that may be read friend, Main thing is that you need to seo work If do seo for my blog http://variasiblogger.blogspot.com/ as my blog have 2000+ visitor and I want 15000

Anonymous wisata indonesia June 26, 2014 10:18 AM  

Science is never wrong, but always updated
Wisata Indonesia
spare part forklift
spare part alat berat
ban forklift
ban forklift

Anonymous wisata indonesia June 26, 2014 10:19 AM  

Science is never wrong, but always updated
Wisata Indonesia
spare part forklift
spare part alat berat
ban forklift
ban forklift

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts