Customer Discussions > religion discussion forum

How much of science is truth?


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-25 of 125 posts in this discussion
Initial post: 17 Jun 2013 09:15:04 BDT
DB says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 17 Jun 2013 09:44:13 BDT
Drew Jones says:
Do you know how you catch out dodgy scientists? More science.

In reply to an earlier post on 17 Jun 2013 10:07:22 BDT
C. A. Small says:
Do you know how you catch dodgy theists out? More science.

In reply to an earlier post on 17 Jun 2013 12:05:26 BDT
Do you know how these dodgy scientists were caught? More science.

In reply to an earlier post on 17 Jun 2013 14:41:23 BDT
Henry James says:
76%

In reply to an earlier post on 17 Jun 2013 15:52:37 BDT
Ian says:
So evidence of wrong-doers being caught and dealt with followed by precautions to prevent further wrong-doing is:

A. A good thing which should inspire confidence in the institution?
B. A bad thing; it would be better if they covered up the wrong-doing and lied about it?

In reply to an earlier post on 17 Jun 2013 16:04:15 BDT
Spin says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 17 Jun 2013 16:05:13 BDT
Henry James says:
You mean that, unlike in every other domain of life where people are unfailingly honest,
that some scientists CHEAT!!!
I am shocked, shocked!

In reply to an earlier post on 17 Jun 2013 16:19:50 BDT
Bellatori says:
"in the late 1990s, when Andrew Wakefield notoriously claimed that the MMR vaccine caused autism in children"

Do you know what was the worst thing about this 'scam'. The newspapers ignored all the warnings about the quality of the work and bigged it up. Then everybody with an autistic child jumped on the bandwagon even though the main science body were pointing out within weeks that there were problems with his work. It took years with the whole science and medical community pointing out that his work was bogus and even then parents still would not get their children immunised.

Ask yourself, Diane, why did all those parents of autistic children think they were doing by claiming falsely that the MMR had harmed their child? They were paraded on TV and caused even more parents not to get their children immunised. In their need to find someone/something to blame those parents of autistic children managed to get other children damaged and killed by measles.

In reply to an earlier post on 17 Jun 2013 16:30:07 BDT
Last edited by the author on 17 Jun 2013 16:30:26 BDT
Did you see the completely heart-rending case of the boy in NZ? His parents were convinced by all this anti-vax nonsense and didn't vaccinate him. He got tetanus (common in farming countries such as NZ and Australia) and was terribly, terribly sick. In so much pain, in fact, that he had to have an induced coma to allow him to recover. His parents were horrified and distraught (as you would be), knowing that their refusal to vaccinate caused his suffering (I can't imagine how they must have felt, watching their son). They immediately vaccinated their other children, and are now speaking out against anti-vaccination rubbish, causing an increase in vaccination rates in NZ.

http://www.abc.net.au/local/stories/2013/06/06/3776327.htm

Posted on 17 Jun 2013 16:48:17 BDT
Last edited by the author on 17 Jun 2013 18:39:26 BDT
Dr HotFXMan says:
Unlike Diane and, it seems, the reporter for the Independent, I know the terms of the "Concordat for Research Integrity" as I happen to sit on one of its advisory committees.

Her use of the article as an attempt to push her anti-science agenda is shameful. The Independent reporter was simply looking for something sensational to write.

Edit: decided to count the factual errors in the Independent report but gave up when I ran out of fingers.

In reply to an earlier post on 17 Jun 2013 16:56:25 BDT
Bellatori says:
"reporter was simply looking for something sensational to write"

Sadly that was exactly what happened over MMR. Sensationally story ... never mind the quality, feel the width.

In reply to an earlier post on 17 Jun 2013 19:22:56 BDT
O.Binladen says:
Of course there are always mendacious claims made using pseudo scientific nonsense, the most obvious, and by far the best funded is theists attempt to lie that creationism has any scientific basis. Though of course it 's scientists who uncover these deceits, in this instance by theists, who've lied, and are continuing to lie, about creationism.

Posted on 17 Jun 2013 19:26:23 BDT
Obelix says:
Do the police catch criminals by praying, or by using evidence, forensic science etc?

Do Doctors and Nurses heal the sick by putting their hands together and praying for it, or giving them medicine, therapies etc?

Do engineers construct things by kneeling in the dirt and praying for them to appear by magic?

Posted on 17 Jun 2013 19:52:58 BDT
O.Binladen says:
How much of science is truth?

The obvious answer is all of it, or else it ceases to be science.

religion of course has no such advantages, it all has to be held as true somehow even long after science has shown that it's puerile nonsense.

Posted on 17 Jun 2013 22:24:29 BDT
Last edited by the author on 17 Jun 2013 22:24:59 BDT
Dr HotFXMan says:
The report in the Independent is a shining example of sensationalist journalism. It assumes that anybody reading it a) has no idea what the Concordat to Support Research Integrity is, b) doesn't know what "concordat" means, c) has no idea how research funding is managed and controlled, d) thinks most scientists are a bunch of self-promoting, self-interested cheats, and e) are easily manipulated by the use of a few well-chosen weasel words.

In Diane, they have their ideal readership.

In reply to an earlier post on 19 Jun 2013 12:40:40 BDT
I'm not sure I disagree with d). I'd need to see the numbers. I think most scientists are self promoting and self interested. But only because most people are.

As for whether or not most scientists are cheats, are we including non-scientific cheating liek parking in the handicapped space at tesco?

In reply to an earlier post on 20 Jun 2013 08:19:13 BDT
C. A. Small says:
Anyone who parks in the disabled parking when they are not disabled should have their car crushed, and made to walk 10 miles a day for two weeks.

In reply to an earlier post on 20 Jun 2013 08:51:18 BDT
G. Heron says:
C.A. Small

"Anyone who parks in the disabled parking when they are not disabled should have their car crushed, and made to walk 10 miles a day for two weeks. "

You seem to be suggesting that the person is let out of the car prior to its being crushed, this is the sort of bleeding heart liberal nonsense that just encourages the misuse of disabled parking spaces.

In reply to an earlier post on 20 Jun 2013 09:22:09 BDT
C. A. Small says:
G.H. I will of course take your advice on board when I frame the relevant regulations when I take charge of the country!

And thanks for the laugh!

In reply to an earlier post on 20 Jun 2013 11:24:54 BDT
Last edited by the author on 20 Jun 2013 12:02:47 BDT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 20 Jun 2013 12:25:20 BDT
Last edited by the author on 20 Jun 2013 12:46:22 BDT
G. Heron says:
C. W. Bradbury

"Unfortunately, the grimmer reality of Darwinian 'selection' became clear to all following the defeat of Nazi Germany (the first truly Darwinian Govt. of the 20th Century) in 1945."

This is total and utter nonsense. Darwin produced a theory which explains the diversity of life we see on Earth, his theory has stood the test of time and has been strengthened as our understanding of genetics has been developed. Trying to attack the validity of his theory by conflating it with the ideas of Aryan superiority put forward by Hitler is both insulting and futile.

What does the phrase "first truly Darwinian Govt." mean and how does it compare to the
first truly Newtonian Govt. or the first truly Quantum Govt. or the first truly Einsteinian Govt.

Darwin's theory of natural selection is a scientific theory and it can only be discredited by scientific evidence which contradicts it, any other attempt to attack it is as pointless as attacking General Relativity on the grounds you don't like Einstein's hair cut.

In reply to an earlier post on 20 Jun 2013 12:52:57 BDT
Last edited by the author on 20 Jun 2013 12:55:50 BDT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 20 Jun 2013 13:01:46 BDT
G. Heron says:
C. W. Bradbury

"Are you really trying to say Hitler's Reich was NOT based on Darwinian beliefs Mr Heron?"

Yes I am. What Hitler did was what farmers have been doing for thousands of years and which Darwin discussed in the first chapter of Origin of Species, selective breeding. Hitler set up baby farms where Aryan soldiers could father Aryan children with specially selected Aryan mothers.

But for the sake of argument let us say you are right. Let us assume that Hitler was inspired by Darwin's Origin of Species and based his whole ideas about race on it and set up the death camps and the baby farms with Darwinian evolution in mind and that every death in these camps can be laid directly at the door of Darwin's theory. Now explain to me how this shows that Darwin's Theory of Evolution by natural selection is wrong?

If Hitler had developed the Atomic bomb first and had used it to achieve world domination, show me how that would show that e does not = mc2?

In reply to an earlier post on 20 Jun 2013 13:30:28 BDT
O.Binladen says:
"C. W. Bradbury says:
Are you really trying to say Hitler's Reich was NOT based on Darwinian beliefs Mr Heron? "

So called social Darwinism is nothing whatsoever to do with Darwin, evolution, or science, so your post is your usual collection of sophistry and double-talk to tout your agenda.

""Looking to the world at no very distant date, what an endless number of the lower races will have been eliminated by the higher civilized races throughout the world." - Charles Darwin."

Well done, the very first hit shows that up as duplicitous mis-quote. For someone who bleats endlessly about Orwellian double-talk whenever he hears anything he doesn't like you don't take much trouble to cover the tracks of your lies.

"
You may regard Charles Darwin as a modernday prophet, but please don't try to convince us that he was infallable."

The lies are coming thick and fast now, it's you and your ilk who have a love of beard touting, sandal wearing, bronze age prophets, science doesn't require them and has no use for them. Darwin's genius is precisely because he got so much right at the first attempt, unlike the prophets of your bronze age myth, who have yet to get anything provable right.

" Even the enthusiastic Darwinist Richard Dawkins used 'red in tooth and claw' in The Selfish Gene, to summarize the behaviour of all living things which arises out of the survival of the fittest doctrine."

Indeed, though you'd have to be unbelievably stupid to conflate that with so called social Darwinism, are you saying you're that stupid?
‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


 

This discussion

Discussion in:  religion discussion forum
Participants:  24
Total posts:  125
Initial post:  17 Jun 2013
Latest post:  27 Jun 2013

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 1 customer

Search Customer Discussions