32 réponses à ce sujet

[elijah_kaine]

RunCDFirst wrote...

Trust is a ridiculous notion to have towards scientific investigation. Skepticism is really the corner stone of scientific inquiry. One must approach each situation with a certain amount of hesitation. Science is based on empiral information being tested and challenged. Only through rigorous testing spurred by concerns over the validity of claims can science truly progress.

So, yes, you shouldn't 'trust' science. Approach every claim with a certain degree of doubt and let the arguments for the position they advocate convince you.

Likewise, one incidence of mistrust does not a whole position rebuke. I doubt that 'scientists' have been covering up a global conspiracy towards rising temperatures and green house gases. Be skeptical of science and be skeptical of scientific naysayers.

Oh yeah for sure. In no way am I saying that this proves that Global Warming is false and I don't think this single incident is enough to make me think that, or should be, it just makes me want to treat information released from scientific communities with more skeptism, which as your pointing out, according to science is appropriate.

I do feel like these individuals should be punished for misrepresenting there findings somehow, but then again, Im not sure how the scentfic community handles these things, less grant money? Smeared reputation? Does the scientfic community have a way of punishing or policing their own? I'm sure they do and I'm just ignorant to it.

[Sylvius the Mad]

the_one_54321 wrote...

and before anyone pipes up with the smart [donkey] question, yes, i am a student of science studying the environment.

Great.  Then perhaps you can explain to everyone how ice is the enemy of biodiversity.

[the_one_54321]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...

and before anyone pipes up with the smart [donkey] question, yes, i am a student of science studying the environment.

Great.  Then perhaps you can explain to everyone how ice is the enemy of biodiversity.

im not explaining anything to anyone. at least not around here. i know better.

[Nez404]

The irony is killing me, and against my better judgment I am going to comment.



Am I to understand that the conservative community is upset over a "selective truth"? In a world where conservatism has essentially become a religion (blind faith and all), and the great prophet Glush Limbeck makes his living telling selective truths... I just can't help but chuckle a bit.



Is global warming real? Heck if I know. I am as disappointed as the next guy that the data has been "lost" and/or tampered with. All I know is that I don't want my children and grandchildren to have to walk to school wearing a gas mask. The brown haze over my city is growing, and that is undeniable.

[LaztRezort]

For anyone interested in this story but doesn't want to develop a headache wading through the mind-numbing rhetoric of the original link, this article pretty much sums it up.

Don't these so-called climate skeptics (arguably an abuse of the term 'skeptic', btw) realize that strong evidence against global warming would be a major event, netting the discoverer untold glory, fame, book deals, grants, and hot chicks?

Someone once said "It pays to keep an open mind, but not so open your brains fall out."

[RunCDFirst]

elijah_kaine wrote...
I do feel like these individuals should be punished for misrepresenting there findings somehow, but then again, Im not sure how the scentfic community handles these things, less grant money? Smeared reputation? Does the scientfic community have a way of punishing or policing their own? I'm sure they do and I'm just ignorant to it.

It can ruin your career. Your reputation will be smeared if it's proven that you cheated your numbers. It will be very difficult trying to find journals that will publish your research after that and universities will probably cut you from their payroll (since there's a very strong 'Publish or Perish' environment in academic research).

Other scientists will also be extremely... angry, especially if they used your research in their papers. This can end any opportunities for collaboration and will definitely tarnish your academic reputation amongst your peers. A single scientist that fabricates their numbers in their research can have a very far reaching effect on the entire field of study depending on the severity of the dishonesty.

Edit: That said, there are ways you can manipulate your numbers to get more desirable outcomes. Another reason why scientists are pretty skeptical of claims and even one study will not "prove" anything. A scientific discovery only really gets widespread acceptance once it's been replicated in numerous other labs.

Modifié par RunCDFirst, 04 décembre 2009 - 07:00 .

[Skydiver8888]

who cares? the real question is this: why is changing for the better now a bad thing? Worst case, we affect nothing on a geological/massive time scale and yet still have cleaner air and water and a nicer place to live. Best case we have cleaner air and water and a nicer place to live and we prolong our time here by that much more.



So why NOT change?

[Stanley Woo]

Let's leave the politics to other forums, please. THank you.



ENd of line.