Guest parnassus Posted April 20, 2012 Share Posted April 20, 2012 (edited) Good one. And the environmental hazards of many chemical agents developed in the 1960's. If it wasn't for the grass roots movement begun by a lowly female teacher/writer, not a scientist, we might still be going by what those scientists said about the safety of them. Science tends to have a bias, unfortunately that bias is based on funding. I'm not talking about the private scientist working on something in his garage here, I'm talking about the pharma industry, the petrochem/fertilizer/pesticide industries etc. They are big employers and sponsors of scientific research these days, but don't imagine they use that money in an unbiased manner. Vil: I think you conflate the propaganda and nonscience of the fossil fuel industries, tobacco, and other toxic substance producers with the science which is being discussed here, which is largely based in universities and has much greater license to study what it chooses and how it chooses and let the chips fall where they may. MikeG among others has bemoaned the supposed distrust of science nowadays. I think the reasons for that are plain. Massive well funded (and this is documented, not conspiracy theory) propaganda from well known radio and TV outlets,as well as from certain members of congress and politicians, constantly attempting to head off attempts to decrease the pollution and other dangers created by these massively rich corporations. I recently read a great book called Blood Feud, which gives wonderful insights into the methods used by big pharma. The funding for real science as it is practiced in university settings comes from relatively neutral sources such as the university budget and grants from government agencies. Big profits are generally not the motivators (although big pharma has certainly seduced some university based medical researchers....a problem which is being addressed). The conflation of the two ("industrial" science and neutral academic science) confuses people. The academics are the folks who weigh the evidence of, say, the existence of a "bigfoot," and decide what is worthy of publication. p. Edited April 20, 2012 by parnassus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cotter Posted April 20, 2012 Share Posted April 20, 2012 How long did the scientific community hold on to the global cooling theory in the 80's? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest slimwitless Posted April 20, 2012 Share Posted April 20, 2012 Parn, I agree 100% (mostly). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest parnassus Posted April 20, 2012 Share Posted April 20, 2012 (edited) In a DNA study, there is no "hypothesis" to test. There are DNA samples. They are tested. The results are reported.No "hypothesis" needed, required, or involved. The DNA results are what they are and are absolute fact. well, I keep lookin for those DNA papers that just have "results," but so far I haven't found any, and its been more years than I care to recall. Sure would cut down my reading and thinking time if that's all they had. I'm starting to think there must be a reason why I can't find any. How about you tell us where you find such DNA papers? but seriously, I think the "testable hypothesis" snippet is probably being misinterpreted. I think it means, "when you show us modern human DNA , then we conclude it comes from modern humans, and yet you tell us that you think it comes from the popular "bigfoot". How can that hypothesis be tested? we don't see how it can. It's just an assertion, based on anecdotal evidence." that's my take. p. Edited April 20, 2012 by parnassus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDL Posted April 20, 2012 Share Posted April 20, 2012 Good one. And the environmental hazards of many chemical agents developed in the 1960's. If it wasn't for the grass roots movement begun by a lowly female teacher/writer, not a scientist, we might still be going by what those scientists said about the safety of them. Science tends to have a bias, unfortunately that bias is based on funding. I'm not talking about the private scientist working on something in his garage here, I'm talking about the pharma industry, the petrochem/fertilizer/pesticide industries etc. They are big employers and sponsors of scientific research these days, but don't imagine they use that money in an unbiased manner. Governments also influence scientific bias, as can be argued with regard to climate change. http://www.iceagenow.com/List_of_Expanding_Glaciers.htm How long did the scientific community hold on to the global cooling theory in the 80's? Several of those guys are the same ones ringing the global warming bell now. http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2011/07/27/new-nasa-data-blow-gaping-hold-in-global-warming-alarmism/ 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MikeG Posted April 20, 2012 Share Posted April 20, 2012 How long did the scientific community hold on to the global cooling theory in the 80's? Oh dear. This was much more about a selective reading of some headlines by some people, and a science in its infancy. It was also about confusing the possibility (which is extant) that northern Europe could have a catastrophic cooling event caused by a disruption of the Gulf Stream by polar and sub-polar ice melt and northern Atlantic desalination, with possible global cooling. Too many people judge science not by reading its publications, but by reading what is written about it by those with vested interests, including governments, pressure groups, industry, and occupants of internet fora. Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
See-Te-Cah NC Posted April 20, 2012 Share Posted April 20, 2012 Infancy? Maybe science should discount Darwin since science was more infantile when he wrote his theory than it was in the 70's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest parnassus Posted April 20, 2012 Share Posted April 20, 2012 Parn, I agree 100% (mostly). ahhh, common ground!! now if only you were a Giants fan instead of a "giant" fan.... p. Oh dear. This was much more about a selective reading of some headlines by some people, and a science in its infancy. It was also about confusing the possibility (which is extant) that northern Europe could have a catastrophic cooling event caused by a disruption of the Gulf Stream by polar and sub-polar ice melt and northern Atlantic desalination, with possible global cooling. Too many people judge science not by reading its publications, but by reading what is written about it by those with vested interests, including governments, pressure groups, industry, and occupants of internet fora. Mike Thanks, Mike. I would be interested in what folks would think if 97% of zoologists felt that bigfoot existed, yet the media and the government took the opposite stance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MikeG Posted April 20, 2012 Share Posted April 20, 2012 See.......you make my point for me. That's Time mag, not a science journal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
See-Te-Cah NC Posted April 20, 2012 Share Posted April 20, 2012 So, if I find a Time article about global warming, will that make my point for me? Just askin'... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest slimwitless Posted April 20, 2012 Share Posted April 20, 2012 (edited) Too many people judge science not by reading its publications, but by reading what is written about it by those with vested interests, including governments, pressure groups, industry, and occupants of internet fora. Agree, Mike. Here's a choice wikipedia quote on global cooling. This hypothesis had little support in the scientific community, but gained temporary popular attention due to a combination of a slight downward trend of temperatures from the 1940s to the early 1970s and press reports that did not accurately reflect the scientific understanding of ice age cycles. I'm not going to pretend to be a climate scientist (I'll leave that to the climate scientists) but I've been familiar with the concept of the greenhouse effect ever since my dad took me to see Soylent Green in the early seventies (or was that Omega Man)? Oh, there's that...and the planet Venus. Anyway, since I know CO2 is irrefutably a greenhouse gas, I have no reason to doubt those more knowledgeable than myself on the topic. The sad thing is that someone will invariably say this is a political topic...which is patently ridiculous. Edited April 20, 2012 by slimwitless Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BFSleuth Posted April 20, 2012 Share Posted April 20, 2012 I think it means, "when you show us modern human DNA , then we conclude it comes from modern humans, and yet you tell us that you think it comes from the popular "bigfoot". How can that hypothesis be tested? we don't see how it can. It's just an assertion, based on anecdotal evidence." Correct me if I'm wrong, but I can't seem to find any reference directly noting that Dr. Ketchum claimed the DNA "comes from modern humans". At best this attribution is anecdotal based on "journalism" that hasn't held up, from sources that were involved early in the study before nDNA sequencing was done. I do think you are correct to note that research papers must have a testable hypothesis. However, I would be shocked if she had a hypothesis in her paper that said the sample set was homo sapiens sapiens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted April 20, 2012 Share Posted April 20, 2012 but seriously, I think the "testable hypothesis" snippet is probably being misinterpreted. I think it means, "when you show us modern human DNA , then we conclude it comes from modern humans, and yet you tell us that you think it comes from the popular "bigfoot". How can that hypothesis be tested? we don't see how it can. It's just an assertion, based on anecdotal evidence." that's my take. p. I had to borrow this from Thom Powell, it's an inside joke. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted April 20, 2012 BFF Patron Share Posted April 20, 2012 Yeah, it's a knuckle-ball grip, harder to hit than the curve ball for most. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest slimwitless Posted April 20, 2012 Share Posted April 20, 2012 I'm sensing a theme. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts