"The Money Flood Has Become The Raison d’être of Much Physics Research" by #29621 .....
Hal Lewis: My Resignation From The American Physical Society – an important moment in science history
Date: 10/13/2010 3:56:03 AM ( 11 y ago)
March 12, 2018 -
"The scientists seem ever oblivious to the fact that their hypotheses and theories are just temporary. They flatter themselves that they are free from dogmatism, that their thinking is free and straight. But the history of science has always borne witness to the opposite. It still is all too frequently seen that scientific authorities reject what is seemingly improbable, strange, and unknown (as every revolutionary idea has been) without examining it. The scientists call what they cannot explain delusion, the religious call it god.
There is something seemingly incorrigibly, ineradicably idiotic in this: in refusing to examine."
Scientific “Data is not facts. Facts are not information. Information is not knowledge, Knowledge is not truth. Truth is not wisdom”. - Article by: James A. Autry in “Computer World”, March 11, 1991. (Apparently expanding upon a quote in Frank Zappa’s "Joe's Garage Acts II & III", 1979.)
Important read regarding the state of science and especially concerning "climate warming".
February 19, 2017 -
My professor friend has repeatedly stated the belief that clinical studies provide scientific conclusions regarding whether a "health" product is effective or not. I do not rely on clinical studies but understand how others do when their job depends upon heavy reliance on such studies. (Fortunately I never had a job like that! ; ~ )
However I told my professor friend that these studies are influenced by their funding. Now I at least have the following shared perspective from Jon Barron (and he is not the only one):
"...scientific studies are not quite as absolute as most people believe. Just because something appears in a study does not make it necessarily so. In fact, on most issues, it is possible to find multiple studies proving contradictory facts. And you will find the scientific community citing only those studies that support their point of view while ignoring the contradictory studies. The problem is that there are many, many factors that can impact the ultimate value, reliability, and even scientific value of that study. For example:
The size of the study. Obviously, the bigger the study, the more meaningful the results.
Is it a test tube, animal, or human study? And keep in mind that clinical studies translate to humans only about 4-20% of the time--test tube studies, even less.
Who is paying for the study? Do they have an agenda?
Who is conducting the study? Have they been funded by someone who has an agenda?
Is it a Case Control Study, a Cohort Study, an Observational or Interventional Study, or a Clinical Study? Remember, even when double-blind and placebo controlled, they all have their weaknesses and are subject to both vagary and bias.
Was the data in the study deliberately jigged to provide a predetermined result?
Was the study actually performed by the researchers whose names are on it, or were they merely medical ghostwriters who were paid to put their names on an industry study written by industry shills? Yes, that's a real thing."
 "What Most People Do Not Know" - (Extract from "The Knowledge of Reality"):
Hal Lewis, The American Physical Society, science history, scientists, Data is not facts, Facts are not information, Information is not knowledge, Knowledge is not truth, Truth is not wisdom
Popularity: message viewed 13745 times
<< Return to the standard message view
Page generated on: 4/18/2021 12:27:41 PM in Dallas, Texas