A
asdfska
Guest
Well that sounds like a reasoned conclusion
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
3
|3illy the |<
Guest
[No message]
S
Simius The Monkey
Guest
[No message]
T
TheRemains
Guest
I'm really proud of this thread. My opponents have no choice but to agree with me!
3
|3illy the |<
Guest
There would be a difference between "bogus" studies where the conclusions aren't supported by the data or they reach a bit. This is discussing more the presentation of information that is fact. Regardless of if I disagree with a conclusion...the data is the data. So long as the data wasn't fudged..... which as red pointed out isn't a "science" only problem, in fact it's not really a problem in science. It's less of a problem in science than in other sources...because science has a mechanism for dealing with fudged data.
Science doesn't believe it, as you've noted the journal redacted the mistake. Scientists don't read a source once and then commit it to memory. Nor should people. Science always changes as better information is found.
Those still believing it would be what this study talks about. Belief rather than evidence.
You're cherry picking. You're saying LOOK it's wrong 0.1% of the time, ergo never trust it.
SERIOUSLY?
500 years ago science was wrong, ergo today it must also be wrong.
Red was right cynicism doesn't make a healthy scientist. Skepticism does. Most scientists don't read studies. They look at the data, and the methodology. Then they read the studies. Because as you noted we don't take words, but when presented with data collected by the correct method...we cannot argue with it. The problem is many people simply look at the data (the factual conclusions of a paper) and say "it's wrong" or "they couldn't have determined this" without understanding the methodology.
You see this in the global warming debate all the time when people with absolutely 0 understanding of the methods used say "well the earth has been around for longer than 50,000 years...science can't possibly make insights into these little time frames"
or
"they don't have all the variables...it's way more complex, science couldn't possibly get the correct answer"
That is a touch naive, no?
Without understanding the methods involved claiming the result is absolutely wrong or impossible?
Science doesn't believe it, as you've noted the journal redacted the mistake. Scientists don't read a source once and then commit it to memory. Nor should people. Science always changes as better information is found.
Those still believing it would be what this study talks about. Belief rather than evidence.
You're cherry picking. You're saying LOOK it's wrong 0.1% of the time, ergo never trust it.
SERIOUSLY?
500 years ago science was wrong, ergo today it must also be wrong.
Red was right cynicism doesn't make a healthy scientist. Skepticism does. Most scientists don't read studies. They look at the data, and the methodology. Then they read the studies. Because as you noted we don't take words, but when presented with data collected by the correct method...we cannot argue with it. The problem is many people simply look at the data (the factual conclusions of a paper) and say "it's wrong" or "they couldn't have determined this" without understanding the methodology.
You see this in the global warming debate all the time when people with absolutely 0 understanding of the methods used say "well the earth has been around for longer than 50,000 years...science can't possibly make insights into these little time frames"
or
"they don't have all the variables...it's way more complex, science couldn't possibly get the correct answer"
That is a touch naive, no?
Without understanding the methods involved claiming the result is absolutely wrong or impossible?
J
Jimeigh
Guest
i agree that you're a miserable fat mamas boy who will never see a naked body that isn't made of pixels.
B
BoomBoomBoy
Guest
[No message]
C
CBFryman
Guest
AV