In cancer science, many 'discoveries' don't hold up.
Quote:
During a decade as head of global cancer research at Amgen, C. Glenn Begley identified 53 "landmark" publications -- papers in top journals, from reputable labs -- for his team to reproduce. Begley sought to double-check the findings before trying to build on them for drug development.
Result: 47 of the 53 could not be replicated. He described his findings in a commentary piece published on Wednesday in the journal Nature.
Interesting reading if you're a knuckle-dragging Neanderthal like myself. Keep this in mind when the 'Elites' tell you you're an idiot because you question science thats so-called "settled".
Re: In cancer science, many 'discoveries' don't hold up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
HoustonRaven
While I agree with your last sentence, what does that have to do cancer research?
That comment relates because, as the story I linked to noted, what was thought to be correct was in fact incorrect when put to the test.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
HoustonRaven
Cancer science as it relates to humans is a huge mystery and I have never read where the science has been "settled". Just the opposite.
Did you read the article?
Re: In cancer science, many 'discoveries' don't hold up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
4G63
That comment relates because, as the story I linked to noted, what was thought to be correct was in fact incorrect when put to the test.
Did you read the article?
Yes. And the article said that this type of drug trial nonsense has meant set backs and all forms of drugs for all sort of medical issues.
My point was the article really didn't say anything that we already know -- scientists and drug makers will do anything for the almighty dollar, even make up stats that suit their needs. Which I guess was your overall point as well?
Re: In cancer science, many 'discoveries' don't hold up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
HoustonRaven
Which I guess was your overall point as well?
Yes.
If you were to listen to people like Galen, you'd just go along with 'Cap-N-Trade' and assume because they are "scientists" that they're always right and shouldn't be questioned about their "findings". This thought process carries into a myriad of other scientific findings that proclaim a need for government control.
Re: In cancer science, many 'discoveries' don't hold up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
4G63
Yes.
If you were to listen to people like Galen, you'd just go along with 'Cap-N-Trade' and assume because they are "scientists" that they're always right and shouldn't be questioned about their "findings". This thought process carries into a myriad of other scientific findings that proclaim a need for government control.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...sm-racism.html
Re: In cancer science, many 'discoveries' don't hold up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
4G63
Yes.
If you were to listen to people like Galen, you'd just go along with 'Cap-N-Trade' and assume because they are "scientists" that they're always right and shouldn't be questioned about their "findings". This thought process carries into a myriad of other scientific findings that proclaim a need for government control.
What a fallacy. What really happens is folks like you and Sirdowski make these crazy generalizations against science like "because they are "scientists" that they're always right and shouldn't be questioned about their "findings" or what sirdowski says about "science thinking it can solve every problem of man". No one ever says this, I never said this. Its you guys that generally think science can't be trusted, scientists can't be trusted. Government can't be trusted. College professors can't be trusted. The media can't be trusted. Every source that disagrees with your rigid, anti-intellectual way of thinking is persecuted. You guys are left wth only trusting your gut.
Scientific research is only valid when it is peer-reviewed. All data is open to peer-review. Often times data is seen as incorrect as a result of this process and within the community, those researchers proven incorrect are at risk of losing status as researchers which ruins their careers and diminishes the values of years and years of education. Researchers are very careful, generally speaking, about their methods and publishing of results. This doesn't occur in a vacuum. There is no way a community of climateologists are going to attempt to pull of hoax of the scale you guys think they are trying. Its absurd and only shows how little you understand about the whole process...that somehow you know more about these things than folks that have been studying them for a lifetime because you read a blog every now and then from Anthony Watts.
What you talk about in the cancer field is a result of the power pharmaceutical companies have on us. Its the same in mental health where there are huge debates going on about the medications being prescribed. Research data that shows a lot of these medications as ineffective has been suppressed. That isn't the fault of people trying to better understand mental health issues but a problem with the pharmaceutical lobbyists with the big bucks controlling the message. Yet you guys will side with the pharmaceutical companies in the intersest of liberty and free markets and capitialism and all that crap because the argument will be framed as liberty vs. science or free enterprise vs. big government or even simpler, you vs. them. In the end, the status quo relies on the ability to create even a shade of doubt in the majority of people so that those with the money and power stay exactly in that position.
Just think how you guys doubt every institutional body that tries to either understand, explain or affect reality: science, education, media, and government. How convenient!
Re: In cancer science, many 'discoveries' don't hold up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Galen Sevinne
Just think how you guys doubt every institutional body that tries to either understand, explain or affect reality: science, education, media, and government. How convenient!
The reason for that Galen is because they are all intertwined. Don’t you find it funny every issue Science reports the Government wants to create some law that and the Media finds ways to support both?
Re: In cancer science, many 'discoveries' don't hold up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
NCRAVEN
The reason for that Galen is because they are all intertwined. Don’t you find it funny every issue Science reports the Government wants to create some law that and the Media finds ways to support both?
Again "every issue"? Gross generalizations like this which every one of you have made on this forum only demonstrates your reflexive anti-science stance as well as a lack of critical thinking.
Do I have a problem with science showing a preponderance of evidence that the Earth is warming and the vast majority of true climate scientists report a great liklihood that carbon fuels are impacting climate change, so that the government looks to regulate the industry while the media reports on it. Seems like common sense to me. I don't see an entrance into that equation that should disrupt the chain. Now as a conservative you can question it all that you want but you need some empirical truth to sway someone who sees the logical flow.
Now is this true with everything science reports? I could list dozens if not hundreds of scientific findings that do not lead to government regulation nor media hysteria.
Re: In cancer science, many 'discoveries' don't hold up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Galen Sevinne
Again "every issue"? Gross generalizations like this which every one of you have made on this forum only demonstrates your reflexive anti-science stance as well as a lack of critical thinking.
Do I have a problem with science showing a preponderance of evidence that the Earth is warming and the vast majority of true climate scientists report a great liklihood that carbon fuels are impacting climate change, so that the government looks to regulate the industry while the media reports on it. Seems like common sense to me. I don't see an entrance into that equation that should disrupt the chain. Now as a conservative you can question it all that you want but you need some empirical truth to sway someone who sees the logical flow.
Now is this true with everything science reports? I could list dozens if not hundreds of scientific findings that do not lead to government regulation nor media hysteria.
Relax Slappy. I should have been more clear. Not "every issue" but there are quite a bit.
Re: In cancer science, many 'discoveries' don't hold up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Galen Sevinne
Scientific research is only valid when it is peer-reviewed.
That was the point of my first link. It was reviewed and their hypotheses wouldn't hold. And we don't know which ones didn't work because, as you say later, these scientists have their reputations (read: money) to uphold.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Galen Sevinne
All data is open to peer-review.
No, its not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Galen Sevinne
Often times data is seen as incorrect as a result of this process and within the community, those researchers proven incorrect are at risk of losing status as researchers which ruins their careers and diminishes the values of years and years of education.
Which leads to what? Admitting they made an error would do what? Come on, I know you can say it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Galen Sevinne
What you talk about in the cancer field is a result of the power pharmaceutical companies have on us. Its the same in mental health where there are huge debates going on about the medications being prescribed. Research data that shows a lot of these medications as ineffective has been suppressed.
Are you allowed to prescribe meds and if so, do you actually prescribe them or do you think you actually help people without the meds?
Re: In cancer science, many 'discoveries' don't hold up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Galen Sevinne
or what sirdowski says about "science thinking it can solve every problem of man".
I believe this is the quote your referring to:
http://ravens24x7.com/forum/showthre...orce-Agreement
Quote:
The debate starts at a fundamental level with those who believe science can, does, or eventually will explain everything in the universe with absolute and definite truth, and those who don't.
Thank you for mauling it with your subjective twist.
It seems I'm going to have to clarify my initial point to stop any further misquotes. That quote was targeted at Materialism and Naturalism. This is exactly what Materialism / Naturalism says per Merriam-Webster online:
Materialism: A theory that physical matter is the only or fundamental reality and that all being and processes and phenomena can be explained as manifestations or results of matter
Naturalism: The doctrine that scientific laws are adequate to account for all phenomena.
At what point is it illogical to deduce that scientists (the overwhelming majority of which) who support the above, have fulfilled reason to believe that science, as I said in the real quote, "will explain everything in the universe with absolute and definite truth." ? FYI "will" implies futurity.
I imagine you have some familiarity with the intellectuals present in Vienna around the late 1800 to early 1900's. In the early 1900's, Ernst Mach, Ludwig Wittgenstein, and founding father of logical positivism, Mortiz Schlik were the most influential men in every intellectual circle at the time. It is safe to say that positivism was shaping the believed necessary direction for science to maintain its scientific integrity. The extremity with which this manner of thinking was headed was evidenced by Ernest Mach at a meeting of the imperial academy of sciences, where after his nemesis Ludwig Boltzman had finished speaking, he abruptly stood up and proclaimed "I do not believe atoms exist!" Were it not for the powerful influence of Einstein and the anti-positivist means by which Special/General Relativity came about, Positivism would have spread from the intellectual epicenter Vienna, to the world, stifling scientific research by its restrictive sensory demands.
Quote:
Scientific research is only valid when it is peer-reviewed. All data is open to peer-review. Often times data is seen as incorrect as a result of this process and within the community, those researchers proven incorrect are at risk of losing status as researchers which ruins their careers and diminishes the values of years and years of education. Researchers are very careful, generally speaking, about their methods and publishing of results. This doesn't occur in a vacuum. There is no way a community of climateologists are going to attempt to pull of hoax of the scale you guys think they are trying. Its absurd and only shows how little you understand about the whole process...that somehow you know more about these things than folks that have been studying them for a lifetime because you read a blog every now and then from Anthony Watts.
You desperately need to read a book on the history of science. Like-minded men who are educated by like-minded men are likely to be just that, like-minded; Like-minded of the believed "problems" of a field, and as such, available methods of research. I gladly except the fact that the majority of scientists believe the earth is warming due to carbon-dioxide. However, the consensus of science has never in the history of this planet been enough to legitimately clarify any instance in nature. For centuries scientists believed the Earth was the center of the universe, that ether carried light, that Newtonian physics set the parameters for motion. The discovery of oxygen is credited to several men simply because we don't know for certain who was the first. How can that be? Although it was observed, it is was thought simply to be air removed of phlogistion, a substance released by all elements when burned. These are a mere speck of the similar instances in every field of science. It is what led Alfred Whitehead to proclaim "A science that hesitates to forget its founders, is lost." In a field where it is necessary to forget the founders worldviews, how can any contemporary position as ad hoc as Global Warming be safe?
When I hear someone like yourself attempt to throw down the gavel, "scientific concensus" as if its utterance alone can provoke silence, I can't help but chuckle.
