In cancer science, many 'discoveries' don't hold up.

[4G63]

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".

[HoustonRaven]

While I agree with your last sentence, what does that have to do cancer research?

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.

[4G63]

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.

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?

[HoustonRaven]

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?

[4G63]

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.

[NCRAVEN]

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

[Galen Sevinne]

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!

[Galen Sevinne]

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?

No I don't prescribe meds but see them working in some cases and not so much in others. I was trained in a form of cognitive therapy called Rational-Emotive Therapy. It is one of the few psychotherapies well supported in the research. In the long haul and in most cases, I think it is more effective than meds for treating anxiety disorders and most mood disorders as well as behavioral disorders. Some have found it effective in treating schizophrenia. I am not sold on that but haven't worked much with that population since I have been out of hospital work.



Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk

[Galen Sevinne]

I believe this is the quote your referring to:
http://ravens24x7.com/forum/showthre...orce-Agreement



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.



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.

You also believe in god because the complexity of the world is too grand to be explained by anything else. That makes me chuckle. So we are both getting our laughs.

I think what you refer to as science in an attempt to diminish its method, many would now refer to as philosophy. They were more similar in methods 100+ years ago.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk

[Sirdowski]

You also believe in god because the complexity of the world is too grand to be explained by anything else. That makes me chuckle. So we are both getting our laughs.

I think what you refer to as science in an attempt to diminish its method, many would now refer to as philosophy. They were more similar in methods 100+ years ago.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk

The point is that philosophy can drastically shape science. It isn't as though scientists are uninhibited by their world views. A noble trait, it is however, unattainable. How could the majority view, for example, that Ontology is subservient to epistemology, -two corner stones of philosophy mind you- not effect science?