Seriously thoughtful In science we Trust.

[kennyc]

A poll done by Scientific American and Nature:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...-we-trust-poll

[kindlekitten]

I would like to see the same poll done of the general population. with these two magazines, the respondents are already critical thinkers and scientifically oriented

[kennyc]

I agree....maybe there is (or will be one)...

[desertgrandma]

I trust no one.

Seriously......even many so called "scientists" are funded by private corporations or are government backed. How else can they afford their research?

Everyone, EVERYONE has their own agenda.....so every poll, news source, etc is skewed from the start.

[kennyc]

I think you're even more skeptical than me.

[desertgrandma]

I"m probably way older, too.

[kennyc]

hope so.

[beppe]

Originally Posted by kennyc

A poll done by Scientific American and Nature:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...-we-trust-poll

A) I am amazed by the level of trust in scientists about providing accurate information about the Origin of the universe.
(we get the scientists that we deserve, that's the conclusion for me)

B) I am amazed that it is considered an important issue in society.


This would deserve a comment by a Dean of St. Patrick's Cathedral, Dublin. not by a simple minded ignoramus like myself. But of a full fledged Ignoramus et ignorabimus.

All quotations are from Wikipedia.

[kindlekitten]

Originally Posted by beppe

A) I am amazed by the level of trust in scientists about providing accurate information about the Origin of the universe.
(we get the scientists that we deserve, that's the conclusion for me)

B) I am amazed that it is considered an important issue in society.


This would deserve a comment by a Dean of St. Patrick's Cathedral, Dublin. not by a simple minded ignoramus like myself. But of a full fledged Ignoramus et ignorabimus.


All quotations are from Wikipedia.

wow! the whole religion debate has kind of just passed you by huh?

[MrPLD]

The beautiful thing about scientific-method is that today's theory can be adjusted/debunked tomorrow when appropriate new results/evidence are found that can be independently verified by others.

Science is not about glorifying what we know - it's the pursuit of discovering answers for what we don't.

[beppe]

Originally Posted by kindlekitten

wow! the whole religion debate has kind of just passed you by huh?

i fail to see what religion debate has to do with the providing of accurate information about the origin of the universe.

That debate might interest the religion question, certainly it has nothing to do with the origin of the universe.

My post is about the providing of accurate information. Like saying main street? turn left at the first light. A right angle boils at 90°. things like that.

[Iridal]

Originally Posted by desertgrandma

I trust no one.

Seriously......even many so called "scientists" are funded by private corporations or are government backed. How else can they afford their research?

Everyone, EVERYONE has their own agenda.....so every poll, news source, etc is skewed from the start.

I don't know about the situation in the US but here in Belgium that's pretty much the truth. I work for a non-profit organisation that was founded as a support for a Minister. My job is to conduct research, most of that research is funded by that same Minister.

So: the minister orders research carried out because he wants to prove some point he's been making. If our conclusions don't support his ideas, he'll just ignore our research or misinterpret them (maybe not on purpose, but who knows ?).

So although we try to be scientific (because we're scientist/researchers and we want to conduct research properly), it's usually pretty hard to ignore all the political pressure. Which also means sometimes we publish research reports that we're really not happy about.

Conclusion: you should always be a little skeptical when you read research reports.

[MrPLD]

I think it's very important to separate and distinguish between what actual scientists come up with within the confines of the scientific-method, versus what bureaucracy frequently mutates it to.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Iridal

Conclusion: you should always be a little skeptical when you read research reports.

That's one reason, of course, that scientific journal have a peer-review process, to try to see that "bad science" doesn't make it into print. Research reported in such journals is generally more trustworthy than independently-published reports.

[MrPLD]

Yes, which is why a lot of non-peer-reviewed (other than fellow board members) articles try really hard to spin authenticity with lots of catchy titles and accreditations.... like a bad DVD "Directed by the brother's friend's uncle's son of Steven Spillberg" (yes, deliberately misspelt ).