Political Science Should Be A Crime

[Centurian]

Originally Posted by ergohead

Regarding the scientists' falsification of data on the Global Warming hoax, there have been many other falsifications in science as well.

There are too many negative impacts for too many people for a mere wrist-slap type punishment.

Any suggestions for effective deterrence?

The politicization of science is something that's really been bothering me recently.

I recently read about Luce Iragaray, this feminist "thinker" who claimed that Einsteins E=MC^2 is sexist, simply because she assumes nuclear energy and fast speeds (the speed of light squared) are "masculine." Never mind that E=MC^2 has been proven by countless nuclear tests, observations of the sun and stars, in pace-makers! She also calls Isaac Newton's Principia Mathematica a "rape manual."

For years, hysterical environmental activists have been trashing Genetically Modified Crops, saying their altered DNA is a threat to humans. I study Biochemistry. Anyone with even the slightest knowledge of how human digestion works will know that this is complete bunk. You could eat Superman's, a Griffin's, the Hulk's and a Dragon's flesh and it would NOT have the slightest effect on you, because all their DNA is digested back into their basic nucleotides (the long chains of A, T, G and C molecules get broken down into individual letters)

Genetically Modified Crops have the enormous potential to grow faster, larger, require less land and water and provide cheap, nutritious food for the world's starving people, but environmental activists and European governments have stalled delivery of GM crops for years, pressuring African governments not to accept them even as their people are starving.

[ergohead]

Yeah, right, "Peer Review"

"Q12. Can't we Trust Scientists?
There is a lot of evidence that the activity often called science, and the scientists who practice this activity (as opposed to those few who have a monk-like dedication to the scientific method), are not trustworthy. Peer review is a bankrupt process, for example. It is lousy at detecting fraud but very good at suppressing innovative thought. Financial conflicts of interest are frequent and rarely disclosed. Scientists often fall into the trap of focusing on their next grant rather than what important questions need to be asked (including questioning their own assumptions and biases). The prejudices of the system are amplified in this way. Those who conform are rewarded with grants which inform the granters that this is a subject of great interest."

My Position on Global Warming and Climate Change

[TnHilltopper]

Originally Posted by ergohead

Regarding the scientists' falsification of data on the Global Warming hoax, there have been many other falsifications in science as well.

There are too many negative impacts for too many people for a mere wrist-slap type punishment.

Any suggestions for effective deterrence?

Sure, we can denounce all science as hearsay and open up our various religious text and celebrate a return to the Dark Ages.

http://bnp.org.uk/files/2009/06/burka_graduation.jpg (broken link)

[california-jewel]

Originally Posted by tindo80

Its the 'falsification' that makes it wrong, not the science. (Unless your Sarah Palin or Pat Roberts)

tindo80; Ahhhhhhhhhh sure you understand now!

[ergohead]

I was once under contract with NIH to prove or disprove a theory dealing with gravitational effects occurring within 70 inches of any given floor level, as it related distally to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.

"This was a clear physical interpretation for the non-commutativity, and it laid the foundation for what became known as the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle

In the middle of the contract, the scientist overseeing my work was replaced with a bureaucrat, who yelled at me, that 70 inches was "over 8 feet tall", and that, therefore, the theory was flawed.

The only "peer review" allowed at the time was with other bureaucrats. (A result of NIH priorities-shifting following 9-11)

The bureaucrats do not respect, or trust, researchers (ionic jealousy).

The overseer rewrote the contract to conform the results to within 7 feet of any given floor level, a distance more in keeping with "up to 70 inches" in the bureaucrat's mind.

The results caused a cancellation of the contract for having shown that the theory was flawed, and then, double-flawed.

Four follow-on contracts were written for four other "researchers" who knew that the new specifications were flawed, but took the contract for the financial value to them.