You Can Trust Science! Honest!

[Arach Angle]

Originally Posted by skepticratic

I agree that people are the problem, but I don't agree with your assessment.

Science isn't being corrupted by dishonest people. Not widely anyway. The problem you identified does exist, to a point, but I don't believe it to be a wide spread as you think. Most of the issues with science currently come down to funding and reporting, both of which are usually totally out of the scientists control. A lab can't get funding to repeat the tests, for example. The Today Show makes ridiculous assumptions after skimming a scientific journal. These are issues with science.

To briefly touch on your point about ethics, which I would have to touch on or else I'm not doing my job, there is a problem with that sometimes. But the problems are usually not widespread or is stemming from a need for funding. APA, for example, is totally unwilling to study homosexuality. A former head guy (don't remember is actual title so forgive my stupid filler words), who was a strong advocate for removing homosexuality as being a mental disorder, believe being gay is a choice. One that should be respected (he supports gay marriage and all that), but one that should also be understood since he admits that there is limited evidence on what makes someone gay because so many are unwilling to risk finding results they don't want to hear. It does happen, but I also think that it's only in exceptional cases.

yes, I agree with your post.

For me: being gay is in the DNA/proteins it's that simple. It may be a choice for the truly bi, but god has nothing to do with. People need to understand that their observations and "gut feel" is correct; god would never condemn a gay person for being gay. There is no need to waste a dime on it other than to learn about the human body.

My point is, some atheist don't agree when they are called out for having the exact same personality trait/disorder distribution as other large groups. They get mad when called out for siding with a stance based on team colors in the name unity. And they get pissed when they are called out for not understanding that ex-fundy'z are not cured, they are recovering, and if they are not careful their new belief takes on the same characteristic of the old belief. They are just the facts.

I was told here, a few times, that some conclusions should not be talked about because although valid the theist will misuse it. so, Just where is the problem again? science? religion?

it aint science or religion. They are not 'things". get the people out of the way that stop normal people from stopping irrational stances. Like letting a confused male into a girls room. Are you kidding me?

[LuminousTruth]

Originally Posted by 303Guy

Before we skin bulmabriefs144 alive let's acknowledge that there is a problem. This antidepressant issue is a little too close to home for me to ignore. My son (my late son) was put on antidepressants that pushed him over the edge! When they made him worse - suicidal - he called in and was told to increase the dose! This led to a complete break down. One from which he never fully recovered.

A while after his suicide I looked up this drug and it stated quite clearly that if any adverse conditions were noted that one should stop the medication immediately. Was this a later update in the contra-indications or was it negligence on the part of the practitioners? I suspect the former but cannot be sure. The point being that antidepressants are dangerous drugs and I suspect they are being pushed onto an unsuspecting medical profession and public without sufficient evaluation.

So what is the problem? As stated already, corporations paying for the desired outcome!

I have been put on drugs that had not been fully evaluated with negative end results. I nearly had a break down! I noticed that the contra-indications have been updated to state not for long term use. I wasn't the only one with long term use problems!

Probably negligence. Some medications (such as anti-anxiety ones) do "indicate" the necessity for an increase of those sometimes (especially if they are not working yet, instead of because of adverse or side-effects). I would think that if the "treatment" for "suicidal-thoughts caused by the anti-depression drug" was "quit immediately" then the doctor made a judgment mistake probably by having to juggle so many different drug information just in his head.

I hope you can hold who ever is accountable, responsible using the proper legal channels. Doctors have insurance for malpractice, and I believe that is ultimately what might have happened to your son. Further investigation should be called for, I don't know if the statute of limitations has expired or not, but it would be important for you to know at what date that information was made available and common-place among psychiatry doctors in your area (the legal requirements are basically that). If the "stop immediately" information was always since since the drug was marketed to doctors and the public, then I don't see any judge who wouldn't hold that doctor responsible (unless that doctor can prove that his geographical psychiatry colleagues are just as negligent).

[Nozzferrahhtoo]

Originally Posted by bulmabriefs144

Every now and then we get one of these people who claims that Christians just use faith-based systems, and agnostics/atheists put their faith in science, which only deal in evidence.

Your desperation these days is matched only by how shrill it makes you. The scientific method is indeed one we can trust in an ideal world better than any other. But not 100%. But we are NOT in an ideal world and the method is only as good as how well it is implemented. Which, alas, is not very well very often.

In fact what you write about is something that is a very well known problem in the world of medicine. It is known as publication bias. That is to say that only papers showing a positive result tend to be published and negative or neutral results are not. Especially so when the study is financed by the people who benefit from a positive result. Such as the company selling the drug that is being trialed.

And this is a TERRIBLE problem and one we need to rectify post haste.

Bed Goldacre is a name who has been fore in the attempts to deal with this issue. He has advocated for a central database system of ALL trials. Negative, positive or neutral. From which we can produce meaningful meta analysis.

So I am afraid you have blown absolutely nothing "out of the water" for all your bluster. This is a known issue, and it is being worked on already. But as you said in another thread.... you are NOT a scientist. Not even a little bit. So you were not to know you are posturing around as if you are discovering something new..... on something that has been well covered ground before.

My only advice would be to stay out of science.... or go learn some. Either would be useful.

Originally Posted by bulmabriefs144

But of course, Christianity deals only in beliefs, not evidence.

At least not everything you say is false then.

Originally Posted by bulmabriefs144

Oh my, there seem to be about 57,300,000 results! I guess there is no evidence there.

There does not seem to be no. If you are aware of any that I might have missed, then by all means point some out to me.

Originally Posted by bulmabriefs144

The difference being there is a different language of evidence. Religion uses logic and philosophy not proofs and formulas.

That is why I never ask for "proof" from theists. I instead ask for ANY arguments, evidence, data or reasoning that they can offer that lends even a modicum of credibility to the idea that a non-human intelligence intentional agency created the universe.

See how that does not limit your answer to just what is science?

And guess what you have offered in the past in response to my question?

Nothing. Nichts. Nadda. Squat. Zilch. Bugger all. Zip.

That's what.

Originally Posted by bulmabriefs144

If I proved in a lab something completely illogical like that certain people could fly, it wouldn't matter how often I "prove" this, any real scientist would scoff

That you have just made up out of the depths of your own imagination. If you could show such a thing in a lab, any "real" scientist would accept it instantly. The issue with your religious nonsense is you have not only failed to "prove" it.... you have failed to substantiate any of it on ANY level. At all. Even a little bit.

[TRANSPONDER]

Originally Posted by 303Guy

Yeah. No arguments there. It is reasonable to assume but we need to be careful to check our facts and withhold judgments until we do have confirmed evidence.

No dispute, certainly. But the question is not whether science can be misused for the purposes of pushing a particular agenda but whether basic data is sound.

The problem is not with Big business paying tame labmen to produce a Case for them, but with those who (having failed to make science jump through their hoops) use this to try to pretend that science is not worth listening to at all.