Re: No Intelligence Allowed - science

[Guest guest]

Ah! The good old days! Now it's more like

Grant money is running out

Think of new study to do that will be funded

Find hypothesis and design study

(some) Figure out which outcome funders want

(some) Get grad. students to do all the work

Conduct study

Write it up and find a journal to publish it

Sadly, I've been involved in research and it was nothing like what

I'd hoped it would be. Three different times/places and it was all

about funding and in two of them about getting the desired outcome.

I've known researchers who made up subjects and invented the whole

study without any actual research and got it published; others

believed in a cause so much they fudged the numbers to make it come

out their way (and keep grant money coming in).

The reason I started this thread is that according to my

observations, science is highly political, and truth only comes out

where it is the desired outcome anyways. The ID is only a case in

point to a larger problem (but it seems to be making some waves!) My

point is more that the way we arrive at the knowledge that is taught

and passed on in our culture (at least officially - via schools) is

broken. I thought WAP'ers might agree because we run up against the

same problems whether it be on the bias against raw milk or

cholesterol or which foods really are healthy.

>

> > Maybe some of my own frustrations with the scientific method got

> > worked in there as well. I've never had an easy time with

Occam's

> > Razor or even the whole hypothesis thing - learning occurs when

> > someone realizes they don't know something.

>

> Maybe you just didn't have very good science teachers. Learning can

> happen all along the line. The way I read it, you started it in

the

> middle. The whole sequence goes:

>

> notice something ->

> investigate till brain is fried

> put on back burner (sit in bathtub like Archimedes)

> get aha! hypothesis ->

> test hypothesis ->

> if confirmed, pursue inevitable questions

> if not confirmed, go back to 2 and inevitable questions

>

> So, maybe you just like the noticing part and don't care so much

> about the rest.

>

[Guest guest]

The fact that there is good science and bad science, and that there is

corrupt science (as well as people who corrupt their religions) says

nothing about whether ID is science, and should be taught in science

courses.

> Ah! The good old days! Now it's more like

>

> Grant money is running out

>

> Think of new study to do that will be funded

>

> Find hypothesis and design study

>

> (some) Figure out which outcome funders want

>

> (some) Get grad. students to do all the work

>

> Conduct study

>

> Write it up and find a journal to publish it

>

> Sadly, I've been involved in research and it was nothing like what

> I'd hoped it would be. Three different times/places and it was all

> about funding and in two of them about getting the desired outcome.

> I've known researchers who made up subjects and invented the whole

> study without any actual research and got it published; others

> believed in a cause so much they fudged the numbers to make it come

> out their way (and keep grant money coming in).

>

> The reason I started this thread is that according to my

> observations, science is highly political, and truth only comes out

> where it is the desired outcome anyways. The ID is only a case in

> point to a larger problem (but it seems to be making some waves!) My

> point is more that the way we arrive at the knowledge that is taught

> and passed on in our culture (at least officially - via schools) is

> broken. I thought WAP'ers might agree because we run up against the

> same problems whether it be on the bias against raw milk or

> cholesterol or which foods really are healthy.

>

>

> >

> > > Maybe some of my own frustrations with the scientific method got

> > > worked in there as well. I've never had an easy time with

> Occam's

> > > Razor or even the whole hypothesis thing - learning occurs when

> > > someone realizes they don't know something.

> >

> > Maybe you just didn't have very good science teachers. Learning can

> > happen all along the line. The way I read it, you started it in

> the

> > middle. The whole sequence goes:

> >

> > notice something ->

> > investigate till brain is fried

> > put on back burner (sit in bathtub like Archimedes)

> > get aha! hypothesis ->

> > test hypothesis ->

> > if confirmed, pursue inevitable questions

> > if not confirmed, go back to 2 and inevitable questions

> >

> > So, maybe you just like the noticing part and don't care so much

> > about the rest.

> >

>

>

>