AP IMPACT: Science not faked, but not pretty (AP)
senojekips
Active member
But they never had the brains to ask why these small deceptions were necessary in the first place.
I think that the term used was that the figures were "finessed" because it was better to merely make the figures "more favourable"... to gently erase any questionable data or inconsistencies that might possibly have given the sheep cause to, god forbid,... think for themselves. We couldn't have that now could we.
The scientists repeated refusals to respond to FOI requests is a good indication of the fact that even they are not convinced of their "research" realising that even rank amateurs could probably easily pull it apart.
It would seem more like enthusiastic massaging of data to suit their personal theories rather than "science".
I think that the term used was that the figures were "finessed" because it was better to merely make the figures "more favourable"... to gently erase any questionable data or inconsistencies that might possibly have given the sheep cause to, god forbid,... think for themselves. We couldn't have that now could we.
The scientists repeated refusals to respond to FOI requests is a good indication of the fact that even they are not convinced of their "research" realising that even rank amateurs could probably easily pull it apart.
It would seem more like enthusiastic massaging of data to suit their personal theories rather than "science".
MontyB
All-Blacks Supporter
Of course you would but to be blunt you have no idea how science works and have a fixed attitude that "eggheads must be wrong", I am an engineer by trade but I work with Scientists all day and believe it or not there are always doubts about the numbers and methods this is what peer review is all about, it is hard enough to get 2 people to agree let alone a laboratory of 20 and a community of thousands.
- As far as their refusal to pass on data that is already in the public domain we have a similar policy when dealing with the competition, they can use google just like everyone else.
- As far as not releasing personal doubts about an aspect of work, I doubt that you will find any industry where information to the public or competition is not heavily managed.
- As far as the deletion of data goes, it is impossible to know what has been kept or disposed of without seeing the original data and nothing in these emails represents the original data just a scientists opinions on various data sets, however given the accreditation requirements Laboratories at this level require (Try passing an FDA audit and you will know what I mean) I would doubt that any of them would hold the certificates they have if they were deleting raw data.
I realise my discussions with you on this topic are wasted and you will simply ignore them through entrenched views but as someone that has to keep 6 years worth of raw data, control data available to inspection at any time there is next to no chance accredited Laboratories can get away with fraudulent science on a grand scale.
- As far as their refusal to pass on data that is already in the public domain we have a similar policy when dealing with the competition, they can use google just like everyone else.
- As far as not releasing personal doubts about an aspect of work, I doubt that you will find any industry where information to the public or competition is not heavily managed.
- As far as the deletion of data goes, it is impossible to know what has been kept or disposed of without seeing the original data and nothing in these emails represents the original data just a scientists opinions on various data sets, however given the accreditation requirements Laboratories at this level require (Try passing an FDA audit and you will know what I mean) I would doubt that any of them would hold the certificates they have if they were deleting raw data.
I realise my discussions with you on this topic are wasted and you will simply ignore them through entrenched views but as someone that has to keep 6 years worth of raw data, control data available to inspection at any time there is next to no chance accredited Laboratories can get away with fraudulent science on a grand scale.
senojekips
Active member
Yes Monty.
Never the less, there's still plenty of room for healthy scepticism.
I pose the question, seeing you work with these people regularly, has it never given you good cause to wonder about how, outside of their chosen fields, some of them manage to get dressed on their own and to and from their work? I too have worked with a number of people in Oceanographic Science and to be honest, I must say that as a group they were pretty much all a bit scatter brained. Nice blokes, but ..........
Never the less, there's still plenty of room for healthy scepticism.
I pose the question, seeing you work with these people regularly, has it never given you good cause to wonder about how, outside of their chosen fields, some of them manage to get dressed on their own and to and from their work? I too have worked with a number of people in Oceanographic Science and to be honest, I must say that as a group they were pretty much all a bit scatter brained. Nice blokes, but ..........
Last edited:
MontyB
All-Blacks Supporter
Don't get me wrong I am not saying bad science does not happen, I have dealt with some complete con-men in lab coats and they have credentials as long as your arm but my point is that these people are easy to catch even with limited checks and balances in place.
I would also agree that there are some bizarre people out there in all fields but despite their complete social ineptitude I would not attempt to cross them in their field of expertise.
I would also agree that there are some bizarre people out there in all fields but despite their complete social ineptitude I would not attempt to cross them in their field of expertise.