agendas in science

http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2014/03/19/how-linguists-are-pulling-apart-bering-strait-theory-154063

agendas in science

the theory of loving truth

"The vitriol that poured from some of the harshest critics, such as John Whittaker, a professor of anthropology at Grinnell College, who referred to Deloria's book as "a wretched piece of Native American creationist claptrap,” seemed excessive. The critics also demonstrated that they clearly did not comprehend Deloria’s argument. Red Earth, White Lies, embroidered by Deloria’s wry sense of humor and rambling musings, shows he was not anti-science, but rather anti-scientist. In particular, he was against those scientists who held narrow views of the world, who had no respect for other people’s traditions, who fostered a cult of superiority either for themselves or for their society, and who were afraid to search for the truth unless it already conformed with established opinion.
Read more at http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2014/03/19/how-linguists-are-pulling-apart-bering-strait-theory-154063"


"The issue for Deloria was not science vs. religion (or tradition), it was good science vs. bad science, and in his view, the Bering Strait Theory was bad science.
Read more at http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2014/03/19/how-linguists-are-pulling-apart-bering-strait-theory-154063"

In 1892, when the geologist George Frederick Wright published his massive study, Man and the Glacial Period, which challenged some of the tenets of the Bering Strait Theory as it was then formulated, he was attacked, as David J. Meltzer pointed out in First Peoples in a New World, “with a barrage of vicious reviews which were unprecedented in number and savagery.” One critic of the book, William John McGee, the head of the Bureau of American Ethnology, “was especially bloodthirsty, labeling Wright’s work absurdly fallacious, unscientific, and an ‘offense to the nostrils,’ then dismissing him as ‘a betinseled charlatan whose potions are poison. Would that science might be well rid of such harpies.’”
Read more at http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2014/03/19/how-linguists-are-pulling-apart-bering-strait-theory-154063?page=0%2C1

"Yet this discovery had already been anticipated by other scientists, for example, the linguists. The Sahul is one of the most linguistically diverse areas in the world, home to more than 1,000 languages, about one-fifth of the world’s total. The linguists had already predicted that the “time depth” required to achieve this type of linguistic diversity was clearly not in the thousands of years, but in the tens of thousands of years. Subsequent archaeological finds have now pushed back the date of human occupation of Australia to a minimum of 45,000 years ago and possibly 60,000 years ago.
Read more at http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2014/03/19/how-linguists-are-pulling-apart-bering-strait-theory-154063?page=0%2C1"

Real, pure science has been buried beneath lies and deceitful agendas for thousands of years just as has real, pure "Christianity" and it's adherents been buried, exterminated, discouraged, and attempted to completely annihilate from the face of the earth.



Truth is the most hated thing in this world.


http://youtu.be/XmMwo1Xzgus


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lFHwKmHfdo8

There is a base arrogance underlying all anti-science slander:
The notion that just because you don't or won't know or understand how or why it works, therefore neither does anyone else. And another notion that all it takes to refute the data generations of geneticists spent their lifetimes and occasionally paid their lives to gather and of which but a tiny fraction remained unrefuted by an army of their peers, is an arm chair, a simple mind and a web search engine.

the thing that is so great about real, pure science is that debate is welcomed. only the anti-science people are against open debate and continuing research.

many geneticists are confirmed liars, and have been caught perpetrating fraud numerous times. the fact is is that genetic research is not all knowing, and the results only reveal a limited amount of facts. i realize this is contrary to how the anti-science geneticists claim that their results yield all these facts that they simply do not.


"There is a base arrogance underlying all anti-science slander:" you hit the nail on the head there, buddy boy. maybe one day you'll stop knowing all and come around, from the anti-science side of things, to the pure science side of things.


so, if the poles were to reverse would the sun rise in the west?

ghost dog wrote: the thing that is so great about real, pure science is that debate is welcomed.

Wrong. Debate is irrelevant. Evidence is key.

only the anti-science people are against open debate and continuing research.

Wrong again. Anti-science people are all for open debate. What do you think the entire "teach the controversy" is all about? It is about putting crackpot ideas on a level playing field with genuine science. Debate, while not discouraged, is still largely irrelevant to science. Even when seemingly conflicting evidence is presented, it is only further evidence in favour of a unifying, reconciling hypothesis that can make it believable.

many geneticists are confirmed liars, and have been caught perpetrating fraud numerous times.

Yes, as with all other fields of study; but it sure wasn't philosophers or linguists that caught them, let alone refuted their claims. Good science is the only cure against bad science.

the fact is is that genetic research is not all knowing, and the results only reveal a limited amount of facts.

Which, if you ever had read any scientific paper, you would know they perfectly well understand - unlike the popular science media the lies of which everybody within the scientific community is grown quite sick of by now.

i realize this is contrary to how the anti-science geneticists claim that their results yield all these facts that they simply do not.

No, again, that is what the popular science media claims. People who claim that of their own findings have a massive burden to substantiate such claims or retract them if they cannot. Those who won't are collectively laughed out of the door of any self-respecting research lab and go on to cry how there is a conspiracy against people with outrageous claims made on no evidence and dishonestly defended against all evidence to the contrary.

"There is a base arrogance underlying all anti-science slander:" you hit the nail on the head there, buddy boy. maybe one day you'll stop knowing all and come around, from the anti-science side of things, to the pure science side of things.

Oh, no, you didn't!

I will not be lectured on the merits or shape of proper science by somebody who does nothing but destroy all suspicions that he might have the remotest idea of the workings any one aspect of the scientific method or why that respective aspect is part of it. I will not be told I knew it all by someone who does nothing but spit all over the face of knowledge itself meanwhile pretending that he does, indeed, have it all, and that nobody could possibly know anything about anything if they are not perfectly in line with him. I will not be lectured on the benefits of the free discussion and the open mind - both things I have been advocating for and criticized for advocating for about as long as I have been around here - by someone who does nothing but pretend that his arm chair media browsing and active scoffing at everyone who dares to even challenge him on anything he says is all that it takes to make a respectable, much less valid point. How dare you, sir!

so, if the poles were to reverse would the sun rise in the west?

You mean the magnetic poles? It wouldn't reverse the Earth's rotation vector if that's what you mean. But we could arbitrarily decide and rename the cardinal directions or even redefine what they are to whatever we want even tomorrow. The only thing to change would be the names.

just for the record i readily admit that i do not know everything, and in certain fields i am entirely inept.

when i said debate i meant debate the evidence, because people use the exact same evidence to argue opposing viewpoints on the most astounding things.

i would agree to state that we may both be arrogant, but how can you deny your own arrogance?

let us take a look at the definitions of science.

feel free to criticize wikipedia as a source - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science

"science (from Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge"[1]) is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about nature and the universe.[nb 1] In an older and closely related meaning, "science" also refers to a body of knowledge itself, of the type that can be rationally explained and reliably applied. A practitioner of science is known as a scientist.
Ever since classical antiquity, science as a type of knowledge has been closely linked to philosophy. During the Islamic Golden Age,[2] the foundation for the scientific method was laid, which emphasized experimental data and reproducibility of its results.[nb 2] In the West during the early modern period the words "science" and "philosophy of nature" were sometimes used interchangeably,[3].3 and until the 17th century natural philosophy (which is today called "natural science") was considered a separate branch of philosophy in the West.[4]
In modern usage, "science" most often refers to a way of pursuing knowledge, not only the knowledge itself. It is also often restricted to those branches of study that seek to explain the phenomena of the material universe."


Botany is the scientific study of plants. "Plants," to most people, means a wide range of living organisms from the smallest bacteria to the largest living things - the giant sequoia trees. By this definition plants include: algae, fungi, lichens, mosses, ferns, conifers and flowering plants.


http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110615/full/474272a.html




i think science is a whole lot less mystical and not so reserved for some elite class of uber intellectuals as you seem to be trying so hard to convince me of.


you are the one constantly slandering scientific studies that don't measure up to your perspective of what science is without offering any real reasons for your position, but it is evident that they may cause you a measurable degree of fundamental irritation.

i did not place that emoticon there, but since it is there..............

Steering away from the brewing war...

It wouldn't surprise me in the least if everything we knew was a lie formulated by anyone at all who held a smart-guy status or title. Since history books are written by the victors, why not also the science books? Everyone knows the mass media in any subject is out for a quick buck, so they'll say whatever they think will sell better while only including a sprinkling of truth. I feel anyone in a position of power can be corrupted to the point where they abuse the power and respect they have to further their own agendas.

As for evidence vs debate, it is often the debate about the evidence that exposes lies or factual errors and can give way to new evidence. Early evidence suggested that some dinosaurs looked different than we know now, through debate leading to the discovery of further evidence. In my opinion, there is only a handful of empirical evidence on a given subject, but how that evidence is interpreted and debated is what leads us to put the puzzle pieces together right.

ghost dog wrote: when i said debate i meant debate the evidence, because people use the exact same evidence to argue opposing viewpoints on the most astounding things.

Any one piece of evidence may be positively indicative of multiple incompatible hypotheses all of which can be true individually. No amount of debate will rule one out over another and no amount of subsequent debate will leave one prevail over the rest. Other evidence needs to be gathered that is compatible with only a strict subset of the hypotheses until only a few remain. Even then only the aspects positively indicated by all of the evidence can be reasonably expected to be true while the rest of the implications of the hypotheses can only be refered to as unsubstantiated. Even to say that they are possible needs positive evidence indicating that possibility. Evidence speaks for itself. Debate is unnecessary.

i would agree to state that we may both be arrogant, but how can you deny your own arrogance?

It isn't me going around claiming things and then scoffing at people who ask me to back them up. It is not me thinking that my dismissiveness and google finds are on a level playing field with genuine science. My utter incompetence in almost all fields scientific doesn't warrant me a legitimate debate with those who have the balls to go in there and devote their lives to being debunked over and over again in the remote hopes of ever getting at least something peripherally right. The ways in which I am arrogant, or, perhaps, self-righteous may be a better term, are other ways and those I try to not display here. And lest I begin to do so I shall instead leave it to the judgement of our fair readers whether they find I was being arrogant in any of my remarks...

...
i think science is a whole lot less mystical and not so reserved for some elite class uber intellectuals as you seem to be trying so hard to convince me of.

You are quite right, everyone is welcome to do science as they please and at any time. It doesn't take to be an elite class uber intellectual. But if you are going to spit into the faces of those who are, you better have some evidence on your hands. It is arrogant to assume that from your arm chair you will find some of that good evidence, but arrogant is all it is and truth doesn't care about your attitudes. Having to keep an open mind, science is always prepared to review your evidence and while people may look also at how you say things, your ideas will be tested in the same ways irrespective of that and their prevailance will be due to their validity exclusively as will their failure be only due to their own weakness.

you are the one constantly slandering scientific studies that don't measure up to your perspective of what science is without offering any real reasons for your position, but it is evident that they may cause you a measurable degree of fundamental irritation.

What irritates me about you is that whenever challenged you never fail to be less than insultingly dismissive and you never fail to try and project each and every one of your failings onto those who will share none of them. That you happen to also mock science whilst having little to no idea on neither any of the subjects you talked about nor about the epistemology that gave rise to the scientific method as we know it, I likewise hold against you; I will however defend your right to do so any day and you are tolerated, while not welcome, to continue.
I do not slander scientific studies. I read a paper occasionally and most of them are way above my head for me to even comment. You, on the other hand, do slander them without having read them or - for all I know - being any more able to comprehend them than am I, if you did. Your saying that I am arrogant and that I am slandering and that I am an anti-science person and that I act as if I knew it all is exactly the kind of projection I was accusing you of a few lines further up. What I do slander is popular science magazine articles that demonstrably keep lying about everything they report on, often without even a reference to the actual studies they so willingly lie about.

I know what it feels like to have you words twisted in a subsequent report. I despise both that practice and any support thereof and I feel no shame in viewing it this way nor fighting to expose it. I could stop at the price of my honesty and integrity and thereby my honour and dignity as a human being. Surely you understand that this I cannot do. And so we are left stuck waiting for the day - and it will inevitably come - when somebody else comes to censor me, sacrificing their own integrity and honesty for what they think is worth more than the humanity they are willing to pay. Needless to say, that position of devotion to truth and honesty itself comes at a high cost already. I shall never entirely cease to regret the sacrifices it took...

so did you just admit that you are a self righteous, arm chair philosopher?

since you're being honest for a change i will admit that i am an actual professional scientist that has been paid for my work for over ten years. and i could say more, but i don't want to validate your skewed perception of myself in your head anymore.




and i don't know what to say without, or being perceived as, tooting my own horn, but i will suffice to say that i am thankful for your appreciation.

Enjoying the discussion
i belive in my own definition of science which is simy "pursuit of truth and knowledge"
I belive in scientific methods of thorough research critical analysis trial by control experiment peer review ect ect

there is no doubt that many have claimed to be scientists but have betrayed truth
monsanto and phillip morris
global climate change
gmo
ect ect
Humans are human and some do not understand that honesty is the foundation for findi g truth
honesty demands fair review of new phenomena before maki g judgeme t
honesty dema ds that truth be more important than money or ego to an honest scientist

The greatest scientists have always been the ones willing to let go of yestdays truth when todays honesty lead them somewhere new

Thanks for the thread
thanks for the discussion