tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post7341199351084799320..comments2024-03-27T14:50:47.345-04:00Comments on <center>Sandwalk</center>: The Trouble With ScienceLarry Moranhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-17685354994941875852013-10-23T13:10:10.660-04:002013-10-23T13:10:10.660-04:00Um, yes, but people are all we have to do science ...Um, yes, but people are all we have to do science and to make and implement policies based on that science, so do you see what he meant?BubbaRichhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10334093723773620510noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-54452951299487623582013-10-23T03:30:13.974-04:002013-10-23T03:30:13.974-04:00Science, whatever that is, is not in trouble.
Its ...Science, whatever that is, is not in trouble.<br />Its just that other motivations or incompetence or averageness in difficult subjects.<br />BINGO.<br />Creationists have been saying this since Darwins time about origin subjects.<br />Its a accurate line of reasoning that it happens elsewhere as pressure is built up for desirable results.<br />Error in 'science" os just error in people.<br />science should be about a high standard of methodology before conclusions are drawn.<br />Robert Byershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05631863870635096770noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-22965313913289653842013-10-22T17:25:37.780-04:002013-10-22T17:25:37.780-04:00Yep. Example, when I send a manuscript describing ...Yep. Example, when I send a manuscript describing further/better confirmation of some hypothesis the journals reject them quickly because they are not "surprising", or because they're "just confirmatory." So we end up with singlets that we can't know if they have been verified or confirmed by a different approach.<br /><br />Etc., etc., etc.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com