Learning Evolution

@AkioTsukino
You still trying to confuse the actual science with it’s users. That’s an unreasonable comparison.
The Chinese came up with a couple of very useful things aside from noodles . That shook the world .Gun powder and magnets.
Gun powder, was used originally for firecrackers and noisemakers. Magnets, a little curiosity. They had no practical use for them at the time
The Europeans, took the magnets. A little needle, put in a piece of cork, a bowl of water. Bam ! You have a compass. Shipping and navigation without the need of a star chart. Changed everything.
As for gun powder, you know were that went. Used both in construction and more notably in destruction.
Magnets and gun powder are neither moral, or corrupt. Neither is the sciences you keep arguing about. So far, you keep implying that science is governed by political forces. The rest of us have been discussing the basic facts, which have not been refuted. You’re trying to discredit it via those who use it or who you believe misuse it.
Would it be asking too much of you to clear that up a bit ?

@DocSavage Is there, has there ever been, can there be bad science? Science that is corrupted and abused, neglected, corrected? Old science. No longer thought to be true. Can it be?

@AkioTsukino
Bad science is replaced by better science. You’re still confusing science with applied science. You might not be able to tell the difference, we can.

@DocSavage
So, bad science exists, has existed, can exist now, will exist in the future et cetera.


I think that what you do is change the rules, redefine words, over complicate to obfuscate, and cherry pick data and interpretation of data.

But, that isn't the point of this thread. If you just stick to the facts we can move along much more effectively and quickly.

Like this: I say: "Doc, can science be bad?" You say: "Yes, it can." Then maybe I will follow up by saying: "How so, Doc, tell me how?" And so on. Or I can nod and move on.

@DocSavage Exactly! Science is distinct from technology... the application of the knowledge gained through science.

The nuclear reactor that powers your home is the same nuclear reaction that destroyed Hiroshima.

@newjaninev2
Chuckles seems to be avoiding that technicality . Actually proving his own argument. Context Distortion, misinformation, corruption, dishonesty, for personal gain.

@AkioTsukino
Science is based on availability of information. But it is self correcting when new information is added. Yes there are fakes and frauds. And sometimes it takes time to expose them. In each case the “bad” science is discarded.
The question is, does it work ?
Creationist like to deny carbon dating. Usually bringing up false positives results on things like seashells. Those test were used to calibrate the method, not to discredit it. There are overlapping methods to confirm each other. If they don’t work, they don’t use it.

@DocSavage Perhaps he doesn’t understand that anything I published in the scientific field would immediately be attacked by thousands of scientists... that’s the self-correcting nature of science.

Science isn’t some secret society that meets surreptitiously on the 1st Wednesday of each month in the back room of some seedy bar, where bulging envelopes change hands and predetermined results are specified and agreed upon.

Unlike politics, corruption will inevitably be exposed, and there is no corruption that could ever persuade me to destroy my own scientific reputation for fleeting gain.

@newjaninev2
I get the feeling he wants to denounce it for some reason. He refuses to acknowledge our definitions, all the while complaining about the corporation agenda. He shows no interest in facts. Nor does he provide anything useful.

@DocSavage For me, the epitome of a true scientist is illustrated by this anecdote from Richard Dawkins in his book The God Delusion:

“I have previously told the story of a respected elder statesman of the Zoology Department at Oxford when I was an undergraduate. For years he had passionately believed, and taught, that the Golgi Apparatus (a microscopic feature of the interior of cells) was not real... Every Monday afternoon it was the custom for the whole department to listen to a research talk by a visiting lecturer. One Monday, the visitor was an American cell biologist who presented completely convincing evidence that the Golgi Apparatus was real. At the end of the lecture, the old man strode to the front of the hall, shook the American by the hand and said - with passion - 'My dear fellow, I wish to thank you. I have been wrong these fifteen years.’”

@newjaninev2 This is one great attribute of science, self correcting. I tell about my recollections of having an interest of dinosaurs when I was young. Just like children do now. Most of the books I read at the time are no longer valid. Due to better research and new discoveries these animals have truly come to life. The creationists hate and try to ignore it, but science has the annoying habit of working. I think the methodology that bugs them. With religion, there is always some magic and that has appeal.

Yet they push something that fails far more than it succeeds. Makes no sense.

@AkioTsukino
The only thing I might considered bad science, isn’t really science. It’s a scientist and a corrupt agenda. Michael BeHe, and his “intelligent design” crap. Obviously a sellout. But, as you can see , rejected by true science.

@DocSavage Michael Behe has no scientific standing... he hasn’t published in many years, and is never cited.

@DocSavage You can't consider science bad. The two possibilities can't coexist in your world view. Because you are religious. Talking to you science minded atheists is the exact same as talking to fundamentalist "Christians."

@DocSavage Let me ask you this, Doc. Why is it that you know this BeHe person and I don't? I've never heard of him and most likely wouldn't be interested in hearing him. Do you know why? Because you care more about "intelligent design" than I do.

@AkioTsukino You’re talking as if science were something palpable and separate from everything else.

Science is a methodology

“What do you think science is? There's nothing magical about science. It is simply a systematic way for carefully and thoroughly observing nature and using consistent logic to evaluate results. Which part of that exactly do you disagree with? Do you disagree with being thorough? Using careful observation? Being systematic? Or using consistent logic?”
Steven Novella

“Science is what we have learned about how to keep from fooling ourselves.”
Richard Feynman

I realise you desperately need science to be something else, in the same way you need evolution to be something else, because then you can wheel out all your prepared arguments.

Sorry, can’t be done

Your arguments are based on straw-man fallacies

That’s why all you offer are vague allusions and disingenuous questions which have not a whit of academic curiosity behind them. Here’s an idea... ask a question, and then engage with the answer. Don’t run away from the answer. Engage. Explore the ramifications of the answer.

@AkioTsukino
You are forgetting ( more likely ignoring ) the one thing which completely destroys your little conspiracy theory.
Understand that there are bad scientists. Incompetence, or deliberate frauds. Take your pick. There is no bad science. Science is judged on results. That is it’s biggest benefit. Repeatable, consistent, predictable results. Which is what makes your statements so ridiculous. Especially about evolution. Evolution is a natural process that has occurred over millions of years. What you see is the results. What do those results tell you ? That living organisms change over time. That’s it . They change and adapt to conditions in their environment. The process is biological, not corporate. It’s not something that is subject to your corporate corruption.
It will continue, with or without us. It’s really that simple.
Now to the subject of applied science. That too , despite your belief to the contrary, is not bad science either. Applied science is how the science is put to use. Corporations do indeed use the science. Some might even misuse it. It depends on what they want to achieve. Nuclear energy at mentioned before, can be used to make a bomb, or keep the lights burning at night in thousands of homes. Don’t blame the science.
Corporations, use science to make products, or sell services. The science has to work, or it’s not going to be of any use to anyone. It has to provide results and give the public what it wants. So as long as they do, the science is “good” . You don’t trust, or like it ? Too bad. Unless you can come up with a practical alternative, no one will give up the convenience. So whatever corruption you have a moral problem with, people will over look, as long as they’re happy with what they get.