Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 10-09-2007, 04:14 PM   #1
Jake S
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Most of the published science studies found to be wrong

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118972683557627104.html
  Reply With Quote
Old 10-09-2007, 04:23 PM   #2
Professor Chaos
General of the Attacking Army
 
Professor Chaos's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Pittsburgh
Posts: 12,904
Nice first post, cumguzzler. Care to just tell me who you are while I'm looking up your IP?

I will grieve. Grief is not a theistic concept. ~ Sternwallow
Professor Chaos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-09-2007, 04:35 PM   #3
Choobus
I Live Here
 
Choobus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: prick up your ears
Posts: 20,553
fuck off you shit spam eating retard.

You can always turn tricks for a few extra bucks. If looks are an issue, there's the glory hole option, but don't expect more than ... tips.
~ Philiboid Studge
Choobus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-09-2007, 04:39 PM   #4
Professor Chaos
General of the Attacking Army
 
Professor Chaos's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Pittsburgh
Posts: 12,904
Kilik again.

I will grieve. Grief is not a theistic concept. ~ Sternwallow
Professor Chaos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-09-2007, 04:39 PM   #5
Professor Chaos
General of the Attacking Army
 
Professor Chaos's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Pittsburgh
Posts: 12,904
Which leads me to believe that Andymonk isn't Kilik after all, just some other kind of cunt.

I will grieve. Grief is not a theistic concept. ~ Sternwallow
Professor Chaos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-09-2007, 04:39 PM   #6
GodlessHeathen
Obsessed Member
 
GodlessHeathen's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: 3rd notch in the bible belt
Posts: 1,342
Wow, did that REALLY appear in the Wall Street Journal? Has Murdoch already taken control? This is exactly the kind of idiocy I'd expect from one of his outlets.

Christian: One who believes that the New Testament is a divinely inspired book admirably suited to the spiritual needs of his neighbor. - Ambrose Bierce
GodlessHeathen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-09-2007, 04:40 PM   #7
Professor Chaos
General of the Attacking Army
 
Professor Chaos's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Pittsburgh
Posts: 12,904
Actually, "Jake S" was the same as 69xxxx. That was Kilik, right?

I will grieve. Grief is not a theistic concept. ~ Sternwallow
Professor Chaos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-09-2007, 04:40 PM   #8
Eva
Super Moderator
 
Eva's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Puerto Rico
Posts: 9,775
....and we have a co-mod with a very fast trigger finger.........

One of the most irrational of all the conventions of modern society is the one to the effect that religious opinions should be respected....That they should have this immunity is an outrage. There is nothing in religious ideas, as a class, to lift them above other ideas. On the contrary, they are always dubious and often quite silly.
H. L. Mencken
Eva is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-09-2007, 04:44 PM   #9
Choobus
I Live Here
 
Choobus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: prick up your ears
Posts: 20,553
Quote:
GodlessHeathen wrote View Post
Wow, did that REALLY appear in the Wall Street Journal? Has Murdoch already taken control? This is exactly the kind of idiocy I'd expect from one of his outlets.
yeah but it's actually a reasonable article. However, it is wrong to put life sciences in with physical sciences. A measurement of the electron g factor is a very precise thing indeed, whereas a clinical trial is not.

You can always turn tricks for a few extra bucks. If looks are an issue, there's the glory hole option, but don't expect more than ... tips.
~ Philiboid Studge
Choobus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-09-2007, 04:47 PM   #10
Professor Chaos
General of the Attacking Army
 
Professor Chaos's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Pittsburgh
Posts: 12,904
http://www.skepticalcommunity.com/ph...c.php?p=321214

I will grieve. Grief is not a theistic concept. ~ Sternwallow
Professor Chaos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-10-2007, 09:19 AM   #11
Sternwallow
I Live Here
 
Sternwallow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 23,211
Quote:
Choobus wrote View Post
yeah but it's actually a reasonable article. However, it is wrong to put life sciences in with physical sciences. A measurement of the electron g factor is a very precise thing indeed, whereas a clinical trial is not.
This article seems to me to typify the way that science is self-healing and continues to progress toward truth despite inevitable errors.

If religious publications were retracted due to errors, both honest and deliberate, the Bible would have disappeared into the pit of humbug tens of centuries ago and it would have taken Judaism, Christianity and Islam along with it.

"Those who most loudly proclaim their honesty are least likely to possess it."
"Atheism: rejecting all absurdity." S.H.
"Reality, the God alternative"
Sternwallow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-10-2007, 05:00 PM   #12
Choobus
I Live Here
 
Choobus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: prick up your ears
Posts: 20,553
Quote:
Sternwallow wrote View Post
This article seems to me to typify the way that science is self-healing and continues to progress toward truth despite inevitable errors.
There is a bit of a problem in the biomedical fields in that very often studies show only weak correlations, and ideas can become accepted partly because they are put forward by influential people. Under these circumstances it can look very bad to publish a dissenting result with a weak conclusion, and data is often analyzed so as to agree with the prevailing view. This is what thearticle is really talking about. As you say, this will get corrected, but it can take a long time, and in the case of medical research, the costs can be large (not just financially). This is particularly bad in the case of studies about correlations between cholesterol and coronary heart disease: an objective analysis of all available studies shows that there is no stastically significant correlation, and yet doscotrs will routinely prescribe statins to peoiple with even a slightly high level. (IF interested see "the cholesterol myth" by U. Ravnskov (MD, PhD)).

You can always turn tricks for a few extra bucks. If looks are an issue, there's the glory hole option, but don't expect more than ... tips.
~ Philiboid Studge
Choobus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-21-2007, 10:15 AM   #13
Victus
Obsessed Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 4,260
For life/social sciences, I'm genuinely surprised it's not higher. In physics and similar fields, you have virtually perfect control of everything. In psychology/neuroscience (my field) you have a measure of control, but often it is quite minimal. This is why for a theory to gain widespread acceptance with psych/neuro, it is usually critically tested using multiple different tests and multiple different populations. Hell, I'm proposing a new theory for the etiology of psychopathy that can account for the most symptoms in the fewest steps. If I am right, then there's probably 50+ theoretical/review/perspectives papers that I am invalidated. Then some upstart prick later modifies my theory, and my paper becomes invalidated.

Change is the nature of science. The answer is supposed to change as we conduct further studies.

"When science was in its infancy, religion tried to strangle it in its cradle." - Robert G. Ingersoll
Victus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-21-2007, 10:58 AM   #14
ghoulslime
I Live Here
 
ghoulslime's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 20,925
Hmmm...That was pretty much a knock out in the first round.

1. Troll drops stink bomb
2. Mod sprays air freshener to clear the room of the stench
3. Brilliant atheists point out that knowledge of the principles of science is a dynamic variable scrutinized continually until we become omniscient.
4. Sage atheists point out that religious texts are not subjected to even fundamentally evaluation for contradictions with truth
5. Halleluiah! I pronounce this thread cleansed of the spirits of stupidity!

Well, it looks like this has been wrapped up, and we can all go home and enjoy a nice cold beer and a couple of go go girls on each knee!

The Leprechauns do not forbid the drawing of Their images, as long as we color within the lines. ~ Ghoulslime H Christ, Prophet, Seer, Revelator, and Masturbator
ghoulslime is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-21-2007, 11:00 AM   #15
Rat Bastard
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Is it OK if one has one tit bigger than the other? Can't leave the regular gals out of it, now, can we?

I wonder if "Jake S" is actually pronounced "jackass"?
  Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:32 AM.


Powered by: vBulletin - Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2000 - , Raving Atheists [dot] com frequency-supranational frequency-supranational