Contamination of modern science by politics...

[Whitemithrandir]

Those of us in the field of science are fed up with what the public expects and demands from us without having full knowledge of the field they're protesting/criticizing. Today I see and hear people outside the lab (we're working on synthesizing the theoretical fuel hydro-butane as our research project, which these people get mixed up with some sort of industrial gasolene) shouting "STOP HARMFUL CHEMICAL RESEARCH!" "BAN CHEMICALS!" "DOWN WITH CHEMICALS, DOWN WITH POLLUTION". Hey, guess what? That bottle of coke in your hand? That's a chemical. That red stuff in your body? That's a chemical. WTF do you people want? Ban chemical? BAN YOU!

 

Last year it was "ONLY ANIMALS EXPERIMENT ON ANIMALS!" "ANIMALS DESERVE BETTER!" On TV, I see politicians using stem cell research as a step ladder to their campaigning, with the immediate assumption of "STEP CELL RESEARCH LEADS TO CLONING! CLONING BAAADDDD!" without the slightest inkling of what they're talking about.

 

I can separate pseudo-science into 5 catagories (http://www.chem1.com/acad/sci/pseudosci.html) :

 

1. Politics: These are the bastards that use science for some sort of political goal, who affix a connotation to certain research, like STEM CELL RESEARCH = BAD or ALTERNATIVE FUELS = EXPENSIVE AND WASTE OF TIME. Excuse me, Mr. Politician, when was the last time you actually LOOKED UP WHAT YOU'RE GENERALIZING, from the sound of it, to be the bane of mankind?

 

2. Religion: These are the morons who think science an affront to God/gods/spirits/ancestors. YES, YOU CHRISTIAN SCIENTISTS in the audience, I'm talking about you. I'm talking about people who take reason and logic smack in the face and shrug it off in favor of some intangible being, and demand that you repent in the process. Hey, I'm religious too, I just don't think physics is all rubbish.

 

3. Hoaxes: These are the wannabe's that don't have the background knowledge garnered from a decent education but want to make fame and fortune by using pseudoscience to prey on those with lesser knowledge. YES, ALIEN CONSPIRATORS (no, I'm not talking about those SETI folks who do real systematic research to back up their findings) IN THE AUDIENCE, THAT'S YOU. Take out your tin-foiled hats, folks, aliens live among us right now!

 

4. Product of the Cosmos: Yes, you. Well no, not JUST you, you and those madame Cleo's everywhere that represent the kind of people who want to find a sublunary alternative to modern science and logic because YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH! So you go seeking Mayan magic and Suharan spirits, convincing yourself you're the embodiment of some esoteric energy which apparently, only you understand and see, to make this otherwise dull and boring world "exciting" and "mysterious" in a way. But wait, all your theories contradict with tried and true scientific principles. Nevermind that, however. Your theories are *always* right.

 

5. Aristotle: These are the esteemed members of the scientific community who rose to fame because of some research they did in the past. A nobel prize or two later, they become growingly arrogant, refusing to accept any alternative than the one they proposed. These are the guys who adamently defend a certain theory EVEN THOUGH massive amounts of evidence declare otherwise. Younger, less prominent members of the academia fear to press the matter forward even though they know they're right because of the enourmous prestige the Aristotles enjoy in their senile age.

 

Yes people, take a good look. Years down the road, when aliens with laser beams invade earth and you're forced to defend yourself with the wrong end of a broomstick because science took a huge turn backwards, you'll know who to blame.

[taks]

a true scientist is willing to admit when his theory has been proved wrong. a good example is stephen hawking and his latest admission that his original thoughts concerning black holes was incorrect... amazing bit of courage that took. but he's an amazing person.

 

objectivity is my soapbox, something not found very often. what is objectivity? not just a thought experiment. it is TRUE science. start with a theory. then, do your best to REFUTE it. yeah folks, try to disprove it first. that's the best way to earn credibility. examining all evidence, not just that which supports your theory, is what a real scientist does as a matter of principle. this is a feature lacking in nearly all pseudo-science these days.

 

good post whitemithrandir...

 

taks

[Phosphor]

start with a theory.  then, do your best to REFUTE it.  yeah folks, try to disprove it first.  that's the best way to earn credibility.  examining all evidence, not just that which supports your theory, is what a real scientist does as a matter of principle.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

That's not common knowledge? That was taught to me back in grade 7 science class.

[Whitemithrandir]

That's not common knowledge? That was taught to me back in grade 7 science class.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Amazing how many 70 year old profs on heavy tenure forget that.

[Kaftan Barlast]

In my experience, 1 and especially number 2 are the most annoying reasons of non-progress you can find. Its less common in Sweden because we're more secularized but its still here.

 

Its like this, a friend of mines father is senior physician of a maternity ward. He often sees tell-tale signs of inbreeding among low-educated people living in rural areas. But he cant mention it or discuss it because it would instantly bring accusations of him being a nazi.

[mkreku]

Its like this, a friend of mines father is senior physician of a maternity ward. He often sees tell-tale signs of inbreeding among low-educated people living in rural areas. But he cant mention it or discuss it because it would instantly bring accusations of him being a nazi.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Skellefte

[Product of the Cosmos]

"4. Product of the Cosmos: Yes, you. Well no, not JUST you, you and those madame Cleo's everywhere that represent the kind of people who want to find a sublunary alternative to modern science and logic because YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH! So you go seeking Mayan magic and Suharan spirits, convincing yourself you're the embodiment of some esoteric energy which apparently, only you understand and see, to make this otherwise dull and boring world "exciting" and "mysterious" in a way. But wait, all your theories contradict with tried and true scientific principles. Nevermind that, however. Your theories are *always* right."

 

I feel animousity from you. Simply because your education does not supply the fuel for things I theorize on. You out of all people(if your actually a Scientist) should know, things aren't always what they appear(actually ussually not what they appear).

 

I'm sorry if you think this existance is boring. At least I give you reason to rant, and fill you ego. And apparently give you something to occupy your "boring" time with.

 

And no, all my theories do not contradict known fact. They are just not probable in a world of possibilities when you do not know for sure. You got pissed because you jumped to conclusions about things you think you know a lot about.

 

While your at it, talk crap about Eastern philosophy and the hindus:'prana'

 

Native Americans:"All things share the same breath - the beast, the tree,

the man, the air shares its spirit with all the life it supports."

......Chief Seattle

 

Many others.

 

Just because you most likely saw Star Wars before you heard about these things from other sources(as all your ideas come from conventional KNOWN things it seems) you rant to me, and you think it's all science fiction being born in the superficial time of this era.

 

I guarentee by the year 2060 we will have proven a lot of things I speak about. Just make sure to remember me when this happens. And all your rants VS me will be forgiven. Teach the virtue you learn to your grandchildren and children if you have any if this scenario comes true.

 

If they don't happen in yours and my lifetime, keep your orginal thought of me being a loon throughout that time.. Deal?

 

Oh, and btw I completely agree with stem cell research.

 

Agree with testing on cloning(as for this will be PIVITOL in proving many of the things you critisize of me in the future mark my words). But I strongly do not agree with consuming genetically screwed with food. I do not think we know enough about genetics to alter it like that an enter it into society. At least have these corporations tell people when they are eating genetically modified food.

 

 

And testing on animals while doesn't please me, it is in the name of furthering humankind.. As long as the animals are not mistreated.

 

I take the approach of the prey and predator relationship I honor. The prey gives itself to the predator in honor of life. I am very gracious at this time towards our brothers and sister species here on Earth for their sacrifice. As I honor them every single day.

[taks]

  I guarentee by the year 2060 we will have proven a lot of things I speak about.  Just make sure to remember me when this happens.  And all your rants VS me will be forgiven.  If they don't happen in yours and my lifetime, keep your irginal thought of me being a loon.. Deal?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

hehe, sign one of pseudo-science is the statement "i guarantee"... there are no guarantees, and even commonly acceptec scientific principles are regularly refuted. many of your arguments have already been proven false or flawed. you said "things aren't always what they appear" when in fact, they are, sometimes even MORE simple than they appear. study occam.

 

taks

[Product of the Cosmos]

blahblahblah taks. You enjoy stalking me. At least I am providing entertainment for you

 

That comment was direct at mith. Not you.

[deganawida]

I, on the other hand, guarantee that by 2060 I will be known as the greatest sex god in history, richest man in the universe, and secret head of the Illuminated Seers of Bavaria.

 

Oh, yeah, and I'm really Batman. Really. Just ask Hell Kitty.

 

 

Edited for spelling, 'cause the baby was on my head.

[Product of the Cosmos]

Nice contribution dega.

 

I officially have a group of stalkers here now... lol

[Kaftan Barlast]

Skellefte

[taks]

blahblahblah taks.  You enjoy stalking me.  At least I am providing entertainment for you

that you are... i do not stalk you. what point is posting an opinion without eliciting debate on said opinion? would you rather everybody just agree with out outright? another sign of pseudo-science, ahem...

 

That comment was direct at mith.  Not you.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

so? i'm not allowed to comment on something i find worthy of my attention?

 

taks

[Hell Kitty]

Oh, yeah, and I'm really Batman.  Really.  Just ask Hell Kitty.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

It's true. He wears his undies on the outside.

[Product of the Cosmos]

blahblahblah taks.  You enjoy stalking me.  At least I am providing entertainment for you

that you are... i do not stalk you. what point is posting an opinion without eliciting debate on said opinion? would you rather everybody just agree with out outright? another sign of pseudo-science, ahem...

 

That comment was direct at mith.  Not you.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

so? i'm not allowed to comment on something i find worthy of my attention?

 

taks

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Reason why I said it taks, is it gets old as you follow any post I make with generalizations with intent to slander my character. The mods took away angry personal attacks, so you are in overdrive in generalization-mode talking badly about anything I say. Or anything that I have said in the past. Your a troll IMO.

[Fionavar]

So do you think we can stay on topic, or do we have to delete/purge & prune ... yep not subtle, but then I'm tired

 

FLoSD.ObE

[Product of the Cosmos]

Good luck with that request fionavar. I hope it's followed :~P

[Child of Flame]

I guarentee by the year 2060 we will have proven a lot of things I speak about.  Just make sure to remember me when this happens.  And all your rants VS me will be forgiven.  Teach the virtue you learn to your grandchildren and children if you have any if this scenario comes true.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

THEN WHERE THE HELL IS MY LUNAR PENAL COLONY? I WANT MY LUNAR PENAL COLONY!!!

 

Robert Heinlein wrote in 1963 that by the year 1996 there would be an established, self sufficient Lunar Penal Colony on the Moon. Though it was an admittedly science fiction book, but that's what pseudo science is, science fiction that some loonies (Not to be confused with the inhabitants of the Luna penal colony. ) accept as fact.

 

 

Reason why I said it taks, is it gets old as you follow any post I make with generalizations with intent to slander my character.  The mods took away angry personal attacks, so you are in overdrive in generalization-mode talking badly about anything I say.  Or anything that I have said in the past.  Your a troll IMO.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

And you're a freaking nutjob with no sense of reality who relies completely on pseudo-science IMO. NEXT!!!

 

<_<

[Whitemithrandir]

I feel animousity from you.  Simply because your education does not supply the fuel for things I theorize on.  You out of all people(if your actually a Scientist) should know, things aren't always what they appear(actually ussually not what they appear). 

 

Dear, once again you're taking criticism as animosity, but let's not dwell.

 

It's strange how my education supplies fuel for your theories, because so far, the only fuel your theories run on is hot air. Most theories at least contains a shred or two of evidence or support. Yours contain none, hence the accusation of "pseudoscience".

 

Yes, everything is possible, but some are vastly *improbable*. Show me how some of your theories can exist and I'll concede. Here, let me illustrate to you the concepts of possibility and improbability:

 

Humans evolving into higher organisms is possible, because looking at fossil records dating back to the cro magnons and the australopithecus africanus', we can see how the process could be forwarded because there's a *precedence*, there is *support*.

 

Humans evolving into beings containing some sort of mysterious *energy* is highly improbable, because not only is there no precedence of such an evolution, it's wholly contradicting with the current theories and past laws where biology is concerned. Secondly, this theory is so magnificently vague. Energy? What do you mean energy? I'm a charismatic speaker. When I walk to speak in front of an audience, I feel *energetic*. Is that the energy you're talking about? When I down a Bally Protein Shake, ATP production gets fueled and goes nuts, popping energy throughout my body. Is that the energy you're talking about?

 

The latter is pseudoscience because it comes from nowhere, and it'll go nowhere.

 

I'm sorry if you think this existance is boring.  At least I give you reason to rant, and fill you ego.  And apparently give you something to occupy your "boring" time with. 

 

Here's a tome of wisdom, I'd suggest reading it. Either that or repeat 3rd grade reading comprehension class. And just so Phosphor doesn't close this thread for flaming, I'll include a to give you the slightest hint that the above statement could be a joke.

 

No. I think reality is perfectly exciting. It's so exciting, in fact, that I don't need to generate supernatual theories to prove myself to be the unique vessel to some ancient plume of energy.

 

And no, all my theories do not contradict known fact.

 

Yes, I've keenly kept track of all your threads because your theories always turn out so ridiculous. Am I stalking you? Probably. It's a message board, I've been here a while, if some of my posts happen to be directed at you... get used to it.

 

They are just not probable in a world of possibilities when you do not know for sure. 

 

So.... they're improbable? I'm glad we agree.

 

You got pissed because you jumped to conclusions about things you think you know a lot about.

 

No, I'm... annoyed because when faced with supernatural theories and proven science, you choose the former while shunning the latter.

 

While your at it, talk crap about Eastern philosophy and the hindus:'prana'

 

AH... HA!!! Great, perfect. My favorite topic: Eastern Philosophy. In fact, I minored in Eastern Studies. (Electrical Engineering and Eastern Studies Mith? Ha! That's an odd combination!) Open a topic about it and I'll gladly discuss it with you; just don't mix philosophy with science.

 

Native Americans:"All things share the same breath - the beast, the tree,

the man, the air shares its spirit with all the life it supports."

......Chief Seattle

 

Very poetic. Excellent rhetoric. Chief Seattle was perhaps the greatest native american orator along with Tenskawatawa and Running Bull. Wanna discuss philosophy and poetry? Sure! Just don't put it in the same breath as science *or* reality.

 

Just because you most likely saw Star Wars before you heard about these things from other sources(as all your ideas come from conventional KNOWN things it seems) you rant to me, and you think it's all science fiction being born in the superficial time of this era.

 

Science fiction is more often than not grounded on hard principles. This is why Star Wars isn't science fiction. Let's take a look, Mr. Cosmos, at one of the more famous science fiction novel(ettes) of our time: Speaker for the Dead by Orson Scott Card. In this novel, he speak of a race of people, the Pequinos. One of their life cycles involves being a tree, becoming part of a forest, part of nature. This is not dissimilar to your theory of a universal horde of spirits between humans and trees and animals... However, Orson Scott Card puts out a hypothesis deeply rooted in genetics and creates a world such that Pequinos life cycle fits in it perfectly. In fact, their life cycle would be the logical evolution concerning their environment. Your theory, Mr. Cosmos, is rooted on nothing but imagination.

 

I guarentee by the year 2060 we will have proven a lot of things I speak about. 

 

Scientific evolution doesn't move in leaps and strides, Mr. Cosmos. Breakthroughs do occur, but they are always deeply rooted in previous laws and theories. How can you say in the future a science developed on such laws and theories which *your* theories blatantly contradict can evolve to support them?

 

Just make sure to remember me when this happens.  And all your rants VS me will be forgiven.  Teach the virtue you learn to your grandchildren and children if you have any if this scenario comes true.

 

Haha, good jokes.

 

If they don't happen in yours and my lifetime, keep your orginal thought of me being a loon throughout that time.. Deal?

 

I don't think you're a loon; I think you're a misguided person who has trouble separating philosophy and reality.

 

Oh, and btw I completely agree with stem cell research.

Agree with testing on cloning(as for this will be PIVITOL in proving many of the things you critisize of me in the future mark my words).

 

Yeah, okay.

 

But I strongly do not agree with consuming genetically screwed with food.  I do not think we know enough about genetics to alter it like that an enter it into society.  At least have these corporations tell people when they are eating genetically modified food.

 

GM (Genetically Modified) crops are clearly labled, and has been proven many times to be safe for consumption. I personally prefer the taste of naturally grown food, mostly because a couple of years ago I tried cooking a GM chicken and turned out horrible. Hint people, don't try to follow a recipe from Martha Stewart when it calls for a normal chicken while you, being the smartass, used a GM chicken.

 

I think GM crops is a neccessary step forward for the planet, when population is increasing at a rapid rate while arable land remains stagnant. I think GM crops is the clearest route to make most of the arable land we have to support the growing people.

 

In fact, the UN depends on GM crops in their humanitarian missions in many parts of eastern Africa and the middle east, because GM crops are perhaps the only way to get the starving population to grow and sustain their own food.

 

And testing on animals while doesn't please me, it is in the name of furthering humankind.. As long as the animals are not mistreated.

 

I'm (mostly) ambivalent on the issue of animal experimentation. In fact, in MOST of the cases (media propaganda aside), animals are not harmed at all during experiments. In certain biology fields (high school biology classes for one) there's a rule saying all animals must be disposed of in a clean and humane manner after use. But those are minorities.

 

I take the approach of the prey and predator relationship I honor.  The prey gives itself to the predator in honor of life. 

 

GIVES itself to the predator? I dunno about you, but back in China, when I had to kill a chicken or turtle so dinner could be served, the thing usually fought like hell. I still have a scar on my left wrist from where a turtle bit me.

 

I am very gracious at this time towards our brothers and sister species here on Earth for their sacrifice.  As I honor them every single day.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Yay.

_________________

 

The Mith-Cosmos FAQ:

 

Q: Mith, why do you waste your time replying to my posts in such a spectacular fashion?

A: Because if I have something to say, I feel it's better to say it to its fullest extent.

 

Q: Mith, are you stalking me?

A: No.

 

Q: Mith, why don't you get a life instead of trying to piss me off with your stubborness?

A: I'm at the library. My professor's going to lunch for the next three hours. I've got a few simulations running on Matlab that probably won't be done in a couple of hours, and there are no females in the Engineering school.

 

Q: Mith, That's a pretty long post. How long did it take you?

A: 10 minutes.

 

Q: Mith, are you the Anti-christ?

A: Probably. But then, maybe not.

[Sarjahurmaaja.]

You think that'll work?

[taks]

  Reason why I said it taks, is it gets old as you follow any post I make with generalizations with intent to slander my character.  The mods took away angry personal attacks, so you are in overdrive in generalization-mode talking badly about anything I say.  Or anything that I have said in the past.  Your a troll IMO.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

not once have i slandered your character PoTC, get off the harp with that... i attack your methods. plain and simple. it is not my fault if you don't understand that difference. my generalizations are backed by the scientific method, a point you so often overlook and fail to implement yourself. if you want to make a claim and have anybody take it seriously, you should heed my advice.

 

keep this in mind as your method of inciting debate is to post a rant and then cry when we disagree. for you to state "I guarentee by the year 2060 we will have proven a lot of things I speak about." is certainly much more of a generalization than anything i've said and certainly much less likely to be true.

 

learn what true debate is before you actually criticize MY methods... at least my arguments are grounded in science and logic. mith and i are obviously well trained in such endeavors. we don't stalk you, we simply do our best to point out flawed reasoning in order to limit the amount of pseudo-science actually propagating through this board. a tall order indeed, but this is where we hang out and you happen to post more than the rest...

 

taks

[taks]

I've got a few simulations running on Matlab that probably won't be done in a couple of hours, and there are no females in the Engineering school.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

i had none in mine either... well, not after my freshman year. they all left and went to mizzou. fortunately, the real world is not nearly as harsh

 

oh, btw, you can speed up matlab by declaring the size of all of you matrices before running any loops... that way, it does not have to re-allocate memory resources each time you add a single element (matlab does this poorly).

 

taks

[Dakoth]

Mith Taks since you seem more versed in science than me answer me this because it is something I don't understand. What is the big deal about GM plants? Has science evolved enough that we get t he results we want every time yes. Haven't we been Genetically moddify plants and animals through selective breeding since te domestication of animals, and the implimentation of farming?

 

This is just to satisfy my curiosty nothing more, because frankly I don't see the difference in the two mwthods.

 

 

P.S. As a once avid hunter I have never had game give its self to me, I have always had to work for it because natures most hardwired instinct is survival.

[Whitemithrandir]

Dakky:

 

GM crops by definition is genetically altering the crop by manipulating the genetic makeup of the crops by adding and deleting certain genes.

 

For example: in Ethiopia, there's a harsh strain of weed which competes with wheat crops for nutrients, releasing a toxin into the soil making the wheat crops wither and die. However, corn crops are immune to this toxin. Unfortunately, Ethiopia's weather doesn't allow corn to grow. So we identify the genetic trait in corn that resists the toxin, extract this portion of the gene, graft it to the DNA chain of some harmless virus carrier, and infect the wheat crops with the carrier virus. The virus attacks the wheat cells, and injects the grafted DNA into the wheat DNA. One generation later, the wheat becomes immune to the toxin and productivity rises.

 

Farmers used to accomplish pretty much the same thing prior to 1994 via crossbreeding. But crossbreeding takes time; four or five generations at least is needed to get a desired trait to exhibit itself (nearly impossible if the trait was rare and recessive). For every day the crops don't grow, people die of starvation. GM food accomplishes the same thing in a single generation.

 

So far, there's been no issues with GM'ed food being consumed.

[Dakoth]

Dakky:

 

GM crops by definition is genetically altering the crop by manipulating the genetic makeup of the crops by adding and deleting certain genes.

 

For example: in Ethiopia, there's a harsh strain of weed which competes with wheat crops for nutrients, releasing a toxin into the soil making the wheat crops wither and die. However, corn crops are immune to this toxin. Unfortunately, Ethiopia's weather doesn't allow corn to grow. So we identify the genetic trait in corn that resists the toxin, extract this portion of the gene, graft it to the DNA chain of some harmless virus carrier, and infect the wheat crops with the carrier virus. The virus attacks the wheat cells, and injects the grafted DNA into the wheat DNA. One generation later, the wheat becomes immune to the toxin and productivity rises.

 

Farmers used to accomplish pretty much the same thing prior to 1994 via crossbreeding. But crossbreeding takes time; four or five generations at least is needed to get a desired trait to exhibit itself (nearly impossible if the trait was rare and recessive). For every day the crops don't grow, people die of starvation. GM food accomplishes the same thing in a single generation.

 

So far, there's been no issues with GM'ed food being consumed.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thats kinda what I was getting at White. They are different means to the same end. While the one cuts out a lot of time the other has been shown to be just as effective. Your example also showed the perfect use for it.

 

As I said I find it odd that one is acceptable and one is not, they are both genetic manipulation after all

 

I also truly wonder how many people realise how much humans have genetically manipulated animals, and plants over the years. We have used selective breeding on just about every domesticated animal there is. Here are just a few examples all beef and dairy cattle, chickens, hogs, cats, dogs, fish, birds or would pets sum the last four up better. We have also selectively bread every major grain producing plant for farmers also that would include corn, soybeans, wheat barly, and hay. Now no one has ever complained about it, yet now that a scientist can do it on an actual genetic level be almost assured of the out come, and take less time doing it, it is wrong. Just seems kind of strange to me.

 

The reason I wanted you to answer is because you are in a scientific field so you would know the arguments against as well as for. I was already fairly certain what the argument against was I was just double checking.

 

As for your last statement unless things have changed since the first chemically resistant strains of crops came out. Are there not certain countries that have restrictions on what crops can be sold for human consumption? For example when corn was made to resist a chemical didn't Japan say it could only be sold to there country as animal feed?

 

As I said this is only for my clarification I am not trolling this was something that at one point in time directly affected my job.