A simple flowchart from wellingtongrey.net explains it all.
Click for Big
-
Follow me on Google+
Cycling Stats from DailyMile
- Week Miles
- 6 mi
- 2012 Miles
- 72 mi
- Total Miles
- 1678 mi
A simple flowchart from wellingtongrey.net explains it all.
Click for Big
That’s good!
That is good. And it sort of does show that a lot of what is passed off as science these days is actually faith, especially the ‘ignore contradicting evidence’ part.
Yes, John G has a great point. I heard about a live frog that was carbon dated at 50,000 years old. Therefore, I believe that gravity is a left-wing scam to make religious people look dumb.
John G,
I’m not familiar with any cases of scientists getting away with ignoring data for any length of time. Maybe you can point me to some examples? I do think there’s an element of faith in the very foundational metaphysical underpinnings of science. You have to have “faith” in the validity of inductive reasoning, for example.
Perhaps John G is referring to the environmental scientists employed by Exxon Mobil…
Bone – you might want to do a little more research….it’s out there
I’m sure there are a few scientists on the Exxon-Mobile payroll or whatever who are up to no good, but a good part of the motivation in science is to prove the “old man wrong,” so I really don’t see how any wicked shenanigans could survive for any relevant length of time.
Maybe this is a profession of faith on my part, but I think the scientific method is always converging on truth, despite the best efforts of evil men to subvert the process.
I should check back more often. I was thinking particularly of some of the stuff in nutritional science. (As an aside, has anyone seen the recent stuff about how adipose tissue is acting as an organ producing it’s own hunger stimulating hormones? I am doomed). But as others have noted, recent climatology stuff might fall in here somewhere. I think though, THAT would be more along the lines of others taking the modest or inconclusive results of science and saying “See, this proves my point.” Personally, I think the evidence shows that there is some warming, but the tie in to a anthropogenic source is still in the range of wild ass guessing. Also as to why/or how much it would be a bad thing, and what to do about it if it is anthropogenic. Just one non-scientists opinion.
Here is someone else’s interpretation of your graphic, so I’m not alone.
http://home.att.net/~ebgorham/images/scientific_vs._actual_method.gif