Para_Frog 1 #1 January 13, 2008 My dour view of humanity in general sees this sort of thing as commonplace. Someone (Prof. K perhaps) convince me that I should still have ANY faith in academia and the scientific method. Big Surprise- Harvey, BASE 1232 TAN-I, IAD-I, S&TA BLiNC Magazine Team Member Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #2 January 13, 2008 Heard about the new study showing a much lower number on the news the other day.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,649 #3 January 13, 2008 QuoteMy dour view of humanity in general sees this sort of thing as commonplace. Someone (Prof. K perhaps) convince me that I should still have ANY faith in academia and the scientific method. Big Surprise Since there is another estimate available using a different methodology, it seems as if the process of self-correction is working just fine. Why should Soros be forbidden to fund anything, any more than the NRA or Exxon-Mobil? It's when research is shut down or muzzled by the government that there's a problem. Like CDC's work on the epidemiology of gun violence, among other things.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #4 January 13, 2008 QuoteIt's when research is shut down or muzzled Like the global warming skeptics that were muzzled from making a presentation at the Bali meetings? Oh, and that whole "epidemiology of gun violence" thing? Three words: Koch postulate proofs.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,649 #5 January 13, 2008 QuoteQuoteIt's when research is shut down or muzzled Like the global warming skeptics that were muzzled from making a presentation at the Bali meetings? O. Was their research shut down by the government?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,649 #6 January 13, 2008 Quote"epidemiology of gun violence" thing? Three words: Koch postulate proofs. Do you really want to compare guns to virulent bacteria and viruses? Handguns = syphilis? Shotguns = ebola?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #7 January 13, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteIt's when research is shut down or muzzled Like the global warming skeptics that were muzzled from making a presentation at the Bali meetings? O. Was their research shut down by the government? No, by the 'consensus'.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #8 January 13, 2008 QuoteQuote"epidemiology of gun violence" thing? Three words: Koch postulate proofs. Do you really want to compare guns to virulent bacteria and viruses? Handguns = syphilis? Shotguns = ebola? Hey, *THEY* (and you) are the ones talking about 'epidemics'....Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,649 #9 January 13, 2008 Quote Quote Quote Quote It's when research is shut down or muzzled Like the global warming skeptics that were muzzled from making a presentation at the Bali meetings? O. Was their research shut down by the government? No, by the 'consensus'. Oh, so my statement "It's when research is shut down or muzzled by the government" was either deliberately distorted by you, or your reading is highly defective.Lame.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #10 January 13, 2008 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote It's when research is shut down or muzzled Like the global warming skeptics that were muzzled from making a presentation at the Bali meetings? O. Was their research shut down by the government? No, by the 'consensus'. Oh, so my statement "It's when research is shut down or muzzled by the government" was either deliberately distorted by you, or your reading is highly defective.Lame. Ah, of course... only "approved" research is good, evidently....Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,435 #11 January 13, 2008 >Like the global warming skeptics that were muzzled from making a >presentation at the Bali meetings? The 9/11 conspiracy theorists are muzzled too, I hear! Believe it or not, people often BAN them from presenting their theories at conferences of all sorts. Why, they wouldn't even allow any such representatives on the 9/11 commission! Censorship! Fraud! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Para_Frog 1 #12 January 13, 2008 No sir, there is a problem even long before government censorship. It's called don't refute the aims of the benefactor. I'm not directing this at one side or the other...I am directing it at both. Science has become about as objective as politics. Special interests are as infused in academia as anywhere else. Trust no one. I will believe what makes sense. Lex parsimoniae.- Harvey, BASE 1232 TAN-I, IAD-I, S&TA BLiNC Magazine Team Member Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Royd 0 #13 January 13, 2008 QuoteWhy should Soros be forbidden to fund anything, any more than the NRA or Exxon-Mobil? Just don't bitch when the numbers don't fit your agenda. Personally, I think 600,000 dead is an inflated number. That's a big ol' pile of dead bodies. Think of all of the potential Soylent Green. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,649 #14 January 13, 2008 Was the methodology of the Lancet study concealed? Did they lie about their data sources? Did they make mathematical errors in the analysis? THOSE would be reasons for criticism. The source of funding is not. QuoteI will believe what makes sense. In that case you'll never believe quantum mechanics. Anyway, since your mind is made up, there's not a lot of point to this thread.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AdamLanes 1 #15 January 13, 2008 I was reading a book about propaganda the other day. Noam Chomsky commented that a high rate of propaganda should be expected in a democracy since power is maintained through the control of the people in a means other than by force. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nerdgirl 0 #16 January 13, 2008 Quote My dour view of humanity in general sees this sort of thing as commonplace. I concur with the Sunday Times on-line piece that the source of funding should have been acknowledged. It’s not, however, “Soros’ Science” anymore than the $413M (FY08 PBR) in research funded by the DoD for nanotechnology research or the $10.7B (FY08 PBR) in research through DDR&E is “Gates’ Science” or previously “Rumsfeld’s Science.” For the last 4 years, “Supporting the Global War on Terrorism” has been the #1 DDR&E priority. Should all of that research be dismissed as ‘political’ or biased on the basis of association with a single administration’s policies? No, that’s why there’s the outside, open, peer-review process. The results (data, methods, & analysis) went through outside, open, peer-review prior to publication in Lancet and subsequently in the epidemiological community, as anything that is particularly novel will (& normatively “should,” im-ever-ho). And continue to be challenged. I have no idea what the requirements or review process for funding proposals is by Soros’ Open Society Institute. The short Times piece also notes that the “study was commissioned by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT).” In the end, it is George Soros’ money; in a capitalistic marketplace, should he not be able to do with it as he pleases? It’s also worth considering is George Soros, like Bill & Melinda Gates, personally benefiting financially from these endeavors? Otoh, an unanswered question for me is why did MIT go to the Open Society Institute? Were they “muzzled” and unable to receive funding through the USG? Was there an intentional decision to fund from non-federal sources? Or were there fundamental flaws in the research design? There’s a provocative analogy here for all those who argue against anthropogenic climate change and make assertions that research counter to anthropogenic climate change (or as the Times piece notes, challenges the “consensus”) is being “muzzled.” One risks being asked whether ‘consensus’ is acceptable for research that supports one's political view/beliefs but not acceptable in the other? VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nerdgirl 0 #17 January 13, 2008 QuoteSomeone (Prof. K perhaps) convince me that I should still have ANY faith in academia and the scientific method. Well, perhaps a counter-example of one alternative would be more effective: see the link in [SpeedRacer's] post on "The State of the Muslim World." "The GDP of the world's 57 Muslim-majority countries combined is less than that of France. Those 57 countries contain about 500 universities, compared to more than 5,000 in the United States and 8,000 in India. There are only 230 scientists per million Muslims. Fewer new book titles are published each year in Arabic, the language of 300 million people, than in Greek, spoken by only 15 million. More books are translated into Spanish each year than have been translated into Arabic in the last century. "He argues that a lack of economic, intellectual, cultural, and technological [all intrinsically tied to academic & higher education beyond 7th or 8th Century "immutable texts" - nerdgirl] productivity in the Muslim world has left a vacuum that has been filled by paranoia and inflammatory rhetoric, fueling “a culture of political anger, rather than political solutions.” VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Para_Frog 1 #18 January 13, 2008 Quoteshould he not be able to do with it as he pleases? Absolutely. And we should be able to question its uses as WE please. Quotewhy did MIT go to the Open Society Institute? I bet if you knew the political views of the researchers, you would have your answer. I doubt it's as involved as a lack of options. More like a self-proven theory. "I don't like this war...let's like do some research that like shows it's REALLY bad. Like ya know? Wow...this is really good hydro." The peer-review process in this case is an afterthought. And the model is failing miserably. And As I said before, this is not the exclusive dominion of the left. I just as vehemently question research that would be funded by, say, NRO.- Harvey, BASE 1232 TAN-I, IAD-I, S&TA BLiNC Magazine Team Member Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nerdgirl 0 #19 January 13, 2008 QuoteThe peer-review process in this case is an afterthought. And the model is failing miserably. No, your example actually is a question of the *funding process* not the *peer review process.* ... but if one does accept your assertion -- which I don't -- for the sake of argument, what do you propose as an alternative? VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
1969912 0 #20 January 13, 2008 Quote"I don't like this war...let's like do some research that like shows it's REALLY bad. Like ya know? Wow...this is really good hydro." I doubt they actually falsified anything, but when estimating the number of casualties, there are plenty of ways for the study to be affected by biases. Judgement calls have to be made, and people are people. I wouldn't be surprised if that happened, but without clear evidence of fraud, what can you do? It probably happens quite often, despite the peer review process. In fact, just today I found documentation of something similar happening in a study done by the (former) editor of the NEJM. The author's "peers" but not the reviewers) documented the flaws after publication. "Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ." -NickDG Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Para_Frog 1 #21 January 14, 2008 Well here's the thing. I honestly believe that the influence of special interests actually interferes with the peer review process, so my assertion is related to both. Solution? There isn't one. Someone will always be the decision-maker regarding grants. And those "someones" will always have an underlying bias (whether they realize it or not) that will cloud their objectivity. And I am familiar with t he plight of the starving scientist. That may be a slight exaggeration, but I do believe that scientists (not all naturally, but a significant number) will do whatever it takes for funding...Say, skewing data to produce an outcome that promotes the ends of the benefactor. Remember the doctors who came forward and testified to the fact the nicotine was NOT addictive? And that was recent! There are exceptions to every rule. There are pure scientists out there. And I salute them, for their work is invaluable. BUT... Science in general is tainted. As is politics. As is business. As is society - in the name of money. Sad but true.- Harvey, BASE 1232 TAN-I, IAD-I, S&TA BLiNC Magazine Team Member Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Para_Frog 1 #22 January 14, 2008 Oh I agree...it's a case of customized data. Given the right amount of bovine excrement, some good dope, and a strong vocabulary...I could create a religion based on spaceships and shit that would actually grow a following AND revenue! Damn...too late. - Harvey, BASE 1232 TAN-I, IAD-I, S&TA BLiNC Magazine Team Member Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,649 #23 January 14, 2008 QuoteWell here's the thing. I honestly believe that the influence of special interests actually interferes with the peer review process, so my assertion is related to both. Solution? There isn't one. Someone will always be the decision-maker regarding grants. And those "someones" will always have an underlying bias (whether they realize it or not) that will cloud their objectivity. And I am familiar with t he plight of the starving scientist. That may be a slight exaggeration, but I do believe that scientists (not all naturally, but a significant number) will do whatever it takes for funding...Say, skewing data to produce an outcome that promotes the ends of the benefactor. That will SOON be picked up. Remember what happened to Hwang Woo-suk with the stem cells, to Pons and Fleischman, and to David Baltimore. Science IS self-correcting, unlike politics and religion. For everyone trying to fake data there are 20 hot young researchers anxious to expose him. Quote Remember the doctors who came forward and testified to the fact the nicotine was NOT addictive? And that was recent! Apples and oranges. Testimony is not peer-reviewed research. Quote There are exceptions to every rule. There are pure scientists out there. And I salute them, for their work is invaluable. BUT... Science in general is tainted. As is politics. As is business. As is society - in the name of money. Sad but true. I think you are badly misinformed about the nature of the scientific endeavor.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,435 #24 January 14, 2008 >Remember the doctors who came forward and testified to the fact >the nicotine was NOT addictive? Yep. When tobacco company scientists claim that their product is not dangerous (or oil company scientists say there's no such thing as global warming, or church-funded scientists say evolution is a fraud) best to take what they say with a grain of salt. Which is why publications like Science and Nature are better sources of information than public testimonials. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Para_Frog 1 #25 January 14, 2008 QuoteScience IS self-correcting I do hope you're right.- Harvey, BASE 1232 TAN-I, IAD-I, S&TA BLiNC Magazine Team Member Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
