Is Science Corrupt

[timo]

Seen with a bit of distance it should be obvious what's meant. If you're critizising how logging of ant choices is done, then your experience would qualify you as "at least know what he's talking about". If you're talking about how scientific research is handeled in the international university research, then one way to get the "at least knows what he's talking about"-label would be actually having worked in that enviroment. Similarly for citizising how research is handeled on industry level. I could just go along and say a lot of breakthroughs in industry are prevented by incompetent superiors that are afraid of losing their jobs to the smarter people having the idea - but that statement is just pulled off my lowerback.

Not having that label that or another way (I'm not claiming that working in a field is the only way to know something about it, but it's the most obvious) it strongly depends on people's personality and mood how seriously they take you and how much time/effort they put into giving you replies. Some take more time to explain their point of view in a detailed way, some just say "you obviously don't know anything, so there's no point even adressing your point" (which is a reply at least) and some will simply not bother replying or even reading what you wrote.

[BenTheMan]

Ouch, if you got any more condescending this could become a flame war. What exactly qualifies one as a scientist though, being a grad student. I mean I have made logs as a child as to what foods ants will particular choose if giving the option and recorded such, does this count, or do I have to be a grad student? Though, we cant tell what science will be tomorrow, so me being a grad student tomorrow might not let us know what science will be, I mean we just cant know those things, but of course being some grad student you probably already know this

 

foodchain---you criticizing science for being ``too coorporate'' is necessarily an outsider's opinion. Athiest was exactly correct. I'm sorry if I wasn't clear with my definitions, but I assumed that one who criticized science for being ``too corporate'' wasn't talking about childeren watching ants. I will try to be more clear in the future.

 

The point is that scientists are scientists because they wouldn't do anything else. No one becomes a researcher for the money. Nobody spends 5-10 years in grad school, working 80 hour weeks for the hell of it. This is why there are huge scandals when people cheat---remember the Korean professor who faked a bunch of data, or the cold fusion people?

 

The comments you made in the original post made it quite clear that you don't know very many scientists. My advisor is sixty years old, and you should see how excited he gets when he talks about proton decay.

 

And apologies it you get insulted by me calling you an outsider. But you are, and untill you have spent a significant amount of time doing science in an academic or industrial environment, you won't be able to speak with authority on the subject.

[Royston]

and some will simply not bother replying or even reading what you wrote.

 

What who wrote

 

You shouldn't take it personally foodchain, unless you have direct experience of the ins and outs of the academic fraternity (post-grad) you simply won't be able to obtain an informed opinion. I started a thread a while ago, about which branch I should be tackling in the future (physics under-grad at the moment) and I realized how little I knew, and what was expected in the field. This hasn't put me off by any means, but if you're going to ask questions about whether certain fields of science are influenced by corruption, I would say it's almost impossible to make any conclusions until you get to the level Ben the Man is talking about i.e the level where you're making contributions to the field.

 

Science as it stands alone is obviously not corrupt, and if people want to claim science has other agendas, then their wrong. If people want to take the opinions of people such as Richard Dawkins, or Lee Smolin (as mentioned earlier) as gospel, well, that's their problem. The only way you're truly going to see if certain fields have been influenced by corruption is being part of that field.

 

Transdecimal, what examples do you have that the field of physics, is out to make profit ?

[BenTheMan]

We should be very clear about what we are discussing.

 

Industry has a vested interest in research that can increase its profits. This is why companies like drugs like Viagra---old dudes will pay to have sex with their wives, the companies can charge just about as much as they want, and they can still turn tremendous profit. Industry has an interest in pushing certain lines of research, and that's what they do, sometimes quite effectively.

 

foodchain seemed to frame his question in an academic environment. In academia, the government (NSF and DOE in America) funds research for the sake of funding research. The big grants are very competitive, but only competitive inasmuch as there are alot of smart people all trying to get the same money.

 

So if he is talking about industry, then he is (trivially) right---by definition industrial R and D is ``coorporate''. If he is talking about academia, then he is completely wrong.

[Wormwood]

I can't just forget that ID was ever mentioned, because I think you are misunderstanding exactly why evolutionary biologists get all revved up during a "debate" with an IDer.

No, I'm really not. I just don't like the way some people are so condescending about it. If they want to make fun of someone for being stupid, then turn around and say we know this or that questionable event happened for a fact, then I think someone should call them on it.

 

They attack the very basis of the idea itself, that such a thing as evolution can possibly occur naturally, without outside assistance, and they use mechanistic issues as if this proves the point, and it does not.

I don't know. Looking at the mechanisms of nature and seeing a design seems rather subjective to me. The reason most people accept purely naturalistic explanations is because they entered the question knowing that the only acceptable answer was materialistic. In other words, there is no method in science to test for intention, and no place to accept that in the results. Even if it were 100% true that everything we see was the result of a design, science would not be able to tell us that by itself, because anything other than the mechanics or theory of functionality is outside the realm of science.

 

Whether multicellularity occurred via endosymbiosis or not does not change the fact that evolution happens in nature, even though some IDers may think that it does.

No it doesn't, and I never meant to suggest it did. Just consider this; if you are arguing for evidence of design based on circumstantial evidence that points to some sort of plan or intention, then the methods and certain key events could be indicative. I have seen many ID supporters that believe in evolution, but they don't believe in natural selection and random mutation as the method driving the diversification of life. Natural selection is nice, but it's current incarnation doesn't really explain something like the cambrian explosion or the phi ratio. These things don't instantly mean that all of nature was designed BTW. They are just pieces of circumstantial evidence used when trying to build a case for design in nature.

 

 

And that's probably why some biologists immediately get defensive when you appear to be with the ID camp - they assume you're trying to prove what IDers are trying to prove, and from what I can tell, you're not. You're actually trying to discuss issues in the science itself, and I think in a different setting, you might get different reactions.

I'm sure I would. My point was that the mere mention of ID makes the dogma not only more believable, but apparently undeniably true. That's why one of the first things I said in this thread was that it was more noticeable in some settings than in others.

[Paralith]

No, I'm really not. I just don't like the way some people are so condescending about it. If they want to make fun of someone for being stupid, then turn around and say we know this or that questionable event happened for a fact, then I think someone should call them on it.

 

I can't deny that you do have your asshole pro-evolutionists who delight in simply being mean to IDers on principle. Which is a practice I definitely don't agree with. But this thread is about corruption/dogmatism in science in general, and this is not a general trend when it comes to evolutionary scientists.

 

I don't know. Looking at the mechanisms of nature and seeing a design seems rather subjective to me. The reason most people accept purely naturalistic explanations is because they entered the question knowing that the only acceptable answer was materialistic. In other words, there is no method in science to test for intention, and no place to accept that in the results. Even if it were 100% true that everything we see was the result of a design, science would not be able to tell us that by itself, because anything other than the mechanics or theory of functionality is outside the realm of science.

 

You are exactly right. Science can't say for sure whether there is or is not a designer. That's why we simply don't bring it into the equation, that's why we don't consider ID to be science.

 

No it doesn't, and I never meant to suggest it did. Just consider this; if you are arguing for evidence of design based on circumstantial evidence that points to some sort of plan or intention, then the methods and certain key events could be indicative. I have seen many ID supporters that believe in evolution, but they don't believe in natural selection and random mutation as the method driving the diversification of life. Natural selection is nice, but it's current incarnation doesn't really explain something like the cambrian explosion or the phi ratio. These things don't instantly mean that all of nature was designed BTW. They are just pieces of circumstantial evidence used when trying to build a case for design in nature.

 

But that's the point of "Even if it were 100% true that everything we see was the result of a design, science would not be able to tell us that." You can't use scientific, material tests to justify the existence of a non-material, untestable entity, that could be deliberately messing with the material data just to confuse us, only there's no way for us to tell - most certainly not with science. And natural selection is most certainly not the only method through which evolution can happen. There's sexual selection, genetic drift, and those are just the usual alternatives. There are probably others out there that we haven't really figured out yet.

 

I'm sure I would. My point was that the mere mention of ID makes the dogma not only more believable, but apparently undeniably true. That's why one of the first things I said in this thread was that it was more noticeable in some settings than in others.

 

And what dogma is that? The "dogma" that we can't use material knowledge to test for the existence of a supernatural unknowable entity? I would say that out of all the things science may say, this is one thing that is kind of undeniable. And scientists shouldn't get a bad rap for defending that point.

[Wormwood]

I can't deny that you do have your asshole pro-evolutionists who delight in simply being mean to IDers on principle. Which is a practice I definitely don't agree with. But this thread is about corruption/dogmatism in science in general, and this is not a general trend when it comes to evolutionary scientists.

Well I was just citing a specific example of what I was talking about. I even asked specifically that we not diverge on it.

Biologists aren't the only ones that do it, and not every example is as extreme as that, but I think most of us are guilty of it. I study medicine. Honestly I don't independantly research every fact I am taught. Some of it I take on nothing more than the word of the person teaching me because they are an authority on the subject. I am not saying this is bad, because I would hate to spend all of my time independantly verifying every fact I heard, but it does create a dogma of sorts in each field because some knowledge is questioned and some is not. A random example from my field is eggs. Are they good for you or bad for you? You can find research that says either, plus research that says just the whites are good, and some say just the yellows. The current predominant idea is that they are good, or ok in moderation, but honestly I have no idea what the truth is. I am just accepting the current consensus. If that changed tomorrow, so would my opinion. Pure dogma.

 

You are exactly right. Science can't say for sure whether there is or is not a designer. That's why we simply don't bring it into the equation, that's why we don't consider ID to be science

From many of the debates I have seen the center of the issue is the "randomness" aspect. We can demonstrate that evolution almost positively happened, but we can not demonstrate that it is completely random (mutations), or that life randomly came from non-life (pre-biological evolution). As for the creationists, I'm not sure what their deal is.

 

You can't use scientific, material tests to justify the existence of a non-material, untestable entity, that could be deliberately messing with the material data just to confuse us, only there's no way for us to tell - most certainly not with science.

Well I look at their endeavor like forensics. They will never see the act being commited, but if they can piece together enough patterns, motive, and such then they can reaffirm their belief that this is all the result of a design. I am not saying they are right, but I am saying that the notion that the two ideas are compatible doesn't make someone the dumbest person on earth. I think there is room in current scientific theory for a passive designer, because as we have said, that doesn't really effect the science of the issue. Now if people want to start attributing special qualities to this designer that go against something we know to be generally true, then they have over stepped the abilities of their philosophy.

 

And natural selection is most certainly not the only method through which evolution can happen. There's sexual selection, genetic drift, and those are just the usual alternatives. There are probably others out there that we haven't really figured out yet.

Also Horizontal gene transfer seems to have played at least some part in human development. I'm with you though; I think there are still mechanisms to be discovered.

 

And what dogma is that?

Like I said, all of the knowledge of the gaps that gets accepted along with much more provable theories. Each discipline has their own versions, and some are probably more true than others.

[pioneer]

Another side of evolution is selective disadvantage. In other words, if changes are slow, than what mutates will not be an advantage at first. It will be force to adapt until it finally becomes an advantage.

 

Let me give an example. Say the first mutant lizard, on the way toward flight, grows some extra flab on his arms. It is not yet functional for flight. Bit in the mean time, it could slow him down, when he tries to run from preditors. It has the future potential to evolve into flight, but for right now it is a big disadvantage. The flab gets caught in the brush. He has to find new ways to compensate for this disadvantage joke of nature.

 

Maybe this disadvantage now requires moving to higher ground, where there are fewer preditors or even learning to climb trees. Holding on in the tree, he is still easy to spot due to the flab. Many have to jump from trees and most break their necks and get caught anyway. But one day, one glides to the next tree. What had been a selective disadvantage, which required much more need to adapt, becomes an advantage. The next generations inherit this as an advantage after many prototypes.

 

Or selective advantage are the quantum jumps where there is stability. While selective disadvantage is the continuum of prototypes between jumps, which are being pushed due to an original disadvantage. Once that step is reach, then the offstring get to strut their stuff and push the envelop and evolve the skill further through selective advantage.

[CDarwin]

I'm bored so I've decided to make a few points I know that I make without exerting myself too much. Don't expect me to necessarily respond to rebuttals; I'm not debating. I know it's pointless.

 

If there is a problem with the current theory I have no doubt that it will be a creationist or an ID proponent that will find it, because they seem to be the only people not willing to accept the theory as is.

 

That statement shows a profound ignorance about the biological, geological, anthropological, and just all around scientific community. As an amateur and I high school student I'm a little insulted, and I know a real scientist would be.

 

Natural selection is nice, but it's current incarnation doesn't really explain something like the cambrian explosion or the phi ratio.

 

Actually science can explain the Cambrian Explosion. There are three things you have to keep in mind:

A) The "appearance of a taxon" is really just the first appearance of a fossil. Molecular divergence rates and the scanty fossils of the Ediacaran fauna both suggest that most of the phyla that we find in the Cambrian had earlier origins in the Precambrian. The "Cambrian Explosion" is likely of the the first evolution of hard body parts which fossilize well, perhaps as the result of the evolution of the first effective predators.

B) The "genetic controls" were probably much looser back 700 million years ago. Big mutations happened much more frequently, leader to a greater number of body types. Mutating like crazy isn't selective so the controls have been progressively tightened since then.

C) At any event, saying "I give up, we can never know; the Designer did it" isn't an explanation. You accuse evolutionists of not being intellectually rigorous enough? ID is the complete abandonment of intellectual rigor.

 

I don't know a whole lot about the 'phi ratio'.

 

From many of the debates I have seen the center of the issue is the "randomness" aspect. We can demonstrate that evolution almost positively happened, but we can not demonstrate that it is completely random (mutations), or that life randomly came from non-life (pre-biological evolution). As for the creationists, I'm not sure what their deal is.

 

Evolution isn't just random. There are two stages to evolution in a sexually reproducing population. The first is the origin of genetic variation. It results from stochastic ('random') processes within the cell, mostly recombination, but mutation is important in bringing in brand-new variation. The second stage is the elimination of that variation. Sometimes this is due to more random processes (genetic drift and so forth), but often it's due to the very non-random process of selection.

 

Polyploidy, which is a rather complex form of hybridism, can also cause rather rapid evolution (the origin of a whole new species in a single go), and its reasonably common in plants and could happen in animals.

 

Well I look at their endeavor like forensics. They will never see the act being commited, but if they can piece together enough patterns, motive, and such then they can reaffirm their belief that this is all the result of a design. I am not saying they are right, but I am saying that the notion that the two ideas are compatible doesn't make someone the dumbest person on earth. I think there is room in current scientific theory for a passive designer, because as we have said, that doesn't really effect the science of the issue. Now if people want to start attributing special qualities to this designer that go against something we know to be generally true, then they have over stepped the abilities of their philosophy.

 

Forensics works because we know how human criminals work. We know what traces they will leave behind. We don't know the first thing about how "the designer" works. Ultimately it comes down to circular reasoning. "This is the work of the Designer because it's just obviously designed."

[john5746]

Now, don’t get me wrong, I love science but I have issues on where its going. It seems to me that science bears some of the basic social ills that most anything human suffers. What I mean from this is science was basically put forward as a system or means in which to try to deduce truth about the natural world around us and or reality. Now I know that science has been applied to more then just what some would consider natural, though I don’t know how unnatural anything is that exists physically, but that’s besides the point. What I am getting at is it seems that science has narrowed itself. Now this can be good or bad depending on where you sit. IN my view I see it as bad as it subtracts the sense of awe for me personally, as in I have a million ideas I would like to set experiments up for, but it seems as if science wants to make things to fit a certain pattern. Now this can be good simply because its uses that which is already known, but in retrospect people only got that information by simply making inquiry. I think science is slowly killing the inquiry stage at large. I mean we have people like Richard Dawkins that due to eminence can really say most anything he wants, to Einstein. He probably could have said something completely random and people world have followed because he was Einstein.

 

I am not a scientist, but it seems to me that as our knowledge increases, the chance of someone just coming up with something completely out of the blue without any reverence to prior knowledge approaches zero. Thinking outside the box doesn't necessarily mean thinking without knowledge. Einstein didn't come up with relativity by disregarding Newton or Maxwell, he was trying to group theories together, because he thought them to be correct. Can someone do this with evolution? Possibly, but probably not by disregarding the theory completely, but by working within.

 

The public would have believed anything Einstein said probably, but I am sure many scientists were eager to prove him wrong or beat him to the punch. I would argue that respect for authority has diminished in our society, not increased. Many non-scientist would love to catch Dawkins in a mistake concerning evolution.

 

I think its paramount to enforce a very inquisitive nature in scientists. Simply because from the bulk of people that take to science surely advances would be made in the end, rather then bottlenecking everyone into certain accepted patterns of thought. Now I don’t know about you, but in physics for example it seems as if math alone was able in many ways to move into almost qualifying for empirical truth. Now I don’t want to turn this into nominalism versus essentialism, but Oxygen for instance is just a human made word. To get back to the math on this, I don’t know of any naturally occurring square roots in the universe, as in some floating v shaped figure that performs a squaring function on matter and energy, or stuff that makes up the physical universe and its phenomena. To biology, with the concept of genetics. I have studied for instance various symptoms people have with a particular genetic disorder. When I go and read the doctors outlook on the disease, compared to the peoples symptoms, its almost as if the doctor lives in his or her own head rather then reality.

 

Math is a logical model of the physical world around us. When you use your hard drive, you write to the logical partition. It doesn't exist physically, but that is how you interact with it.

 

So basically, has science lost its edge, has it become somewhat corporate basically? Do upcoming scientists strike out on there own anymore or simply listen for what the current "genius" has to say? In all reality how much advancement do you think is lost by keeping science so stale and sedated?

 

Science is performed by humans, so it will have human pitfalls. Working in groups and sharing information may not be as creative or romantic as being the lone super-scientist who figures out the meaning of everything, but I think this has been and will increasingly be the approach that is successful as we go forward, IMO.

 

You bring up a good point about going against conventional wisdom. I am sure scientists do it all the time. Maybe they are not doing it enough, I am not sure. I think people like me and the population in general just do not possess the knowledge necessary to follow science in detail enough to know what is conventional wisdom. Rather than having the huge Einstein light bulb going off, we may have mini-lights going off all around us, but not be aware of them.

 

The profit motive could be a concern. If we only research things that can turn a buck within 5 years, then we may not advance very far.

[BenTheMan]

If we only research things that can turn a buck within 5 years, then we may not advance very far.

 

This is very well understood by smart companies---look at how American automakers are scrambling to keep from losing their asses to the Japanese, who spent time learning how to build more fuel efficient cars, as opposed to bigger ones.

 

This is not a concern if we let the market drive industrial R and D.

[lucaspa]

What I am getting at is it seems that science has narrowed itself. Now this can be good or bad depending on where you sit. IN my view I see it as bad as it subtracts the sense of awe for me personally, as in I have a million ideas I would like to set experiments up for, but it seems as if science wants to make things to fit a certain pattern.

 

As Swansout pointed out, it is the TESTING of ideas that count. Every scientist has a million ideas. They all have to be tested, and it's important HOW you do the testing: you must test the ideas trying to show them wrong. Yes, you heard me. You don't test them trying to show how they are possible, but how they are IMpossible.

 

You do this first against known data. Are there data already known that simply can't be there IF the hypothesis is correct? If so, then you admit the hypothesis is wrong and move on to another one.

 

Quite frankly, over 50% of ideas are lost at this stage. Another huge percentage is lost when you broach the idea to someone else, because it turns out HE knows of falsifying data that you haven't found yet. Another huge chunk of ideas fail at the experimental level.

 

Basically, Foodchain, it is estimated that 99.99+% of all hypotheses are WRONG! It's called the Duhem-Quine Thesis if you want to look it up. This means that you have to be willing to admit your idea is wrong if you want to be a good scientist.

 

I think science is slowly killing the inquiry stage at large.

 

I don't see that. When I first began publishing on adult stem cells in 1991, I was alone. Now the existenced of adult stem cells are generally accepted. Creativity is encouraged among the graduate students everywhere I've been.

 

Oxygen for instance is just a human made word.

 

The word is human-made, but are you going to argue that "oxygen" does not refer to a physically real entity?

 

To biology, with the concept of genetics. I have studied for instance various symptoms people have with a particular genetic disorder. When I go and read the doctors outlook on the disease, compared to the peoples symptoms, its almost as if the doctor lives in his or her own head rather then reality.

 

Please be specific. There are lists of symptoms that correspond to genetic diseases -- such as achondroplasia (dwarfism) or Duchenne's muscular dystrophy. Are you saying the symptoms don't fit?

 

Do upcoming scientists strike out on there own anymore or simply listen for what the current "genius" has to say? In all reality how much advancement do you think is lost by keeping science so stale and sedated?

 

I don't see science as "stale and sedated". Instead I see a proliferation of journals, offering more and more opportunity to get published. I still see that the most famous scientists are the ones that showed an idea to be WRONG! For instance, last week a paper in Nature challenged the accepted theory that H. erectus evolved from H.habilis. The paper itself is very poor but it still got published in one of the 3 premier scientific journals. What more do you want?

[CDarwin]

foodchain:

In this context, going against the status quo leads to a bunch of people that have only taken high school biology trying to explain to me how evolution works because they think I am just missing something.

 

Ha, I missed this little gem. Oh irony of ironies.

 

EDIT: I see the indefatigable Lucaspa has joined the discussion, so I suppose that means all of my points are going to get prodigiously cited, if he decides to respond to Wormwood. I guess I'll add a "So there!".

[lucaspa]

The point being is science really pushing to make inquisitive scientists?

 

Yes. Because every Ph.D.program requires that the student have ORIGINAL research in order to get a Ph.D. And to do that they have to ask questions and be inquisitive to find something that no one else has ever done.

 

For instance, evolution, its very real, but it also has a very real amount of unanswered questions in it. Same with physics, or geology. I am just getting scared because the more I learn about science as a whole the more it seems that asking questions or even being fringe is a bad place to be for some reason.

 

Evolution is a special case because there are people who work hard to mistakenly cast doubt on evolution for emotional or other reasons. The major questions regarding the origin of the diversity of life have been answered. For instance, we know apes and humans share a common ancestor and that H. sapiens evolved from H. erectus. THere is considerable data in the form of transitional fossils that H.erectus evolved from H. habilis. However, that didn't stop the recent Nature paper from questioning that.

 

Being fringe is not a bad place to be. Being fringe and ignoring data that falsifies your position is a bad place to be. But then, ignoring data that falsifies your position is ALWAYS a bad place to be in science.

 

Basically science I think is corrupt the day its negative for a scientist to think outside of the box, pretty much in my view it holds as much promise for understanding and advancement as thinking inside of the box.

 

Foodchain, look at all the famous scientists. They are the ones that "thought outside the box" and showed the old ideas to be wrong. Darwin with Special Creation; Einstein with Newton's Laws; Hawking with Einstein, Gould with PE questioning phyletic gradualism; Dawkins with the "selfish gene", Smolin with String Theory, etc.

 

I think the problem may be that many amateurs who want to think outside the box want people to just agree with them and say they are right. They don't understand that ideas are tested to see if we can show them to be wrong and they get upset when their pet ideas are shown to be wrong. The problem is not with science, but with them.

[Genecks]

It's become corrupted by corporate influence, yeah.

 

Now the Physical Sciences seems to be less interested in discovery and advancement for progress, and only interested in how much money they can make.

 

True, but many organizations have developed with specific interests. Sadly, I feel these organizations can't do anything without money. Not in the sense that workers want money--I'm sure they do--but the equipment for specific interests is expensive (2 million dollars for a nice machine, anyone?).

 

Yes. Because every Ph.D.program requires that the student have ORIGINAL research in order to get a Ph.D. And to do that they have to ask questions and be inquisitive to find something that no one else has ever done.

 

Oh, pah. I'm sure many scientists would love to have original research and create/discover something new, but they thing is sometimes people can't. That's why some people get their Master's and run. Whether or not this opens many doors is another thing. I suppose in time, people will start working for organizations with those previously mentions special interests. Matter of fact, many American scientists leave America to do work elsewhere. From what I've learned from various persons with a Ph.D, it doesn't do too much good. I don't think a Ph.D makes a good scientist. I do think learning and progressing science with newfound knowledge makes a good scientist.

[lucaspa]

I don’t know of any current means to remove ID from philosophy and put it into science. Overall I don’t know any means to scientifically or objectively study ID. h.

 

It's been done. IDers are very good at avoiding testable statements (because they don't want ID exposed to falsification), but they can't avoid it entirely. Yes, ID is a scientific theory. When it has made testable statements: such as that irreducibly complex structures and complex specified information can ONLY be manufactured by an intelligent entity, those statements have been tested and shown false. I'll walk you thru exactly how if you want.

 

So ID is a falsified scientific theory, like young earth creationism, Special Creation, and Flood Geology before it.

 

Now, if you make a general theological statement "God created", that is not a scientific theory. For the simple reason that, since no physical mechanism is specified, you can have God creating by the mechanisms discovered by science.

 

I enjoy pointing out problems with our current version of evolution to people that say it is an undeniable fact and shouldn't be questioned. It should be questioned in every respect.

 

No theory should be ignorantly questioned. That is, artificially create a "problem" for it. That just wastes time and energy that could be put to betteruse.

 

Wormwood, what happens in science is that hypotheses/theories garner so much support that we treat them (provisionally) as fact! We then use that "fact" in formulating other theories. Since theories are tested in large bundles, the theory accepted as "fact" is also tested. The testing NEVER STOPS.

 

For instance, heliocentrism (the theory that planets orbit the sun) is so strongly supported that it is "fact". NASA and others use that fact to plot the paths of planetary probes. Those paths are new hypotheses. That the probes arrive where and when they are calculated becomes even more support for heliocentrism. After all, if heliocentrism were wrong, the probes wouldn't arrive as calculated!

 

If there is a problem with the current theory I have no doubt that it will be a creationist or an ID proponent that will find it, because they seem to be the only people not willing to accept the theory as is.

 

History says you are wrong. Evolution has been modified considerably since Darwin,and it has always been an evolutionist that has done so. IOW, it was evolutionists that showed Darwin's idea of "disuse" and "blended characteristics" of heredity were wrong.

 

Personally I think we are missing key elements to the mechanisms that make evolution work and we fill it in with much speculation. For example, are you familiar with the explanation given for multicelled organisms that involves a single case of endosymbiosis?

 

No, because there is no such theory. Instead, endosymbiosis is used to explain some organelles -- particularly mitochondria and chloroplasts -- in eukaryotic cells. And it's not speculation: there are ways to test the theory.

 

The explanation for multicellularity involves cooperation between cells, and there are several intermediate stages seen in living organisms. For instance prokaryotes act cooperatively and you need to do some reading on the amoeba Dictolystelium.

 

If you question these things, people seem to get upset or confused.

 

Only if you are questioning the high school biology people who do not have access to the relevant information. And here you are talking about particular PEOPLE and not SCIENCE. I don't get upset or confused, do I? I simply do some literature research and provide the information for you.

 

SCIENCE is not dogmatic nor corrupt. Some people advocating particular theories -- particularly the ones used to support or challenge non-scientific faiths and beliefs -- sometimes do get dogmatic. Separate the people from the hypothesis/theory.

 

What exactly qualifies one as a scientist though, being a grad student.

 

In this context it means working as a professional research scientist and pubishing in the peer-reviewed literature. After all, you are claiming that it is these people who are "corrupt" and are "corrupting" science.

 

Though, we cant tell what science will be tomorrow, so me being a grad student tomorrow might not let us know what science will be, I mean we just cant know those things, but of course being some grad student you probably already know this:D

 

There is a difference between "science" and "currently accepted scientific theories"; you are confusing those. The hypotheses/theories that are considered valid change over time, but the discipliine that is "science" does not.

 

I would personally not call your record keeping very good science, because you never stated a hypothesis that you were testing. Yes, sometimes you can just go out and gather data without a hypothesis to test, but science is much better when data is gathered in regard to a specific hypothesis to be tested.

[Genecks]

Those who publish in certain journals are corrupt, as I've recently learned from librarians. I can't remember the name, but it's a specific British (I think) company that grips and manipulates certain people in order to give them tenure and allow them to publish with certain journals. In result, it hurts various educational institutions. W2Go for excelling research and development.

 

It's true, though, that certain people and processes tend to prick the balloon of ongoing scientific success.