How much Science Can Be Trusted?

If NASA is bunk, how respectable is the scientific community in general. Can we except particle physics, cellular biology, etc.? Most research probably has government dollars in it somewhere.

If NASA is bunk, how respectable is the scientific community in general? Can we except particle physics, cellular biology, etc.? Most research probably has government dollars in it somewhere.

If it is not contradictory to FE, there is no reason for either FE'ers or RE'ers to conclude it is falsified. As far as I can tell cellular biology is irrelevant.

What about the theory of particles orbiting the nucleus? Although it is said to be result not of gravity but charge, couldn't it be considered as a ruse to think that all things are round and orbit things? Plus most of FET's rejection of science is that none of us have been in space. None of us have seen an atom. We can at least see the cosmos with our naked eye from earth. Not true for atomic particles.

If NASA is bunk, how respectable is the scientific community in general. Can we except particle physics, cellular biology, etc.? Most research probably has government dollars in it somewhere.

The phrase "fraudulent claims in science" will get you more than 367,000 hits.

From pill pushers trying to sell questionable drugs to those inventive Brits that did the cold fusion claim in 1989, science is full of people that have tried to fake something or misrepresented something to make a few dollars more, get a bit of fame or simply keep their cushy research funding.

Now, the fun part is figuring out how many people have pulled something like that and haven't been caught yet.  Obviously, they're not going to tell anyone, so until someone can disprove their theory, it will stand as a viable theory in that field, no matter what branch of science you're talking about.

What about the theory of particles orbiting the nucleus? Although it is said to be result not of gravity but charge, couldn't it be considered as a ruse to think that all things are round and orbit things? Plus most of FET's rejection of science is that none of us have been in space. None of us have seen an atom. We can at least see the cosmos with our naked eye from earth. Not true for atomic particles.

Is this an argument? You can't use characteristics of one theory to try to prove another theory. Especially when they aren't even related.

What about the theory of particles orbiting the nucleus? Although it is said to be result not of gravity but charge, couldn't it be considered as a ruse to think that all things are round and orbit things? Plus most of FET's rejection of science is that none of us have been in space. None of us have seen an atom. We can at least see the cosmos with our naked eye from earth. Not true for atomic particles.

So do I see some type of optical illusion when I look at a banana when it is actually round, or are the Chiquita people perpetuating lies to form a conspiracy that bananas are fruit when they actually aren't?

If NASA is bunk, how respectable is the scientific community in general. Can we except particle physics, cellular biology, etc.? Most research probably has government dollars in it somewhere.

The science can be trusted as long as it meets these conditions:  It does not interfere with any FE theory, recieve any money from any government agency,make a product that a government agency may use even if they do not supply the government directly and finally the science is based upon gravity, space or a round earth. If it does not fulfill all of the conditions then that scientific organization cannot be trusted because it is part of the conspiracy

Science you can test and verify yourself is trustworthy.

Quote from: grogberries on December 26, 2008, 09:17:42 PM

What about the theory of particles orbiting the nucleus? Although it is said to be result not of gravity but charge, couldn't it be considered as a ruse to think that all things are round and orbit things? Plus most of FET's rejection of science is that none of us have been in space. None of us have seen an atom. We can at least see the cosmos with our naked eye from earth. Not true for atomic particles.

So do I see some type of optical illusion when I look at a banana when it is actually round, or are the Chiquita people perpetuating lies to form a conspiracy that bananas are fruit when they actually aren't?

They're a berry you silly jew.

Quote from: grogberries on December 26, 2008, 09:17:42 PM

What about the theory of particles orbiting the nucleus? Although it is said to be result not of gravity but charge, couldn't it be considered as a ruse to think that all things are round and orbit things? Plus most of FET's rejection of science is that none of us have been in space. None of us have seen an atom. We can at least see the cosmos with our naked eye from earth. Not true for atomic particles.

Is this an argument? You can't use characteristics of one theory to try to prove another theory. Especially when they aren't even related.

I think they are related, but it is okay if you don't.

How much Science Can Be Trusted?

That's pretty much the point of the FES.  Question what you are taught instead of believing everything you are told.

What about the theory of particles orbiting the nucleus? Although it is said to be result not of gravity but charge, couldn't it be considered as a ruse to think that all things are round and orbit things? Plus most of FET's rejection of science is that none of us have been in space. None of us have seen an atom. We can at least see the cosmos with our naked eye from earth. Not true for atomic particles.

The orbits that electrons occupy within atoms are a consequence of energy levels and degeneracy predicted by quantum theory. The orbits of the planets about the Sun are a consequence of gravity. Theoretical physicists have thus far failed to marry quantum theory with theory of gravity. The two can not be compared.

Besides which, atomic orbitals are not defined paths along which an electron will be found at time, t, but rather a volume of space within which there is a probability of finding an electron if an observer chooses to search for one. Up until that observation is made, the electron occupies the whole orbital simultaneously. It's all very complicated, which is why I stopped doing quantum mechanics.

Furthermore the idea that bodies orbit other bodies, whether a geocentric or heliocentric view, dates back millenia. The modern model of the atom consisting of a central nucleas with electron orbiting it didn't arise till Rutherford did his experiments firing alpha-particles at gold foil about a hundred years ago. Prior to that we had the plum-pudding model of the atom and before that, people st didn't really like to ask such questions since the atom was considered the smallest particle of matter possible.

Science should only be trusted as far as one can personally throw it.

Otherwise, it'll creep into your brain, hi-jack your thought processes and demand that you hypothesize and theorize in a rational manner; forcing you to devise and conduct experiments which garner evidence to prove /disprove.

If you don't wish to succumb to the rigors of complex ideation; Run!!!!

In general scientific research is a fraud.
The real investigation hapens only at military level and unknown levels and the outside investigation is controled more and more each day.
Universities are paid by corporations to research what they want.
Corporations control the government investigation funds.
The more evident cases are energetic and health. Free energy as free or cheap aids and cancer cures are supressed and investigation keeps on... so the funds and the deaths.

Science can?t be trusted per se as it is controled by corporations that only see profits and power. Science is not even science if it is ruled with pre-conceived ideas and give not space to the new.

I trust in science as i trust in medicine. I am very careful when I go to a doctor! And I am very careful with what generally people and midia call science as I know science is much more than what they tell us or want us to believe.

Free energy

The credibility of your post has taken a catastrophic nosedive.

I trust science as far as I can throw it. Thankfully science has given us a way to calculate exactly how far this is.

In general scientific research is a fraud.
The real investigation hapens only at military level and unknown levels and the outside investigation is controled more and more each day.
Universities are paid by corporations to research what they want.
Corporations control the government investigation funds.
The more evident cases are energetic and health. Free energy as free or cheap aids and cancer cures are supressed and investigation keeps on... so the funds and the deaths.

Free energy will never be suppressed, because selling free electricity is a lot more profitable than buying coal and selling electricity. And who profits from AIDS? A few drug manufacturers? Making a name for yourself by curing AIDS would make you rich. Get your company huge deals. And you are the sole distributor of the cure for AIDS.

There are many cures for cancer, which type? Claiming there is no cure for cancer is something uneducated people do that have heard the phrase "cure cancer" one too many times. There are many new cures, and new ones developed each day. Cancer is composed of human cells and is randomly mutated, meaning there is no easy way to target it.

We can already do a lot to stop cancer. One being karate chopping cigarettes. We can probably spend all this research money better on how to prevent it.

In general scientific research is a fraud.
The real investigation hapens only at military level and unknown levels and the outside investigation is controled more and more each day.

It might just be because I'm in grad school now, but I'm honestly perplexed at how anyone can believe this. Even as an undergrad I had friend who were doing all sorts of research. Now in grad school I'm regularly talking to people doing all sorts of research. Each one pushes knowledge ahead a little bit. Which research should I be skeptical of? My friends who are doing particle physics? The biologists? The math people? The psychology people? The engineers? Where in the process does this mysterious military research get channeled into the regular research process?

It might just be because I'm in grad school now, but I'm honestly perplexed at how anyone can believe this. Even as an undergrad I had friend who were doing all sorts of research. Now in grad school I'm regularly talking to people doing all sorts of research. Each one pushes knowledge ahead a little bit. Which research should I be skeptical of? My friends who are doing particle physics? The biologists? The math people? The psychology people? The engineers? Where in the process does this mysterious military research get channeled into the regular research process?

Many of the people I was in Grad-School with received money from the gov to do what they had to do, but their papers and conclusions were not in any way subject to a certain gov bias. Now they may not have been able to disclose all the data because they had to sign a NDA, but their findings were no real big secret within their field.

One of the biggest things about doing research is that when you reveal your findings, you will receive a ton a questions asking how you did something if its not all clear in your paper/presentation. Conferences are full of people trying to find a fallacy in someone else's work and they get a real big kick out of making you look stupid if you stumble and don't know your own work.

Quote from: JoshuaZ on February 11, 2009, 03:56:40 PM

It might just be because I'm in grad school now, but I'm honestly perplexed at how anyone can believe this. Even as an undergrad I had friend who were doing all sorts of research. Now in grad school I'm regularly talking to people doing all sorts of research. Each one pushes knowledge ahead a little bit. Which research should I be skeptical of? My friends who are doing particle physics? The biologists? The math people? The psychology people? The engineers? Where in the process does this mysterious military research get channeled into the regular research process?

Many of the people I was in Grad-School with received money from the gov to do what they had to do, but their papers and conclusions were not in any way subject to a certain gov bias. Now they may not have been able to disclose all the data because they had to sign a NDA, but their findings were no real big secret within their field.

One of the biggest things about doing research is that when you reveal your findings, you will receive a ton a questions asking how you did something if its not all clear in your paper/presentation. Conferences are full of people trying to find a fallacy in someone else's work and they get a real big kick out of making you look stupid if you stumble and don't know your own work.

I think some of you need to go back and examine the purpose of this thread.  The OP was asking how often people deliberately set out to lay false claims, deceiving everyone.  For example:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/11/global_warming_as_pathological.html
http://www.ntskeptics.org/2000/2000april/april2000.htm

These two articles are just two of thousands of articles about how science is being used and twisted for a certain group's purpose.  Another thought provoking article is:

http://www.nas.org/polArticles.cfm?doc_id=193

The National Association of Scholars printed the discourse on political correctness in science and it paints a disturbing picture of how science is used to forward agendas that have no real basis in scientific facts.

According to the googling and research I did, fraud is rare, but it does happen.  The biggest problem is in proving it.  If Professor Z is on the cutting edge of cold fusion tech, and he claims that he can do this, how do you prove he can't do it?

Obviously, they're not going to tell anyone, so until someone can disprove their theory, it will stand as a viable theory in that field, no matter what branch of science you're talking about.

This seems to be EXTREMELY ignorant and dumb. A theory that is able to stand up to questions and proves true in almost every scenarios is most likely treu because of those reasons. How can a theory with more loopholes and confusion, then another with a more solid infrastructure, possible be more right? It is absolutely ludicrious to say "Well since the theory has not been disproven somehow, it just means that there is no way it can be right"

Granted, I'm not saying they're always right either. What I am saying is that conclusions that are drawn from studying evidence and proof from several fields and applied to be almost always, or sometimes even always, true are probably more correct then other theories.

Science you can test and verify yourself is trustworthy.

So stuff like tectonic plates, which was compiled together from other scientists but originally proposed by someone unafilliated with NASA, is not verifiable proof? Most of us do not have the tools required to test if it is true.

That's pretty much the point of the FES.  Question what you are taught instead of believing everything you are told.

Though what do you do if what you're taught makes more sense then other theories you are told?

The science can be trusted as long as it meets these conditions:  It does not interfere with any FE theory, recieve any money from any government agency,make a product that a government agency may use even if they do not supply the government directly and finally the science is based upon gravity, space or a round earth. If it does not fulfill all of the conditions then that scientific organization cannot be trusted because it is part of the conspiracy

Tell me something: why are things that only interfere with the FE theory part of the conspiracy? Why are things in the fields of, say, cell research not in on a completely different conspiracy on their own? Are we to completely mistrust and denounce anything given by the scientific community, simply because we don't believe their claims just because they're in a higher position of power? Does the fact that what they tell us is tested or shown to fit nicely into several fields completely irrelevant?

It all sounds rather absurd to me. If we can't trust the branch of science that deals with gravity and the Earth, how can we trust any of the others?

Ravenwood, are you aware that Amazing and I were both replying to Denis C's remark?

Quote from: DenisC on February 05, 2009, 12:43:01 PM

In general scientific research is a fraud.
The real investigation hapens only at military level and unknown levels and the outside investigation is controled more and more each day.

It might just be because I'm in grad school now, but I'm honestly perplexed at how anyone can believe this. Even as an undergrad I had friend who were doing all sorts of research. Now in grad school I'm regularly talking to people doing all sorts of research. Each one pushes knowledge ahead a little bit. Which research should I be skeptical of? My friends who are doing particle physics? The biologists? The math people? The psychology people? The engineers? Where in the process does this mysterious military research get channeled into the regular research process?

Guess they didn't teach you about trolls in grad school.

Science is a religion.  Einstein is your Pope.

Minus the goofy hats.

A theory that is able to stand up to questions and proves true in almost every scenarios is most likely treu because of those reasons.

By how many scenarios will such theory become "true"? Also, a theory is true relative to what? For example, relative to Newton's theory, General Relativity is true and Newton's theory is false. Relative to Quantum Mechanics, however, there is a conflict. In science, all theories are falsifiable: it does not mean that they are false, but mean that they can be shown false with experiments and observations.

By how many scenarios will such theory become "true"? Also, a theory is true relative to what? For example, relative to Newton's theory, General Relativity is true and Newton's theory is false. Relative to Quantum Mechanics, however, there is a conflict. In science, all theories are falsifiable: it does not mean that they are false, but mean that they can be shown false with experiments and observations.

That's easy to tell. Instead of looking at what the theory proves, look at what it doesn't prove. Wegener's original plate tectonic theory explained many things, like the formation of volcanoes and mountains. It showed an alternative method besides land bridges, which would not have been feasible. Why was it denounced as a lunatic's thinking then? Because it failed to explain what method actually moved the continents in the first place. Because of this one gripe, the entire theory was almost anomiously rejected by the scientific community. But when Henry Hess came along and gave evidence of seafloor spreading, it was seen as a possible way to explain the plate movement. With that hole patched up, the theory began getting more and more support and now is almost universally accepted as true. Do you see how that works? A theory can basically be considered "true" when it does not fail to explain contradictions or unexplained phenemon, without having to use more complicated and absurd measures to fill up the holes that the original theory had.

Even then, I'm sure some people are able to point out holes in plate tectonic theory. However, until a new theory comes along that does not have to resort to creating 5 more to support itself, then plate tectonics will be seen as "the truth", if only because it proves to be the "most true."

NASA, and every other Scientific Oraganization can be trusted.
(DOES NOT INCLUDE ANYTHING CONCERNIG THE SCIENTOLOGISTS)

NASA, and every other Scientific Oraganization can be trusted.
(DOES NOT INCLUDE ANYTHING CONCERNIG THE SCIENTOLOGISTS)

They are all made up of humans.
Humans can only be trusted to act in their own best interests.
If the organization's best interests and yours are not the same, you cannot trust them.

Yeah, I'm a bit cynical.

Quote from: NewNerd on March 06, 2009, 12:26:40 AM

NASA, and every other Scientific Oraganization can be trusted.
(DOES NOT INCLUDE ANYTHING CONCERNIG THE SCIENTOLOGISTS)

They are all made up of humans.
Humans can only be trusted to act in their own best interests.
If the organization's best interests and yours are not the same, you cannot trust them.

Yeah, I'm a bit cynical.

And coming up with theory's that can stand the test of time is in there best interest, and theory's that are wrong do not stand in their best interest because they will not stand the test of time