Let's try to this on the process of science creation not its content especially.

Scientists are only human. They have their biases and limits of ability. A lot of scientific investigations are bought rather than funded by companies, government and organisations. So there needs to be a system to place a partition between the funder and the scientist and choose the scientist on ability and ethics. So what sort of system?

its all community property

[knowledge..belongs to living people
not dead corperations...thus should not able to be controled
[for proffit,..by dead corperations for them to control..indefinatly]

like chemical industries
suppressing info that gives cures,
[not just treats symptoms..for life..at huge cost]

lets face it we either share knowelwedge
or hide it for some secret reason

no secret should be allowed to remain secret forever
even pay/honour.. people for discovery..
or corperations..

but..allowing all to have a fair share
we only communicate by word..because we can use or change them

[no man is an island]
we [the people]..educated you
we the people deserve a fair share of the fruits

stop giving govt nmoney
to private for proffit..[or huge wage]..by govt gift
to huge multinational organisations..seeking exclusive licence for ever longer time's..[patent has been extended yet again]

corperations shouldnt be allowed to 'own'..patent
longer than the inventer..and the susstem that created the invention

The way this is done is by peer review.
A scientist who claims to have discovered something new publishes his/her experiment and results in a reputable journal.
Getting past the editorial board is the first checkpoint.
Once published then other scientists may repeat the experiment to see if they acheive the same outcome.
This works well; and has done for more than a century. But, as you say, scientists are human.
There is questionable research where one could draw a line from funding source to outcome. But, generally, it either doesn't get published in a reputable journal or it's quickly attacked by other scientists and found wanting.
On problem we face is that the media will often sensationalise what appears to be a dramatic research finding, (it gets heaps of attention, naturally), but when the contradictory research is published, (often less controvesrial), it gets little attention.
A recent example of this is that a few weeks ago, a paper was published describing an experiment that appeared to show particles exceeding the speed of light. A complex piece of research but the authors couldn't figure out what was going on. The publicity was substantial. However, when another group repeated the experiment and didn't get the same result, the publicity was faint.
But, sans the media involvement, this was an example of the system working very well and effectively advancing science.
It helps to remember what consitutes a theory. An hypothesis, to become a theory, must allow for predictions to tbe made, for those predictions to be tested and the results must always be the same. If there is a case where different results are achieved then the theory must be abandoned or modified.
Having said all that, it is true that we do see "scientists" who, while funded by tobacco companies argued that smoking did not cause cancer, and now, while funded by fossil fuel lobbies argue against global warming.
One solution could be that all research when published, must have all the funding sources disclosed.
Many reputable science journals already do this.
Anthony
http://www.observationpoint.com.au

IF
If we had no science we would not know the earth is round, about the planets, we would not have cured so many disease's.
Not walked on the moon looked at the DNA of us and animals.
We see people all over the world worshiping God, 3 off whom came via the one book written by men.
Few question, even understand men wrote them.
But we question science.
Well no we basically do not, we teach one thing practice another Evolution/Creationism.

We must address this question, if you wanted to cast doubt, even if you believed, in some thing.
Could you do better than craft a post just like our threads authors first one hear?
While I welcome the author, I see in that post the perfect start to putting doubt in to minds on any controversial subject, and reject it.

Just a little problem there Anthonyve, your peer review has broken down completely.

Once you get governments in there wanting a certain result from the "research" they have funded, it doesn't work too well. Group think, & greed get in the way.

Then we get your so called "reputable journals" publishing stuff, where much of the detail is with held, or hidden.

When you get peer review done by other members of a working group, beholden to the same funding body.

When you get public funded research claimed by the researcher as private, & locked out of the public sphere.

When you get researchers discussing ways to avoid freedom of information legislation, to keep their secret workings secret, it's all a bit much.

In fact it has totally broken down any time government has an objective, & funding, & greedy "scientists" willing to prostitute themselves for that funding. Climategate 2.0 anyone?

Belly that looks like an avoidance of the question. It is government control of funding that is in question, in the thread, & how the large finger of funding can be removed from the results of research.

Any time the government & the public are walking the same path it works, change direction by one, & corruption comes in damn quick.

I agree with Belly's comment.
Much of the criticism we see in these comments shows a misunderstanding of the scientific process.
Also we live in a time when science is confronting us with inconvenient truths, global warming being the most obvious. Because the science behind those truths gets stronger very day, we see an endless attempt to politicise science, and to belittle the scientific process.
Unfortunately, the kind of mind that becomes a good scientist is rarely the kind of mind that is good at politics.
For example, most scientists care about the truth while in politics... well, you get my point.
Most - not all, but most - scientists care deeply about science and about exanding human knowledge. Why else would they be scentists.
First you have to be smart enough to get through a doctoral programme, all the while living on a pittance. Then you go into a profession that, franky doesn't pay all that well.
Most scientists are smart enough that if money was their main motivator they could easily have done a business degree and become a banking executive within a few years.
They choose science mostly because they love it. And - loving it - few are willing to besmirch it.
Anthony
http://observationpoint.com.au

Hi Hasbeen,
Quite a list of assertions you're presenting as facts. Not, "I think", or "Maybe" but this is the way it is.
Okay, got any evidence or examples?
Just askin'
Anthony
http://www.observationpoint.com.au

C S I R O
Who off us is not proud of the achievements off this Government science great achiever in the years 1960 till now
I rest my case

@ Anthonyve, today 11:54 a.m. - spot on!

See hasbeen's prior post: "Just a little problem there Anthonyve, your peer review has broken down completely ... so called "reputable journals" publishing stuff, where much of the detail is with held, or hidden ... When you get peer review done by other members of a working group, beholden to the same funding body ... etc etc."

Yet as the 'hasbeen' rants, Science (the hack journal) publishes a paper discounting climate sensitivity to less than what has been (not the nutter) has predicted. That is how science works.

But wait, Hasbeen - the paper was based on models - oops, it must be wrong.

Oh, and Climategate II (V2)? Yeah, been there, done that - just prior to Copenhagen. Now, Durban is it? They had the V2 emails back then in 2009 - why not release them with V1? Not that the 8 enquiries since V1 have cleared things up a tad, eh?

I don't know who wrote it but it certainly fits with the evolution fantasy and global warming scam.

'"Science [continues to be] the belief in the ignorance of experts" '

'"Science [continues to be] the belief in the ignorance of experts"

Hi Runner,
What do you propse as an alternative.
Belief in the ignorance of the uneducated, perhaps...
Or, to perhaps put it in another way, belief in the ignorance of the ignorant.
Somehow, the alternatives don't sound all that appealing. Can't imagine why not.
Cheers,
Anthony
http://www.observationpoint.com.au

I want posters from all sides of this debate, indeed any we ever had or will have here to understand.
Some contributions come from a deep failure to under stand much at all.
Others from a darkness such as runner who only sees via a in my view, warped view of Christianity, the Church I was born to was not a one of hate.
And this, if we could read a history book, written in 50 years, yes it would be after our deaths.
This and so many issues linked to the interests of power influence , would see our views proved and maybe?
Maybe? no I am sure! those proposing such as this thread would be seen then as puppets for a true conspiracy.
One to put doubt, not truth, in the heads of those unwilling to learn truth.

There is really only one possibility, you blokes have avoided reading climategate 2.0 emails.

I suppose there are always some so dumb that they don't want to see, & all societies have been cursed with some of these.

There are also fellow travelers, in it for the quid.

However it is doubtful that any could read this new crop of emails, & still make the posts on here.

If you still "believe" you have my sympathy, it must be tough when you have only one eye.

It is not necessary to reform science. Science is ingrained in every car we drive, every computer we use, every spoon full of breakfast cereal we eat (whole-grained or otherwise).It ain't going to lose it's influence anytime soon.

Where things tend to fail is in the presentation of some aspects of science, by some who are wont to pontificate as if they are spokespersons for science.

Here's AnthonyV [25 November 2011 11:00:13 AM]
<< A recent example of this is that a few weeks ago, a paper was published describing an experiment that appeared to show particles exceeding the speed of light. A complex piece of research but the authors couldn't figure out what was going on. The publicity was substantial. However, when another group repeated the experiment and didn't get the same result, the publicity was faint>>

What are we to gather from this comment? It is a little hard to read:
<<when another group repeated the experiment and didn't get the same result>>
As other than, the second set of experiments failed to confirm the result of the first.

But here in that most august of science journals NATURE we find:

<<Physicists have replicated the finding that the subatomic particles called neutrinos seem to travel faster than light. It is a remarkable confirmation of a stunning result>>
http://www.nature.com/news/neutrino-experiment-replicates-faster-than-light-finding-1.9393

And it's echoed in NEWSCIENTIST:

<<One of the most staggering results in physics – that neutrinos may go faster than light – has not gone away with two further weeks of observations. The researchers behind the jaw-dropping finding are now confident enough in the result that they are submitting it to a peer-reviewed journal.>>
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn21188-new-results-show-neutrinos-still-faster-than-light.html

Now it's not about what the experiments will ultimate establish. It's whether some of those who purport to talk for science know what they are talking about!

Reform science Nah!
You do better to kick out the wannabe bishops and popes!

we cant blame them hassa..its made to sound so reasonable
and you gotta love how we became holowcost denierers,,
and religeous kooks..and the science illiteratie

just like the frauds statistics of smoking
fraud numbers is the name of the game
[so as with smoking]..where 15,000 ATTRIVUTABLE deaths attributed to smoking..is only attributed not factual[but heck who can tell anmy different]

see the 'numbers'..are made by guestimate[cause autopsies arnt nessisary!..if a cause of death is written dow.. by any docter[so vile docters that accidentially kill hide behind ''cause of death[smoking]'

so you canm kill a smokers
by adberse reation to perscribed drugs
1 in 100 hospital admissions are adverse drug reactions
1 in 10 result in death

even when refuse to treat..dirty smelly smokers
we still get acused of costing the health system 32 billion
yet our actual medical costs..is 800 million

[the 32 nbillion number is costs attributable][ie the 'social cost''..any smoking related[..or attributably relatable cost AND tax[benifit]..

its the sum total of all attributable smoking income/cost
[to wit spin][ya just gotta liove the clever spin..the raise to bring on a new [ineexed annually]..tax on those hated despised smokers

who lol died
by the act of smoking...?
the thought of smoking?

dead from smoking...that act of smoking?
you know that smoking that makes your toes freze off and go black

but if govt raves on and on about smoking deaths
[that no doudt include many asbestosis lung deaths
those numbers hide inconveniant truths..made lie by statistic

yes the peer science revieuws deliver yet again
here i fight the other huge lie
of species ecvolving into new genus
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=12844&page=0

its far easy to sell the too clever by half lie
than to egsamin the facts yourself..thus we get lies

science that lies..distorts facts..twists the data
to make clever hockey sticks..has colluded fraud right there in emails

and the one eyed blind
dont see nuthin...lol

Science is both good & bad, just like everything else on this planet.
When I worked in a hospital I found that the cures were way outweighed by the creation of refuse. This will be a major problem not long from now. The same goes for green energy. The benefits are outweighed by the pollution to create it. Our Laws foster criminality etc etc.
Science is governed by the revenue it promises. How about a scientific study to stamp out stupidity. No funding for that I guess because if suddenly people became smart a lot of money wouldn't go where it's going presently.
Scientists are smart enough to develop something but not smart enough to foresee the negatives of their inventions. Frivolities create much more revenue than useful things. They also create more pollution.

The way this is done is by peer review.
A scientist who claims to have discovered something new publishes his/her experiment and results in a reputable journal.
Getting past the editorial board is the first checkpoint.
Once published then other scientists may repeat the experiment to see if they acheive the same outcome.
This works well; and has done for more than a century. But, as you say, scientists are human.
There is questionable research where one could draw a line from funding source to outcome. But, generally, it either doesn't get published in a reputable journal or it's quickly attacked by other scientists and found wanting......

Having said all that, it is true that we do see "scientists" who, while funded by tobacco companies argued that smoking did not cause cancer, and now, while funded by fossil fuel lobbies argue against global warming.
One solution could be that all research when published, must have all the funding sources disclosed.
Many reputable science journals already do this.
Anthony
http://www.observationpoint.com.auPosted by Anthonyve, Friday, 25 November 2011 11:00:13 AM

Money comes with string attached- the worst ones are the implicit strings (requirements- confirm what we believe or we won't pay you again). Peer-review whether journal derived or continuous is and never was an antidote to powerful interests, anyway peer review is different thread. Money may or may not be primary driver of scientists but it is the most powerful single driver in society. Admitting who funds you is no solution- the strings can't be overcome that easily. We need the best results.

Science is not technology. The first cars were built with little to no analysis. We can make really bad decisions based on poor science but they may not be disasterous enough for the bad science to be evident. How about asbestos some in the air may be dangerous but the alternative poorer fire insulation are disasterous for people in building such as 9-11 and the hundreds of fireman who die every year as building collapse quickly. Its a complex world so its easy to hide poor science.

People who are into religion, should keep it to themselves, who cares if they believe things that go against normal rational.
There is a batch of rerun emails getting around about climate science, just in time for the next climate meeting, coincidence. The place where these emails supposed come from have reported no irregularities in their system.

AH I love a Luddite, only because I like humor.
And who of us is not hooked on watching the human race, learning about it.
It has been fun.
But not enough to keep my attention.
Debating with a telegraph pole is time wasting enjoy.

Hi SPQR,
Been a bit busy or I would have responded earlier.
You obviouly missed my point and went rushing off to refute my example, rather than to focus on the issue.
Any, to fill in the gaps in your own bit of research, here is the reference to CERN research refuting the faster than the speed of light hypothesis.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/8905322/Speed-of-light-experiment-was-wrong-after-all.html
Do try to keep up with the real world, there's a good chap.
Cheers,
Anthony
http://www.observationpoint.com.au

Any thing that makes it to the front page of u tube, is all crap.
Not one mention of any emails on the news services. Some are clinging on to straws, in a raging torrent. Has-been won't even answer his own topic.

Hi Anthony,

<<Been a bit busy or I would have responded earlier>>

Yep! I've seen some of your work on other threads.
Though to be honest, I wouldn't have judged any of them as requiring too much time or thought!

<< Any, to fill in the gaps in your own bit of research, here is the reference to CERN research refuting the faster than the speed of light hypothesis.>>

You're really a funny fellow Anthony.

You started off warning against media hype:
<<"The publicity was substantial...But, sans the media involvement...>>

Then, what do you do when you find you've painted yourself into a corner?

Your run off to find a supporting source:
Not Science.
Not Nature.
Not even, NewScientist.
But the tabloid Telegraph!

That was your first mistake (in the latest post).

Your next mistake, was to assume that because a second group of scientists *claim* they've found a different result to the first.
The first groups results are immediately and irredeemably overturned-- it ain't necessarily so!

There have been findings both pro and con. And there will need to be a whole series of checks and counter-checks and re-tests, before any solid conclusions can be reached--but you would have known that being a expert on the scientific method!

Hey Anthony, do science a favour, please, stop talking on its behalf.
Your talents are better suited for other pursuits -- like, um, re-interpreting Tolkien!

Hi SPQR,
The length and detail of your response, none of which relates to the issue, indicates... well, I'm not sure. Certainly an inability to focus on the topic itself.
My dear fellow, as I've endeavoured to point out before, this is not about me; these debates never are.
Yet you insist on making it about me. Indeed you go to considerable lengths to do so.
If I thought your efforts reflected any importance on my part I would be flattered.
However, I know better.
I am content to debate the issues, of which, to repeat, I am not one.
So, please do try to stick to the issue at hand; your obsession with me is, frankly, bordering on weird.
I shall now cancel notifications relating to this topic, as the the thread has been drawn sufficiently far from the topic as to make it simply boring.
Cheers,
Anthony
http://www.observationpoint.com.au

Somehow, science & academia are always portrayed as positive. Non-scientific & non-academic influence has not resulted in as much negative influence over centuries as has science & academia. Yes, there are positives but they're a long way short of deserving to occupy the top of the pedestal.
As for funding science I say fund it as you'd fund every other enterprise & when a significant positive discovery is made then funding will be a non-issue. What gets to me is the huge salaries some of these perpetual non-productive scientists get. Put them on a good wage & let's see what they can do. Remember some of the most significant positive invention/discoveries were made by non-academics without the benefit of funding. They used brains rather than others' money.