What Is Bad Science?

Dr Kynes

Dr Kynes

Well-Known Member
Heisenberg said:
I was wondering why a condom wouldn't do the trick.
Click to expand...
condom adhesion would require a constant state of tumescence, lest it detach rendering you vulnerable.

it is rumored they can even squirm up into a wetsuit via the ankle openings. any non-porous protective device would simply draw them along the path taken by the ammonia aroma, leading directly to your gristle.
 
Doer

Doer

Well-Known Member
Viagra combo therapy then. If you don't still have an erection after 4 hrs in the water, take 2 more!
 
Dr Kynes

Dr Kynes

Well-Known Member
Doer said:
Viagra combo therapy then. If you don't still have an erection after 4 hrs in the water, take 2 more!
Click to expand...
BRILLIANT!

and since obamacare will fund Cialis and Viagra prescriptions with all the money they save by waging war on women, it's win-win!
 
olylifter420

olylifter420

Well-Known Member
Bad science is people on the web thinking they are actual scientists and passing off as one around their peers.




Doer said:
It's not always so easy to tell. Some folks say the DDT ban was the result of bad science.

One example is called the barn side or six-shooter mistake. If I take a pair of six-guns and fire 12 times at a barn, I can go up with my chalk, (with no one looking) and draw a circle around the best group. "Yep, good shootin!"

Real world example is cancer clusters. Take an area, neighborhood, town, whatever.
Place a red dot where there is a cancer patient. Now try to correlate that with
fire plugs...What?? Why??

How about PCB filled electrical transformers? Oh, yeah! Different from fire plugs right? Wrong.

If you take transformers and draw circles around them and see cancer clusters associated with the transformers, that is the broad side of a barn. Same with fire plugs.

Any science of observation and record keeping is only as good or bad as the records.
Bad science, is looking at the records and drawing inferences that haven't been tested and stating them as scientific correlations.

Any other examples come to mind?
Click to expand...
 
B

brimck325

Well-Known Member
researchkitty said:
Your confusing science with idiots.

An idiot would look at a barn, circle a shot, and say good shot.

Nobody would look at observations in science once and say "Thats fact!". Science is about REPEATING observations and independent verification of those observations.

What you are describing is idiotic, nothing more.

Most of the time a good scientist looks at the data, and if there are surprises in the data, they will check OTHER data of the same substance to ensure that their data isnt bad. ;) THAT is science!
Click to expand...
the government needs men like you...peace
 
Doer

Doer

Well-Known Member
olylifter420 said:
Bad science is people on the web thinking they are actual scientists and passing off as one around their peers.
Click to expand...
And you are simply full of shit.

First off if, you are taking to me, (you quoted me) you are hardly my peer, with this kind of crap. More ignorant than not.

And second, I surely qualify as a Computer Scientist, involved in Computer Science and peer reviewed research and you I repeat are full of shit and perhaps a plumber by trade. :) (not that there is anything wrong with that)
 
Dr Kynes

Dr Kynes

Well-Known Member
Doer said:
And you are simply full of shit.

First off if, you are taking to me, (you quoted me) you are hardly my peer, with this kind of crap. More ignorant than not.

And second, I surely qualify as a Computer Scientist, involved in Computer Science and peer reviewed research and you I repeat are full of shit and perhaps a plumber by trade. :) (not that there is anything wrong with that)
Click to expand...


[video=youtube;JpBGRA6HHtY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JpBGRA6HHtY[/video]
 
B

biostudent

Well-Known Member
Bad science is when you have people treating scientific theories like scientific laws, as such is the case with the theory of evolution in contrast to the law of mass conservation. Next, a theory is a good theory if it is testable, experimentally replicatable. But keep in mind, a theory is not an absolute truth, like a law. For nearly 2,000 years, the infinite divisibility of matter (searching for the smallest particle) was considered a good theory, and experimentally tested, proved for a long time that matter can keep dividing into a smaller piece. Much later, with the discovery of the atomic theory, the good old theory of divisibility was proved wrong. The moral is that scientific theories are always changing, sometimes revolutionary. But the problem occurs when people (even some scientists) consider a theory to be an absolute fact (ex: theory on origins of life). That is bad science.
 
thcme

thcme

Active Member
biostudent said:
Bad science is when you have people treating scientific theories like scientific laws, as such is the case with the theory of evolution in contrast to the law of mass conservation. Next, a theory is a good theory if it is testable, experimentally replicatable. But keep in mind, a theory is not an absolute truth, like a law. For nearly 2,000 years, the infinite divisibility of matter (searching for the smallest particle) was considered a good theory, and experimentally tested, proved for a long time that matter can keep dividing into a smaller piece. Much later, with the discovery of the atomic theory, the good old theory of divisibility was proved wrong. The moral is that scientific theories are always changing, sometimes revolutionary. But the problem occurs when people (even some scientists) consider a theory to be an absolute fact (ex: theory on origins of life). That is bad science.
Click to expand...
^ what he said
 
ginjawarrior

ginjawarrior

Well-Known Member
biostudent said:
Bad science is when you have people treating scientific theories like scientific laws, as such is the case with the theory of evolution in contrast to the law of mass conservation. Next, a theory is a good theory if it is testable, experimentally replicatable. But keep in mind, a theory is not an absolute truth, like a law. For nearly 2,000 years, the infinite divisibility of matter (searching for the smallest particle) was considered a good theory, and experimentally tested, proved for a long time that matter can keep dividing into a smaller piece. Much later, with the discovery of the atomic theory, the good old theory of divisibility was proved wrong. The moral is that scientific theories are always changing, sometimes revolutionary. But the problem occurs when people (even some scientists) consider a theory to be an absolute fact (ex: theory on origins of life). That is bad science.
Click to expand...
^^^^a complete misunderstanding on what scientific laws and scientific theories are.


a scientific law is a law because of the equation at its heart.

how can evolution be treated as an equation?

you would be hard pushed to find anything as well supported as evolution its only the complexity making an equation beyond our capabilities.


you do realise that we've been dividing atoms for a while now?
 
thcme

thcme

Active Member
Yes, it's kind of presumptuous to assume evolution cannot ever be described in terms of an equation or underlying computations...
 
ginjawarrior

ginjawarrior

Well-Known Member
Samwell Seed Well said:
everything can be described as a math equation . .even evolution

we just havent solved it yet

fibernachi code and the golden rule
Click to expand...
the goldern rule?

possibly with all the variables you could make such an equation (it would be mind bogglingly complicated tho)

however biostudent was saying that people are now treating the theory of evolution as a law

without the elusive equation how can it possibly be treated as a law?

unless of course he is misunderstanding scientific theory and scientific law
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top