Science is Broken
 

1. Science is in a state of decay due to corruption.
Science sets the standards of rationality for society.
What happens to science will happen to all of society.
-------------------------------------------------------

2. Engineering and technology are not science.
They produce a product which tests the result.
The only product of science is knowledge, which is
too abstract and illusive to resist corruption.
-------------------------------------------------------

3. Here's how junk science works.
It's analogous to Joe and Sam growing potatoes.
Joe wears brown shoes, and Sam black shoes.
Joe gets five kilograms per square meter, and Sam gets six.
Therefore, wearing black shoes will produce a better yield than wearing brown shoes.
-------------------------------------------------------

4. The latest fraud in Washington is outcome-directed science.
It destroys discovery research, because discoveries cannot be dictated.
Real progress stems from finding new ways of acquiring information,
and the results are not predictable and cannot be directed.
---------------------------------------------------------

5. Corrupters promote fraud for the sake of fraud, because they can arbitrate fraud,
and it destroys the rationality needed by more competent persons.
You control people through fraud, not through truth.
------------------------------------------------------------

6. Science is being corrupted by putting end results above standards.
Getting an end result is not the purpose of science.
Producing objective standards of measurement is the purpose of science.

Much much more on;
The Science of Global Warming
Energy Misdefined
Prions as Junk Science
The Biology of Anthrax
The Truth about Relativity
Big Bang Theory
Phenotypic Variation
Intelligent Design
Asteroid and Dinosaurs
ATP Theory
Cancer and Evolution
The Cause of Heart Disease
The Stealth Diseases
Geology of Soil Origins
Heat in the Earth's Core
The Cause of Tornadoes
Windmill Efficiency
Transgenic Crops
Fluoride in Drinking Water
Morel Mushroom Evolution

Nice site. Does this have anything to do with the triumph of professionalism over amateurism?

Bruce is starting a rumble. :) This could be amusing.

Meanwhile, in Brazil recently, a team of scientists reported that they discovered tick saliva kills cancer cells while ignoring healthy cells.

Something they stumbled across while doing other experiments with tick saliva, and decided to investigate more deeply.

I thought the punchline was going to be that this was written by the Unabomber or something.

so. magic anyone?

My mother drinks orange juice.

This is how my friend and I remembered, in Psych 100, the four requirements for a science. It must be materialistic, mechanistic, deterministic, and objective.

That's all I know.

... and orange?
Oh wait, I get it. It's something to do with juice, right?

Yeah...wait...whut? :confused:

Nor is medicine a science, a fact that routinely evades notice.

It's interesting to me that both medicine and engineering have well defined methods of their own, and benefit from not being confused with science, just as science benefits from being understood on its own terms, and yet the confusion persists.

I think much of the confusion stems from scientifically illiterate managerialism and the marketing of a profitable but incorrect idea of science to the public.

On Intelligent Design, I also think there's a degree of fundamentalism in the atheist camp. I think Richard Dawkins might be an example. However, I understand the frustration of biologists when confronted with the duplicitous and obfuscatory tactics of Creationists.

But I think there are deeper grounds for a scientific rejection of ID than that of distinguishing randomness from predictability. That's a mathematical problem anyway. What makes ID unscientific is the principle of parsimony, and also the problem of who designed the designer? Darwin's dangerous idea by Daniel Dennett is the best exposition I know of on this subject.

On my own agenda, here's a recent example of the suppression of science that rivals the trial of Galileo.
Rind, Tromovitch, and Bauserman: Politically Incorrect - Scientifically Correct

re: #s 4, 5, and 6:

Have you met Dr Nathan Null?

Pah! I love Dawkins. I find him fascinating and compelling.


@ V: that's damn funny.

There's too much of politics and profit involved for pure science to exist anymore. Politics, be it relgious politics, social politics, or even scientific politics, starts with the desired end, then tries to cobble up "evidence" to bear out the goal of the vested interests. This is *not* the same as having a hypothesis, and then testing it dispassionately. There's damn little recognition anymore of the fact that, when you do pure science, you eventually come up with something that can be commoditized, socialized or theocratized anyway.

It's all backwards. Everything is backwards these days.