Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New profile posts
Latest activity
Internet Search
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
General Discussions
The Watercooler
Maybe a tad paranoid but...........
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Marguerite" data-source="post: 474151" data-attributes="member: 1991"><p>Science is driven by anarchy and conflict. As someone with scientific training, I understand this and often forget that other people do not. it works, because scientists are always digging at every level in every direction. If their path intersects with someone else, scientists try to see if they can duplicate the other person's work. This is good - if they succeed in producing the same results form the same method, it makes both groups of scientists look good (the ones who did it first, and the ones who successfully duplicated it). But if they don't manage to duplicate it, there can be even more glory in this. As a result scientists are busily trying to prove each other wrong. This is why scientists are not capable of group conspiracy. It can be confusing when every week yet another food additive is claimed to be cancer-causing. These claims are made before the efforts have been duplicated, much of the time. But the other side of the coin is, scientists will grab the chance to test someone else's theory and if it turns out that that latest food additive IS shown independently to have caused cancer, it will be off the market fast. If not, you won't hear about it or you might hear that there is not agreement on the issue.</p><p></p><p>Scientists disagree on principle. But they have to dredge up the evidence for their arguments. It's put up or shut up and get out of the kitchen.</p><p></p><p>So if you ever have someone tell you that this or that concept is a scientific conspiracy, laugh at them and walk away. Scientific conspiracy? Not possible.</p><p></p><p>Marg</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Marguerite, post: 474151, member: 1991"] Science is driven by anarchy and conflict. As someone with scientific training, I understand this and often forget that other people do not. it works, because scientists are always digging at every level in every direction. If their path intersects with someone else, scientists try to see if they can duplicate the other person's work. This is good - if they succeed in producing the same results form the same method, it makes both groups of scientists look good (the ones who did it first, and the ones who successfully duplicated it). But if they don't manage to duplicate it, there can be even more glory in this. As a result scientists are busily trying to prove each other wrong. This is why scientists are not capable of group conspiracy. It can be confusing when every week yet another food additive is claimed to be cancer-causing. These claims are made before the efforts have been duplicated, much of the time. But the other side of the coin is, scientists will grab the chance to test someone else's theory and if it turns out that that latest food additive IS shown independently to have caused cancer, it will be off the market fast. If not, you won't hear about it or you might hear that there is not agreement on the issue. Scientists disagree on principle. But they have to dredge up the evidence for their arguments. It's put up or shut up and get out of the kitchen. So if you ever have someone tell you that this or that concept is a scientific conspiracy, laugh at them and walk away. Scientific conspiracy? Not possible. Marg [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
General Discussions
The Watercooler
Maybe a tad paranoid but...........
Top