[__ Science __ ] Rampant Fraud in Science Grows

[Whatever]

Rampant Fraud in Science Grows – CEH

crev.info

Small excerpt:
Another factor some add is the rejection of Christianity and moral absolutes, which has resulted in a deterioration of the moral foundation that is critical in controlling fraud. Some claim that the problem is so serious that it is possible that the majority of published research claims are, at least in part, false.

And the Summary by Dr. Jerry Bergman:
Scientific misconduct, bias, and outright fraud cause major problems in all areas of science. This is especially a problem in papers supporting evolution. At the least, this problem should be widely known by creation supporters who tend to too uncritically accept much work done by Darwinists. This caution includes myself. In the past I have uncritically repeated the results of what appeared to be well-documented material by reputable scientists. For one example, I have relied on many papers by Harvard paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould, but later learned he was found to engage in “apparently fudging data in order to be able to accuse someone else of fudging data.”

 

[Uncle J]

So if the claims in the creationist article are accurate, it should be trivially easy for you to show an example of a fraudulent evolutionary biology paper.

What'cha got?

 

[Whatever]

Nice try with trying to prove that the article I quoted is wrong because I personally can't produce something that you would then just argue against anyhow. I'm not a scientist and do not read biology papers.

 

[Barbarian]

So if the claims in the creationist article are accurate, it should be trivially easy for you to show an example of a fraudulent evolutionary biology paper.

What'cha got?

It's not that kind of a story. Fairy tales aren't required to have evidence.

 

[Barbarian]

The author of the article has been repeatedly caught in dishonesties himself. For example, in this article, he describes the Piltdown hoax. We don't know who planted the hoax, but we do know that it was an evolutionist who debunked it. Nevertheless, Bergman insists that it was an evolutionist who set it up.

Bergman cites the Archaeoraptor hoax (which was published by a popular magazine, not any "evolutionist") which again was originated by persons unknown, but debunked by real scientists (who apparently were "evolutionists).

This is why no one with any sense accepts Bergman's claims without carefully checking them out first.

 

[Uncle J]

Nice try with trying to prove that the article I quoted is wrong because I personally can't produce something that you would then just argue against anyhow. I'm not a scientist and do not read biology papers.

Didn't your source cite any?

The only ones I can think of off the top of my head are the ones Barbarian mentioned, Piltdown Man and archaeoraptor. The first was about a century ago and the second was never a part of evolutionary biology.

 

[Whatever]

Didn't your source cite any?

So you didn't read it. You asked me to "show an example of a fraudulent evolutionary biology paper."

The word "biology" doesn't even appear in the article. He is talking about all the fraud in all kinds of science - here is the first sentence in his summary again: "Scientific misconduct, bias, and outright fraud cause major problems in all areas of science."

I as a simple average dork, can see it in all the stuff about global warming. I don't read scientific papers, but I see the fraud in articles written in left leaning magazines and papers.

Here is something I just ran into not too long ago:
A recent article at The Hill claims that climate change is reversing the multi-decade trend of improving air quality in the United States, due to increased PM2.5 from wildfires and ozone from heatwaves, making it unsafe for children to play outside. This is false, air quality is improving, and the suggestion that kids should avoid outdoor play is hazardous to their health.

The article, “Climate change is making it more dangerous for kids to play outside, report finds,” covers a study published by a “climate analytics” firm called First Street Foundation.

To be clear, First Street is a strictly climate alarmist nonprofit group, that often publishes studies meant to frighten the public. Their predictions are based on climate modelling, and tend to ignore publicly available weather data that make their projections seem unlikely to occur in real life.

Add all the psychological fraud about transgenderism and stuff that makes the medical industry billions of dollars and on and on.

I would say you all would have to be deliberately blind to not see it.

 

[Uncle J]

The word "biology" doesn't even appear in the article. He is talking about all the fraud in all kinds of science - here is the first sentence in his summary again: "Scientific misconduct, bias, and outright fraud cause major problems in all areas of science."

Ah, so it's just bashing science in general. Another "don't trust science" article from creationists.

I as a simple average dork, can see it in all the stuff about global warming. I don't read scientific papers, but I see the fraud in articles written in left leaning magazines and papers.

Well that's probably your problem right there....you get your understanding of science from creationist websites and news articles, while never looking at any of the actual science.

Here is something I just ran into not too long ago:
A recent article at The Hill claims that climate change is reversing the multi-decade trend of improving air quality in the United States, due to increased PM2.5 from wildfires and ozone from heatwaves, making it unsafe for children to play outside. This is false, air quality is improving, and the suggestion that kids should avoid outdoor play is hazardous to their health.

If you'd read the paper (and even The Hill article) you'd see that the findings are based on a review of the data, such as...

"For example, falling air quality has driven up the number of days when children in Western states can’t safely play outside nearly fivefold since 2000."

The paper cites the actual AQI data that they used to reach that conclusion. Is that data wrong? If so, how do you know if you never look at the science? Is their analysis of the data wrong? Again, same question (how would you know).

To be clear, First Street is a strictly climate alarmist nonprofit group, that often publishes studies meant to frighten the public. Their predictions are based on climate modelling, and tend to ignore publicly available weather data that make their projections seem unlikely to occur in real life.

They do? What specific data set are they ignoring?

Add all the psychological fraud about transgenderism and stuff that makes the medical industry billions of dollars and on and on.

Looks to me like it's more that they're just reaching conclusions that you don't like, rather than you actually identifying flaws in their actual work.

 

[Whatever]

Ah, so it's just bashing science in general.

No,not science = Science is a rigorous, systematic endeavor that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the world.

But atheistic, morally corrupt, scientists making their conclusions based on grant money or pushing an agenda.

 

[Uncle J]

No,not science = Science is a rigorous, systematic endeavor that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the world.

But atheistic, morally corrupt, scientists making their conclusions based on grant money or pushing an agenda.

IOW, when they reach conclusions you don't like, just wave it all away as "atheistic and morally corrupt". No need to actually look at the work.

 

[Barbarian]

IOW, when they reach conclusions you don't like, just wave it all away as "atheistic and morally corrupt". No need to actually look at the work.

And then there were those dishonest attempts to blame science for unknown hoaxers who were exposed by science. And creationists wonder why people assume that they are all dishonest.

They aren't all dishonest, BTW; it's just that the noisiest of them tend to also be the most dishonest.

 

[Uncle J]

And then there were those dishonest attempts to blame science for unknown hoaxers who were exposed by science. And creationists wonder why people assume that they are all dishonest.

They aren't all dishonest, BTW; it's just that the noisiest of them tend to also be the most dishonest.

Yep. Back in the day when I would catch a creationist parroting a dishonest quote mine from a creationist source, I would present two options; either their source didn't understand the paper they quoted, or they deliberately misrepresented it.

As I liked to put it...."incompetent or dishonest? You pick".

 

[Barbarian]

My experience is that there's a lot more incompetence than dishonesty in those quote-mined attempts.

A few creationists I know personally were completely blindsided when I showed them the evidence.

 

[Whatever]

Yep. Back in the day when I would catch a creationist parroting a dishonest quote mine from a creationist source, I would present two options; either their source didn't understand the paper they quoted, or they deliberately misrepresented it.

And does this refute the idea that there is fraud in Science today? Sounds like a childish "bounces off of me and sticks to you" argument.

 

[Barbarian]

And does this refute the idea that there is fraud in Science today?

There's corruption in all human activity. The point is, we find far more, and much more blatant dishonesties among creationist literature. And yes, I am aware that there are honest YE creationists who call out the dishonesty so common among other creationists.

 

[Uncle J]

And does this refute the idea that there is fraud in Science today? Sounds like a childish "bounces off of me and sticks to you" argument.

What Barbarian said....every human endeavor has some corruption. For example, Christianity has its own history of fraudulent faith healers and televangelists.

 

[Milk-Drops]

So you didn't read it. You asked me to "show an example of a fraudulent evolutionary biology paper."

Uncle is asking for a fraudulent paper because modern science is based on research papers. If science is full of fraud, it should be easy to point out fraud in papers.

The word "biology" doesn't even appear in the article. He is talking about all the fraud in all kinds of science - here is the first sentence in his summary again: "Scientific misconduct, bias, and outright fraud cause major problems in all areas of science."

Then it's alarming that the article doesn't show evidence or provide examples of research papers with fraudulent data. Considering that the sciences is based on research papers.

I as a simple average dork, can see it in all the stuff about global warming. I don't read scientific papers, but I see the fraud in articles written in left leaning magazines and papers.

That would not be scientific fraud. That would be misrepresentation in journalism. Essentially you are reading or viewing interpretations by media outlets. If you are not engaging with the journals or media that specificly reports on journals then its not fraud in the sciences.

Here is something I just ran into not too long ago:
A recent article at The Hill claims that climate change is reversing the multi-decade trend of improving air quality in the United States, due to increased PM2.5 from wildfires and ozone from heatwaves, making it unsafe for children to play outside. This is false, air quality is improving, and the suggestion that kids should avoid outdoor play is hazardous to their health.

The article, “Climate change is making it more dangerous for kids to play outside, report finds,” covers a study published by a “climate analytics” firm called First Street Foundation.

To be clear, First Street is a strictly climate alarmist nonprofit group, that often publishes studies meant to frighten the public. Their predictions are based on climate modelling, and tend to ignore publicly available weather data that make their projections seem unlikely to occur in real life.

So it's a journalism issue.

Add all the psychological fraud about transgenderism and stuff that makes the medical industry billions of dollars and on and on.

This has been a political hot button issue the last decade so let's be clear. Medical, psychological, and sociological journals have produced research on gender and gender identity. The fields focusing on this topic have produced findings that are based in research. As stated above, it seems you have an issue with how journalists and politicians convey this information.

I would say you all would have to be deliberately blind to not see it.

I think it's more that we are talking past each other and not addressing the same issues.