How Many Scientists Fabricate And Falsify Research?
by chunkdz"A pooled weighted average of 1.97% (N = 7, 95%CI: 0.86–4.45) of scientists admitted to have fabricated, falsified or modified data or results at least once –a serious form of misconduct by any standard– and up to 33.7% admitted other questionable research practices. "
"…up to one third admitted a variety of other questionable research practices including “dropping data points based on a gut feeling”, and “changing the design, methodology or results of a study in response to pressures from a funding source”."
"In surveys asking about the behaviour of colleagues, admission rates were 14.12% (N = 12, 95% CI: 9.91–19.72) for falsification, and up to 72% for other questionable research practices."
"Considering that these surveys ask sensitive questions and have other limitations, it appears likely that this is a conservative estimate of the true prevalence of scientific misconduct."
(Emphasis mine)
December 15th, 2009 at 5:27 pm
The gods have feet of clay.
Comment by Bradford — December 15, 2009 @ 5:27 pm
December 15th, 2009 at 6:35 pm
The Sokal Hoax
Beyond the Hoax
Higher Superstition
Comment by Mung — December 15, 2009 @ 6:35 pm
December 15th, 2009 at 8:24 pm
But can we trust this data?
Comment by Daniel Smith — December 15, 2009 @ 8:24 pm
December 16th, 2009 at 8:26 am
Don't forget the cloning fiasco which made it all the way through peer-review and was then found to be a fraud.
Comment by ID guy — December 16, 2009 @ 8:26 am
December 16th, 2009 at 7:43 pm
From Ria Novosti:
Comment by chunkdz — December 16, 2009 @ 7:43 pm
December 17th, 2009 at 9:15 pm
I have just a couple of things to say on this, which is a interesting topic for a philosopher to stumble across.
1. Mung – The Sokal hoax is a very interesting moment in science and philosophy which lead to a certain amount of adjustments. Sokal got published when the postmodern craze was at its highest, meaning that a lot of people who didn't know Derrida from their own bums were trying to "challenge the text." (which is why people should not talk about pomo until they understand it but as a continental philosopher, that's just my burden to bear) Sokal got published in a journal that didn't peer review but did get caught up in the notion of hot new science. After Sokal, the journal introduced strict new peer review standards, so that people who knew what they were talking about could review an article and get a sense as to whether or not the reviewed article made any sense. But this is just me being pedantic.
2. What's really interesting to me, as someone who has more than a passing interest in the philosophy of science, is what kind of conclusions can/should/will be drawn from this. Interesting, to me at least, is that the incidence of some form of misconduct (the article is maddeningly vague on that) or another is higher when it's medical or pharmaceutical research, suggesting that monetary or proprietary interests might influence people. Hardly earth-shattering but perhaps could recommend that we look into altering the way these tests are done (oh might all medical research be double blinded and fully controlled).
Now, what kind of conclusions should been drawn from science as a whole, given that a small subset of those involved may not work strictly within the standard limits. We can of course chuck the whole program out the window, engage in some neo-Cartesian radical doubt. Which seems like an overly strong response. We can ask ourselves what sorts of results might be the most likely to resist massaging, and be willing to accept those. We can rely on the repeatability requirement of experimentation, it's unlikely that without a "This is how I faked the data" report in the Methods section of a research paper that two unethical scientists would cook the data in exactly the same way. The thing is, is that science is perhaps one of the least hospitable arenas for fraud, given that we live in a world that is accessible to all. We certainly don't want a sort of radical solipsism that permits us all our own, individual and incommensurable interpretations of the experience of the world.
So the question is, what would you like us to take home from this post?
Comment by HypatiasGirl — December 17, 2009 @ 9:15 pm
December 18th, 2009 at 8:43 pm
Hi HypatiasGirl,
I guess the things that I wanted folks to take away from this post are:
1) 2% of scientists admit to serious misconduct.
2) 33% of scientists admit to questionable practices.
3) 72% of scientists say their colleagues commit questionable practices.
4) This is probably a conservative estimate.
Comment by chunkdz — December 18, 2009 @ 8:43 pm
December 18th, 2009 at 9:09 pm
When scientist who don't "toe the line" are blackballed, denied funding, ridiculed, ostracized, etc., the world of science is definitely NOT accessible to all. It's more like a 'closed shop' IMO.
Comment by Daniel Smith — December 18, 2009 @ 9:09 pm
December 18th, 2009 at 10:02 pm
chunkdz:
Pervasive questionable practices is not an expected outcome when monetary or proprietary interests are not motivational factors. So did the study just happen to focus primarily on instances where such interests were maximized or…
Comment by Bradford — December 18, 2009 @ 10:02 pm
December 18th, 2009 at 10:09 pm
It's a review of 21 different surveys, but I believe these all are working scientists so they all have monetary interests.
Comment by chunkdz — December 18, 2009 @ 10:09 pm
December 18th, 2009 at 10:18 pm
chunkdz:
Which raises the issue of exactly how monetary interests are defined. Do you recall the time period that followed the loss of tenure by the IDist astronomer (Gonzalez?)? One of the major arguments against the proposition that there was bias against ID was the assertion that tenure was predicated on the need to secure research grants. The IDist scientist just could not hack it in this area and unfortunately had to go. The way of the world you know.
Comment by Bradford — December 18, 2009 @ 10:18 pm
December 18th, 2009 at 10:29 pm
Exhibit A:
http://telicthoughts.com/a-question-of-style-guillermo-gonzalez-and-the-tenure-review-process/#comment-105365
A monetary influence?
Comment by Bradford — December 18, 2009 @ 10:29 pm
December 20th, 2009 at 4:02 am
Does anyone have any suggestions for how to avoid such problems?
Comment by don provan — December 20, 2009 @ 4:02 am
December 20th, 2009 at 12:08 pm
That's an excellent question which for which answers can be sought on two levels. There is the approach which provides remedies for violators- the deterrent strategy. I have not thought much about this.
I do think that there has been a general behavioral decline across the board, affecting all professions. Included are journalists, doctors, lawyers, public office holders… There is a lack of moral consensus and even a conflict pitting factions of society against each other. This tends to lead to 'end justifying means' tactics. The solution for this is not easily affected either. For all the debunking of Christianity prevalent on the net, one thing its predominance accomplished was an acceptance of shared values. Not completely of course. That's never possible in an open society like ours but consensus does lend itself toward harmony.
Comment by Bradford — December 20, 2009 @ 12:08 pm
December 20th, 2009 at 1:10 pm
Give the skeptics a seat at the table.
Comment by Daniel Smith — December 20, 2009 @ 1:10 pm
December 20th, 2009 at 7:52 pm
The table of science is made for skeptics. What would satisfy you that they do, in fact, have a place at it?
Comment by don provan — December 20, 2009 @ 7:52 pm
December 20th, 2009 at 8:01 pm
The lack of emails confirming a conspiracy to deny critics a place at the table would be nice. But it’s a little late for that.
Perhaps an effort to undo the damage to the reputation of those who were "expelled" for their criticism of the mainstream consensus.
peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — December 20, 2009 @ 8:01 pm
December 20th, 2009 at 8:05 pm
Naturally there's already a deterrent strategy in place. So the question is what would be required for you to determine whether it's operating correctly, right?
OK. So this is not a specific problem for science. One might even point out that science is one profession that has clearly defined checks to help expose bad behavior.
Science, of course, also has shared values, and values that are quite a bit more precise and uniform. Having values isn't the problem. Enforcing or confirming values is the problem. Does Christianity offer something in that regard that science should adopt?
Science is designed to achieve consensus. Christianity, in contrast, simply forces consensus. Is that better?
Comment by don provan — December 20, 2009 @ 8:05 pm
December 21st, 2009 at 1:19 pm
What world do you live in don?
Comment by Daniel Smith — December 21, 2009 @ 1:19 pm
December 21st, 2009 at 3:29 pm
One in which reasonable arguments amount to more that quips of incredulity.
Science is a process by which findings are presented for arbitrary consideration by anyone, particularly people that doubt the findings and need to be convinced. That's just the definition of science. This OP and the responses don't refute that fact, they only point out where the process failed, such as when evidence useful to skeptics of climate change are being kept from them improperly.
So my question to you concerns how we can detect and correct that problem. Your answer ("give skeptics a seat") is, essentially, "well, don't let it happen," which isn't very helpful. Yes, we all agree skeptics should have a seat. How do we insure they do?
Comment by don provan — December 21, 2009 @ 3:29 pm
December 21st, 2009 at 3:39 pm
Well you'd have to change human nature – and I only know of one way to do that.
Comment by Daniel Smith — December 21, 2009 @ 3:39 pm
December 21st, 2009 at 3:48 pm
dp:
So do all the others I mentioned. Rules do not prevent bad behavior.
It's not a matter of science adopting. Science is a concept. It's people who need moral guidance. The relevant strictures that are helpful are the commandments to not lie, cheat…
But not one that appeals because of its political or ideological nature.
Noone is forced to become a Christian or abide by its moral codes.
Comment by Bradford — December 21, 2009 @ 3:48 pm
December 22nd, 2009 at 5:09 am
Please share that way to change human nature. I'm inclined to think that human nature is not under our control.
Comment by don provan — December 22, 2009 @ 5:09 am
December 22nd, 2009 at 5:35 am
Well, no, I deny that the rules governing proper behavior for journalists, lawyers, public office holders, or even doctors have methods of checks as precisely defined as those governing scientific investigation.
Yes, of course. My point was that science, at least, has very clear rules, dictated by the goal of reliable empirical verification. That doesn't mean that those rules are unbreakable or are not broken. It only means that to the extent all facts are available, there is much less ambiguity about what is and isn't correct behavior.
That is, after all, why you are presenting these examples: you feel the facts very clearly demonstrate a transgression. I'm not sure that you understand that it is the facts that are in question, not whether the alleged transgression should be considered deplorable.
So you, too, are circling around the idea of fixing human nature. I don't understand how you propose to do that. Perhaps if you could explain how Christianity fixes human nature so that no Christians lie or cheat I'd have a better understanding of what you're thinking.
I don't know what you're talking about. There's nothing political or ideological about the consensus science is designed to achieve.
Well, good, I'm glad you recognize that no one, not even people that claim they are Christians, are forced to abide by Christian moral codes or any other moral code we might want them to follow. That's precisely our problem.
But what I was pointing out is that the goal of religions to have people follow predetermined rules, not to discover what rules should be followed.
Comment by don provan — December 22, 2009 @ 5:35 am
December 22nd, 2009 at 8:14 am
True Christianity starts with supernatural regeneration. A process by which an old corrupt nature is replaced by a new one that no longer wants to lie or cheat because it is not focused on it’s self but on Christ.
It is an ongoing process that is never quite completed in this life but it’s the only one that works. Christians want to live an ethical life not because of fear of punishment but because of an overwhelming sense of gratitude.
History is full of examples of this phenomena one of my favorites is the story of John Newton the author of amazing grace. He went from an evil slave trader to a humble hymn writer when he experienced it.
No system and no amount of checks and balances could ever accomplish what an honest encounter with the Gospel does.
For an explanation I suggest read the New Testament.
peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — December 22, 2009 @ 8:14 am
December 22nd, 2009 at 8:18 am
But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law.
(Galatians 5:22-23)
not a rule in sight!!!!!!!!!
peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — December 22, 2009 @ 8:18 am
December 22nd, 2009 at 3:54 pm
That's great. So we don't have to worry about True Christians. That's one thing taken care of.
Unfortunately we have to way to identify true Christians. And even if we could reliably identify them, we have no way to prevent true Christians from suddenly becoming normal at an inopportune moment. And we really don't have enough true Christians to do all the scientific work we want to get done, anyway.
So while it's comforting to know there's a group of people we can depend on, that really isn't of much help in solving the problem the OP has put on the table.
Comment by don provan — December 22, 2009 @ 3:54 pm
December 22nd, 2009 at 5:14 pm
Ack! Sorry! Should be "Unfortunately we have no way to identify true Christians."
Comment by don provan — December 22, 2009 @ 5:14 pm
December 22nd, 2009 at 5:42 pm
Actually we do (Matt 7:20)
Actually a true Christian can not become "normal" he might stumble from time to time but reversion is impossible and repentance is assured.
Perhaps, but it would help if we did not continue to drive them away from science and force those brave enough to endure the harassment to act like atheists while doing the work.
Along as this practice continues we can expect the problems mentioned in the OP to only get worse.
Rethinking methodological naturalism and the scientific community’s hostility to Christiananity is the only way to save science.
We need to act now before it's too late
peace
peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — December 22, 2009 @ 5:42 pm
December 22nd, 2009 at 7:20 pm
You may think you do, but nevertheless, we do not.
The possibility of stumbling is sufficient to make true Christians an unreliable solution.
That's a completely different problem than the one the OP presents.
What would you satisfy you that it had been successfully "rethought"? Many, many people have thought about it, and thought about it again, and thought about it again, and are perfectly satisfied that it's very useful as is. So I'm not sure I can see how rethinking it yet again would really satisfy you.
Comment by don provan — December 22, 2009 @ 7:20 pm
December 22nd, 2009 at 7:51 pm
Sorry you are simply incorrect Matt. 7:20 is not a subjective statement. It is objectively true. A positive denial of the truth is not the same thing as ignorance.
The assurance of repentance along with the Christian’s willing submission to the Truth above all else is enough to make it the most reliable solution available in this universe.
Actually the problem mentioned in the OP is merely a symptom. Methodical naturalism and the scientific community’s arrogantly dismissive treatment of Christians is the problem.
If we continue to ignore the problem the symptoms will only get worse.
I don’t know how about allowing critics a place at the table and not expelling those who would dare to disagree with the “consensus” for a start. A little debate at least hinks that you might be thinking.
And as long as that is the case science will continue to loose ground ethically and in the eyes of the public.
It’s sad really.
peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — December 22, 2009 @ 7:51 pm
December 22nd, 2009 at 8:32 pm
Hi Bradford,
You wrote…
How about forced recitations that include recognition of the Judeo-Christian deity?
"Now, children repeat after me, I pledge allegiance…."
Comment by Thought Provoker — December 22, 2009 @ 8:32 pm
December 22nd, 2009 at 9:02 pm
Hi Fifth Monarchy Man.
You wrote…
I suggest your quote is out of context. I believe the intent of the verse you quoted is that of all the laws Christians have to follow there are none against love, joy, peace, ….
Galatians 5:1-4, 14-23
1 Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage.
2 Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing.
3 For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law.
4 Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.
…
14 For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
15 But if ye bite and devour one another, take heed that ye be not consumed one of another.
16 This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh.
17 For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would.
18 But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law.
19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
20 Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,
21 Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.
22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,
23 Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.
Yes, Christians do have laws (at least one) and they can, and do, break them.
Comment by Thought Provoker — December 22, 2009 @ 9:02 pm
December 22nd, 2009 at 9:14 pm
I never said Christians don't have laws I said they don't have rules.
Please pay attention. While you are at it might be a good idea to brush up on the difference between virtue and rule ethics.
The law Paul mentions "Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself." is a descriptive principal like what goes up must come down or, E =MC2. It is not a prescriptive rule “like you must eat your vegetables”
A person can not force himself to love his neighbor like he can force himself to eat his vegetables.
You either do or you don’t. Do you understand?
peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — December 22, 2009 @ 9:14 pm
December 23rd, 2009 at 2:08 am
Hi Fifth Monarchy Man,
You wrote…
Let me get this straight, the "Golden Rule" isn't a rule but a kin to laws of physics. Yet the omnipotent God gave man the free will to violate these laws.
Are "thou shalt not steal" and "thou shalt honor thy father and thy mother" also not rules? Or are they covenants by which you can earn favor with the big guy upstairs?
Science has been successful because it provides for experimental verification. These experimental results are unaffected by whether those performing have "faith" or are critics.
However, you are correct that it is entirely possible that those with torches and pitchforks can, once again, persecute intellectuals, destroy institutes of learning and force pledges of faith.
And it they do so, they will undoubtably do it with an arrogant belief of absolute righteousness.
Comment by Thought Provoker — December 23, 2009 @ 2:08 am
December 23rd, 2009 at 3:37 am
That's exactly right. It's not under our control. The only way to change human nature is to allow God's nature control over us. It's called being born again. I'm sure you've heard of it.
Comment by Daniel Smith — December 23, 2009 @ 3:37 am
December 23rd, 2009 at 7:57 am
You and I discussed this at length in another place. The fact that you don’t seem to remember is verry telling.
First of who said anything about free will. I’m a Calvinist remember
There is no way for a finite creature to win favor with the guy upstairs. That is what Grace is all about. It is a shame you don't know that.
We are not talking about the results of science we are talking about “Science” as a culture.
More likely they will just deny funding to those scientists who refuse to accept those with a different world view.
peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — December 23, 2009 @ 7:57 am
December 23rd, 2009 at 12:09 pm
Hi Daniel Smith,
You wrote…
I understand it is also called aš-šahāda (Shahada) where Muslims submit to the will of Allah and affirm that Muhammad is his Prophet.
Comment by Thought Provoker — December 23, 2009 @ 12:09 pm
December 23rd, 2009 at 12:32 pm
Hi Fifth Monarchy Man,
You wrote…
I very much remember our discussions concerning square-circles and your attempts to rationalize the problem of evil into proof of the divinity of Yeshua ben Yosef (aka Jesus).
Hopefully, you remember the point I made that once you start considering possibilities outside our known universe with its space-time geometry, we have no references we can count on much less be certain of. Anything goes. Anything we imagine could be possible. Things could be possible that we can't even imagine. Traditional logic can’t be counted on. The possibility of square-circles is trivial by comparison.
Meanwhile, I thought I would comment in a fashion as to emphasize your interesting position for the rest of the listening audience.
Comment by Thought Provoker — December 23, 2009 @ 12:32 pm
December 23rd, 2009 at 2:50 pm
Can you give me an example? I'm imagining that you're just saying that if they don't give you the answer you like, then you will "objectively" declare them not true Christians.
I think you're entirely missing the point. While it's fine that the result for the Christian is all peaches and cream, that doesn't help you or I one iota in determining whether any given individual making a claim should be trusted.
I wouldn't have participated if the OP were directed at that fictitious problem.
The basic problem we have is determining whether this has been successfully achieved. As far as I can make out, the consensus here is that if the answer isn't the one you like, then that can be taken prima facie as undeniable evidence that critics were not properly heard. No one is willing to explain how we can tell if a criticism has been heard and been properly rejected.
But you aren't offering any way to improve it. All you seem to be suggesting is that we turn all decisions over the true Christians, and then everything will be fine. I don't mind entertaining the proposal, but I'm missing how we can confirm that everything is, in fact, fine once the true Christians are in control. Like you, I do not simply trust people when they say they have the correct answer, but you're offering no mechanism for confirming their answers, no matter who they are.
Comment by don provan — December 23, 2009 @ 2:50 pm
December 23rd, 2009 at 2:56 pm
Our problem is determining whether someone else is acting correctly. Our own path to salvation is entirely irrelevant to the issue.
Comment by don provan — December 23, 2009 @ 2:56 pm
December 23rd, 2009 at 9:23 pm
Hey DP,
An example of what? I already gave you examples of the fruits by which you will know them. Did you ignore it?
You did not ask how to know if a claim can be trusted. You asked how to fix the problem in the OP namely the unethical behavior of scientists. We do that by not making it prohibitly difficult for Christians to participate in science
If you what to know how to determine the truth of a particular claim I can Tell you but that is a whole different subject.
If we refuse to address the problem science will continue to flounder both ethically and in the eyes of the public. Your denial is a sure sign you are part of the problem that the OP wishes to address.
In science the way to deal with a criticism is to produce results if you do the criticism goes away of it’s own accord. The fact that there are critics that can command public support is a sure sign that the criticism has not been heard and ’properly rejected”.
No I’m suggesting we don’t continue to do our best to exclude Christians and the problem will get better.
Simple really. This is not rocket science
peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — December 23, 2009 @ 9:23 pm
December 24th, 2009 at 3:50 pm
First of all, you haven't actually shown that Christians are excluded. Indeed, since many Christians do, in fact, participate, it's a bogus claim, prima facie.
But more to the point, you haven't show that Christians would make the problem any different. While it's nice to know that you would trust them more, there's no reason for a neutral party to think they would be any less self serving.
Comment by don provan — December 24, 2009 @ 3:50 pm
December 24th, 2009 at 5:07 pm
Suppose you were a brilliant young atheist looking for a career. You investigate one in which the percentage of atheists is 37 times lower than the population at large and in which the officially recognized method of doing the work required you to act as if Jesus was your personal savior.
That is exactly hostile work environment smart young Christians can expect to find when looking at a career in science. Is it any wonder they are underrepresented in the field.
Polls have repeatedly shown that Christians are more ethical than atheists when it comes to things like chartable giving and paying our debts. It is reasonable to conclude that Christians would be more ethical in this endeavor as well.
I can't see how a "neutral party" could deney this.
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — December 24, 2009 @ 5:07 pm
December 24th, 2009 at 10:34 pm
Hi Fifth Monarchy Man,
As you know, I tend to like challenges like this.
You wrote…
Which polls?
The internet is a wonderful thing. You can usually find anything you are looking for. Your claim about debts sounded wrong so it was the one I looked into first.
I found multiple sources discussing the link between religion and bankruptcy filing. Most of them have indicated a large number of bankruptcies occur despite religious pressure against it with Christians being the worse.
I found a study directly applicable to this.
NEW INSIGHTS IN THE DETERMINANTS OF REGIONAL VARIATION IN BANKRUPTCY FILING RATES (note, link is a protected website. Just agree to navigate to it)
(emphasis mine)
Note, I would have no problem calling myself a Unitarian Universalist and they would have no problem with me doing so. My wife and I have done charity work with their members. We are not big on going to the services or getting wrapped up in being proud they have a Gay minister.
Also note, the data on Christian backruptcies is above the non-religious baseline. Christians have more bankruptcies on the average.
Your turn. Please provide evidence supporting your "paying our debts" claim.
You also said…
Charitable giving has absolutely nothing to do with ethically abiding by rules. I have noticed it's a common theme among the religious to presume the nice, moral person will be law-abiding and otherwise deal honestly.
To me, those who advertise their charitable giving are exactly the ones to watch out for. Churches raise money for missionary work overseas. That isn't charity, that is recruitment. The certainty of being right allows all sorts of rationalization ranging from conducting and citing biased poll results to shooting abortion doctors.
In short, morality does not correlate to either law-abiding or dealing honestly.
Comment by Thought Provoker — December 24, 2009 @ 10:34 pm
December 24th, 2009 at 11:39 pm
Merry Christmas TP. You wrote:
I agree and think that Christians who do so are doing themselves and their faith a disservice. Having said that and having lived on both sides of the divide I suspect that Christians do give more than non-Christians but it is not something I can prove. OTOH I suspect your bankruptcy point is a strong one and Christians do not have a great divorce track record either. There seems to be little difference between believers and unbelievers where divorce is concerned.
This next point is timely given the fact it is Christmas Eve and New Years Eve is a week away. I do think Christians are less likely to engage in substance abuse i.e. too much alcohol (do I sound sober?) or too much of other drugs.
You've heard the term football player's football player or a man's man? I think Christianity thrives better under adversity. It has a way of separating the wheat from the chaff. A lowly Pakistani janitor, Pervaiz Masih, is a Christian's Christian.
Comment by Bradford — December 24, 2009 @ 11:39 pm
December 25th, 2009 at 12:13 am
here you go for starters
An argument can be made that the American economy was very likely saved by Christian ethics only recently.
Bankruptcies are correlated with income. Since we Christians tend to be poorer than the general population one would expect more of them in Christian areas. That is not at issue. We are talking about ethics not income.
Have you not heard of the protestant work ethic and it’s transforming power a power at work for good even today
Still stuck on rules are we TP? The Christian life is not about rules it's about virtue.
A man of virture does not need rules, and for a man without virtue no amount of rules will help.
peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — December 25, 2009 @ 12:13 am
December 25th, 2009 at 12:47 am
Hi Bradford,
Merry Christmas to you too.
Talking to the wrong person on that. I was a strick non-alcohol drinker until I was 22. After that I decided it was ok to have wine with dinner. To this day, I don't understand why anyone would want to drink American Beer.
My wife and I never drink alcohol on New Year's eve (at least for as long as we have been married).
The "adversity" is to not go with the flow. It takes a certain amount of independent stubborness to be an atheist when it would be so much easier to claim to be a generic christian that belongs to a church (Unitarian Universalists).
And, oh yeah, drink beer.
Comment by Thought Provoker — December 25, 2009 @ 12:47 am
December 25th, 2009 at 1:02 am
Hi Fifth Monarchy Man,
Merry Christmas to you too.
In the spirit of the holidays, I will try to be nice.
I don't see how your links support your claim that Christians are better at paying their debts. Especially the second link. It was comparing Catholics to Protestants, both of which are Christians.
You wrote…
This is what I am talking about. People who are certain they know what is right maintain they do not need rules, much less need to follow them.
Comment by Thought Provoker — December 25, 2009 @ 1:02 am
December 25th, 2009 at 1:37 am
You have a much broader conception of Christian than I do. I would say that very few folks are Christian. Calling yourself a Christian is not what makes you one.
I for one strive to be counted worth of the calling but often fall short.
I would say that the majority of Catholics in Latin America like the majority of protestants in the US call themselves “Christian” only because it’s the thing to do. That is a far cry from surrendering to the Lordship of the divine Son of God
On the other hand to call ones self a protestant in a place where it’s sure to get you persecuted is a pretty good barometer of a genuine commitment .
I'm not saying that there are not Catholic Christians I'm only sayng that you will know them by their fruits.
.
You'll need to thae that arguement up with Paul
quote:
understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers,
(1 Timothy 1:9)
end quote:
nuff said
I really have no desire to talk religion with you. That is untill you prove to me you are serious about it .
Remember the book?
Merry Christmas
peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — December 25, 2009 @ 1:37 am
December 25th, 2009 at 11:37 am
Hi Fifth Monarchy Man,
Remember this from one of my comments earlier this year?
"If you review our discussion concerning N.T. Wright's book it was you demanding that I read it with no promise on your part in return.
The final resolution was that I would probably read the book FOR MY OWN PURPOSES IN MY OWN GOOD TIME and I wasn't going to waste any effort trying to discuss it with you since you offered no commitment to try and defend it."
I am under no delusions I could possibly dissuade you from your faith. I'm not even sure I would want to if I could.
This thread is about scientists following or not following rules of their profession. In this thread you have argued…
Yet it appears that you readily agree (are even proud of it) that Christians don't need rules at all, much less need to follow them
This may be good for the passionate adherence to a moral lifestyle which would demand doing whatever is necessary for the general good.
However, ideally a scientist needs to be dispassionate in order to assure unbiased information is obtained. Passion about doing science is ok, passion about getting certain results is not.
Following the rules of science means to search for, and report on, knowledge without bias.
However, the search for WISDOM is the purview of philosophers and theologians, not scientists.
P.S. Merry Christmas to you too.
Comment by Thought Provoker — December 25, 2009 @ 11:37 am
December 25th, 2009 at 1:37 pm
Actually the deal was that I would discuss religion with you if you would prove to me that you were a serious seeker of knowledge by taking the time to read the book. Tit for tat
You have yet to keep your part of the bargain. I wonder why?
Yet the OP points out that the vast majority of scientists don’t follow those rules. It amazes me that you will not even consider the possibility that these folks are affected by their worldview.
Lets review
We have a group no God that admittedly doesn’t follow the rules of science. and a group with laws instead of rules and God that lives what anyone would consider a moral and ethical life,
A group characterized by love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, and gentleness, self-control. (Gal 5:23).
A group that is at it’s core about a search for and submission to the truth (1 Timothy 2:4) (John 8:32,14:6) etc etc etc
It only makes sense to stop making it so difficult for these folks to be involved in science.
Frankly I’m surprised that this is even a debate. It demonstrates That there are things that are more important to the scientific community than the rules of science.
peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — December 25, 2009 @ 1:37 pm
December 25th, 2009 at 2:50 pm
Hi Fifth Monarchy Man,
You wrote…
A "majority"? More than 50%? Not only that, a "VAST majority". Well over 50% "of scientists don't follow those rules"?
Do you have evidence of that? It certainly isn't in the opening post.
Please note, the 72% number is based on scientists who have questioned other scientist's methods. Frankly, I'm surprised the number wasn't higher. I dare say that over 72% of the population knows someone who is a homosexual. Does that mean over 72% of the population is made up of homosexuals?
This is the kind of thing I am talking about. The words in an ancient book does not make a "true Christian" an appropriate scientist, much less a better one.
Just like your offer to "discuss religion" is of no value to me unless you are willing to critically analyze, point by point, the details of religious claims, unsupported ideas are of no value in the field of science, even unsupported religious ideas.
Of course you are surprised.
That is kind of the point. If you could support and defend the details of your claims to a skeptical, or even a hostile, audience you would be doing what scientists do.
And, by the way, you would probably be accused of using questionable methods by 72% of scientists if you did.
Comment by Thought Provoker — December 25, 2009 @ 2:50 pm
December 25th, 2009 at 4:45 pm
The rule in question was not "thou shal not cheat" it was.
Quote:
and
end quote
The OP shows that at least 72 percent of the scientific community are biased to the point that they put personal loyalty ahead of the search for knowledge. If this were not the case we would be inundated with whistle blowers as in the climate gate scandal.
By the way such a thing would go a long way to fixing the problem.
I agree. then again I never said it did.
Apparently you are having trouble reading what others are actually saying.
This failure is not because of some bias on your part is it??
peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — December 25, 2009 @ 4:45 pm
December 25th, 2009 at 11:11 pm
Hi Fifth Monarchy Man,
If anyone still thinks "…that at least 72 percent of the scientific community are biased to the point that they put personal loyalty ahead of the search for knowledge", there is little more I can do about it.
The article referenced in the opening post does not "show" what you claim it shows. A carefully reading the article and a little independent thinking would reveal that.
Would you believe a study showed that a "vast majority" of the population was homosexual because over 72% of them said they know at least one homosexual?
From Wikipedia a list of contemporary biologists and geologists who are Christians…
Merry Christmas
Comment by Thought Provoker — December 25, 2009 @ 11:11 pm
December 25th, 2009 at 11:56 pm
Of course not.
once again You are totally missing the point. I'll try again to explain it to you
Suppose I took a confidential poll and found that 72% of policemen in a particular department knew of at least one cop who was taking bribes from the mob.
We could say the overwhelming majority of cops were unethical not because they were actually taking bribes but because 72% knew of practices that tainted all the work done by the department yet did nothing about it.
What makes 72% of scientists unethical in not that they cheat themselves but that they allow the sort of cheating to go on that critically compromises the profession as a whole and very few do anything about it.
Now do you understand?
So!
This is like the Iranian government pointing to Christians in their country as evidence that excuses the way they treat them. It makes no sense
Inorder to be accepted by their peers scientists that are Christian must act as if they are Atheists or at best Deits.That is what methodical naturalism entails.
It's simple really
peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — December 25, 2009 @ 11:56 pm
December 26th, 2009 at 12:23 am
Hi Fifth Monarchy Man,
You wrote…
Your getting desperate. Now you are presuming scientists had more than just a suspicion, could do something about it and didn't. The easiest thing a scientist could do if he/she suspects others have used questionable methods is to independently rerun the experiment.
Believe what you want to believe.
Finally, we get to the heart of the problem. What do you suggest we replace "methodical naturalism" with?
Enlightened supernaturalism?
Science studies nature. Science studies nature by the methodical application of hypotheses, experimentation and/or data analysis.
Merry Christmas
Comment by Thought Provoker — December 26, 2009 @ 12:23 am
December 26th, 2009 at 10:16 am
How about report the abuse to the publishing entity? How about refusing to be associated with folks that cheat? How about blowing the whistle in the name of science?
It might not be the easy thing to do but it it would be the ethical thing.
No, I sugest we return science to it's rightful place as a seach or truth not just a search for the best explanation that does not include God.
For most of it's history science did just fine with out assuming that God did not act in the universe. I suggest we return to that definition of science.
peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — December 26, 2009 @ 10:16 am
December 26th, 2009 at 10:37 am
I sugest you look at the actuall polls.
When the question was limited to just suspicion of misrepresentation or falsification the percentage went to 86%
peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — December 26, 2009 @ 10:37 am
December 26th, 2009 at 2:03 pm
Hi Fifth Monarchy Man,
My compliments to you. At least now we are arguing about the data.
It is generally a good idea to look at the actual questions asked in the surveys being cited. I am presuming you were referencing this one…
Have you ever suspected or determined that other researchers had been responsible for performing experimental deficiencies, reporting deficiencies, misrepresentation of data, falsification of data?
86%
I suggest a high percentage of affirmative answers would occur on suspicions of "experimental deficiencies" alone. Also note the "reporting deficiencies" is included. From your "vast majority" of misbehavior view this should be a lot closer to 100%. This is a matter of knowing someone who knew someone….
Let's look at some other questions…
Do you have first hand knowledge of scientists intentionally altering or fabricating data for the purpose of publication?
10%
Do you have firsthand knowledge of a scientist intentionally altering data for a presentation?
12%
How often [you] personally witnessed or had direct knowledge of biased research design?
28%
Indicate first hand knowledge of [a failure] to report contrary data and/or results in a manuscript.
69.3%
I would be extremely happy if police misconduct was as low as is what is suggested here for scientists.
Comment by Thought Provoker — December 26, 2009 @ 2:03 pm
December 26th, 2009 at 2:54 pm
This is only your opinion, everyone has an opinion. Why not look at facts instead?
The facts in one pool say that almost 70 percent have first hand knowledge of science being manipulated (not just suspicion).
In the study linked several polls each with different information were statistically compiled with the result being that the vast majority (72%) of scientists knew of misconduct (not just suspected it).
If contrary to the study you want to believe that this is just a minor problem you are free to do that.
But by doing so you render this discussion worthless.
It has already become boring. So baring something unexpected I will let you have the last word.
Happy second day of Christmans hope you enjoy the two turtle doves.
peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — December 26, 2009 @ 2:54 pm
December 26th, 2009 at 3:20 pm
Hi Fifth Monarch Man.
You wrote…
Thank you. And I hope you have Happy Holidays too.
Comment by Thought Provoker — December 26, 2009 @ 3:20 pm