Advocate that they be honest. http://www.the-scientist.com/?artic...5/title/HIV-Scientist-Pleads-Guilty-to-Fraud/ HIV Scientist Pleads Guilty to Fraud
Using scare terms like "big science" implies all science is just a lobby. Like "Big Oil". There is no "Big Science". No one in science ever claimed science is perfect or scientists are perfect. As Further said, errors happen because science is a human enterprise. Humans make mistakes. Some of them cheat. Compare science to, say, business. Does "science" cheat more than Wall Street? How many people have been convicted due to police/prosecution misconduct. Does "science" cheat more than law enforcement? Would you rather trust a scientist or a used car salesman? I am not sure what the point of all this copy/paste is except to show that someone knows how to find articles he agrees with and hit copy/paste on a keyboard. If you care so much why can't you write an original post? Science bashing is very suspect. It generally carries a political agenda. Science is not perfect. But I would accept the documentation of 97% of the world's climate scientists based on research over decades as more likely to be correct on climate change than Rush Limbaugh saying it is a hoax. I would accept 150 years of biological research on evolution and genetics as more likely to be correct than someone from this board copying/pasting an article from a creationist web site and claiming to have thereby disproven all modern biology (yes, that did happen in this forum). I would accept decades of immunology statistics over the anti-vaxxers claiming vaccines cause autism, when every study has shown this to be false. I accept microbiology and immunology that HIV is the causative agent of AIDS over one person insisting it is a harmless virus, but showing no desire to inject himself with it. I would accept all the evidence, including photographs, that the earth is round over the Flat Earth Society (yes, there is such a thing). Science is not perfect. It is merely the best tool our species has for understanding the universe. And until someone proposes something better - which does not mean copying/pasting articles you cherry-pick from Google - I am sticking with science. Imperfect as it is.
Utter nonsense. The point of copy and paste is to foster discussion. Cross linking and citing others' work is both how the internet works great and how scholarly papers are written. Instead of a footnote, you can provide the link to the source. Awesome how it works. There is a not so subtle distinction between outright fraud by scientists and "science" and whatever religious whackos think about science. I believe in Science, not scientists. I'm quite sure there is fraud, which has nothing to do with science being perfect or imperfect. Fools believe the crooks often enough, even the most sophisticated and educated - see Bernie Madoff. And Rachel Maddow fans.
It's not actually a regulation. It's a criminal law. I'm not an anarchist, I just believe LIBERTY comes before AUTHORITARIANISM. In fact, most Libertarians would describe Libertarianism as a theory of law. http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Libertarianism drops mic
Not the ones I know and debate with in real life. That's not the narrative that they use. They all say that they want to drown government in a bathtub. Also a regulation and criminal law are one in the same. The punishment is just a bit different depending on which law is broken.
At the size government is and the individual liberties it squashes, we do need to "drown it in a bathtub." What part of "limited government" means "no government at all" to you? The gist of Libertarianism is: You are free to swing your fist as long as it doesn't hit someone else's nose. Government exists to protect the individual from crime and war. That's it. drops mic
I am NOT a scientist. But I have read many research papers. Reason, when a subject interests me, the information that comes the nearest to the truth will be found in research papers. Honest scientific research contains a wealth of information. You might say, the devil is in the details. The majority of problems begin when someone writes an article or report based on a scientific paper. The author picks the information that fits his agenda. Often it is not what the author writes about that is as important as the information he leaves out. You can usually find the facts contained in most articles in some research paper. However, when you read the entire paper, the parts left out alter, or even sometimes reverse, the results that are being second hand reported. I am not concerned with the occasional mistake or corrupt scientist; I believe the % is very small. What bothers me is when the work of so many scientists is misused by others to fit an agenda. The misuse of research information happens so often, it is rare to find second hand reports that are totally accurate, and without some agenda. Why don’t any scientists speak up and challenge the authors that are misusing their research? My guess is, it is similar to how difficult it is for a whistle blower to find a new job. Calling out people for misusing their research probably will make it more difficult for scientists to continue receiving their paycheck or funding.
You and your insignificant party to pick that mic back up because nobody wants to come to run like that except for you all. Ayn Rand was a libertarian. She believed in no government at all. Libertarian Lassie would say: "Fuck Timmy he can get himself out of the well!"
Ayn Rand was not an anarchist. It's hard to deal with posts like yours, misinformation. Same for the well shtick. Libertarians have no issue helping others. Just government FORCing anyone to do something other than not committing crimes is bad policy. Unfortunately for you, authoritarian government has been tried, and it sucks and in most cases is evil.
Why do you want to decrease the power of elected government and increase the power of unelected rich people?
