Science is a Scam

[Speck Tater]

Okay, the title of this post is a tad harsh. "Science is a scam"? Surely not!

What I really mean is that science, as it is increasingly practiced today, is a scam. There is nothing wrong with the scientific method, so long as it is not misunderstood as the be-all and end-all of inquiry. But the way modern science is carried out is more and more problematic. Bureaucratized, corporatized, and above all politicized, science is becoming a highly questionable endeavor.

Let's take a specific case much ballyhooed in the press: the claims of a British scientist that a common food additive, sodium benzoate, can damage DNA.

The rest is at http://michaelprescott.typepad.com/michael_prescotts_blog/2007/05/science_is_a_sc.html

[Swamp Rat]

1. Please provide data and scientific analysis to back up this "Science is a Scam" theory.

:)

edit: blogs do not count.

[n2doc]

3. Right on, Swampy!

"I'm tired of all these mutherfucking Trolls on my mutherfucking Message Board"

[gatorboy]

11. No mutherfucking doubt.

Time to clean house if you ask me. :)

[Initech]

5. How about this?

http://www.creationmuseum.org

[Swamp Rat]

6. LOLOL!!!!!

:D

[Initech]

8. OMG!!!!

:rofl:

[barb162]

2. I liked the first commenter's post

"I avoid all these problems by living on pure grain alcohol and distilled water. I also smoke stogies, too."

There ya' go!

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

4. The problem isn't science, or this Piper guy.

The problem is the idiot journalists who wrote, edited, and published this piece of crap.

If you read the article it's got this wonderful piece of work:

"E211 could damage an important area of DNA called mitochondria."

Obviously Piper never said any such thing.

You'll also see he's got one quote in the article saying that parents shouldn't give their kids too much soda. Duh.

I'll also one up this Michael Prescott guy, he never should had taken this article seriously, and assumed there was anything wrong with Piper's methods.

The problem isn't science, the problem is people who don't know shit about science. These journalists, possibly Prescott, and some clowns over in LBN>

[BurtWorm]

7. This bit gives Prescott away as an ignoramus who can't be taken seriously.

"Now, I can't say how Professor Peter Piper conducted this experiment, but it seems a safe bet that it went a little something like this: He cultivated a few yeast cells in a petri dish. Then he backed a dump truck full of benzoate into the lab and unloaded its contents on the petri dish, burying the yeast cells under an avalanche of preservative. The cells, overwhelmed by this onslaught, began acting in peculiar ways. "


If you "can't say" how an experiment was done, what gives you the idea you can bet on its having been a hyperbolic caricature of an experiment?

:eyes:

[Zodiak]

9. I endorse this post by BornAgainhooligan

The problm is not science, it is journalists, commentors, and laymen who have no idea what science is but suddenly think they do because they have an agenda to push.

This one's agenda is fear, obviously.

[Evoman]

10. A-fucking-men.

And its not only journalists...its people who are science illiterate who are the problem. Not only that, its people who blame science instead of the fuck-wit journalists.

Corporatizing science does have an effect on what sort of areas of study are pursued, and what results are released to the public. But if a science article is published in a science journal, chance are its legit. The science is usually still good.

Not that there isn't bad science out there. But if its important, its usually caught (by scientists at that). You can't build on bad science.