'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours

[allcanadian]

@MarkE

Is is straw man Friday?  What on earth do the inequities of the legal system
have to do with scientific inquiry?

People... obviously.
Science and scientific inquiry will always rely on the perspectives and interpretations of observations by people. I understand some may like to portray science as an all knowing all seeing entity in itself not unlike a religion to serve their interests however it is simply a process. This forum is a perfect example and it boggles the mind that so many could have such different views of a simple equation such as F=mA.
There is also that little issue of 47% of scientists who have falsified data or know someone who has in the past... so what is reliable evidence again?. You see it's hard to believe in reliable evidence and the purists view of scientific inquiry when we see almost one half of the scientific community is effectively making up shit as they go along. 47% is a pretty big number Mark... what do you think of that?, I find it incredible.

AC

[MarkE]

@MarkEPeople... obviously.
Science and scientific inquiry will always rely on the perspectives and interpretations of observations by people. I understand some may like to portray science as an all knowing all seeing entity in itself not unlike a religion to serve their interests however it is simply a process. This forum is a perfect example and it boggles the mind that so many could have such different views of a simple equation such as F=mA.
There is also that little issue of 47% of scientists who have falsified data or know someone who has in the past... so what is reliable evidence again?. You see it's hard to believe in reliable evidence and the purists view of scientific inquiry when we see almost one half of the scientific community is effectively making up shit as they go along. 47% is a pretty big number Mark... what do you think of that?, I find it incredible.

AC

You really need to get a grip on the scientific method and how it specifically works to detach research from human foibles of bias and prejudice.  If someone falsifies data, then such things eventually come to light when others attempt to reproduce the faker run into discrepancies.

[allcanadian]

@MarkE

You really need to get a grip on the scientific method and how it
specifically works to detach research from human foibles of bias and prejudice. 
If someone falsifies data, then such things eventually come to light when others
attempt to reproduce the faker run into discrepancies.

I think I have a pretty good idea of how it is supposed to work as well as how it doesn't in reality. For instance I read a pretty comical article a while back concerning the peer review process. A researcher presented a paper for review and a few years later it was found that there was conflicting data presented. Then when the researcher was questioned he said his thesis was not the paper in question but another paper showing that the peer review process was fundamentally flawed because very few papers are read and even less actually verified... brilliant. The researcher essentially wrote a paper in which everything was fabricated and substantiated by a prior paper in which everything was also fabricated. Not unlike many accepted theories which are also based on a foundation of quicksand.

It would seem the process is inherently flawed and many "scientists" are recieving large grants and investment funds based on nothing but vaporware. It sounds very much like pseudo-science in my opinion. Obviously the real issue here is not science but people who have bought into the religion of professionalism and credibility rather than hard facts which are proven beyond all shadow of doubt. You see I cannot believe you Mark for the same reasons you do not believe others because what your implying lacks credibility in light of the facts.

AC

[MarkE]

@MarkE
I think I have a pretty good idea of how it is supposed to work as well as how it doesn't in reality. For instance I read a pretty comical article a while back concerning the peer review process. A researcher presented a paper for review and a few years later it was found that there was conflicting data presented. Then when the researcher was questioned he said his thesis was not the paper in question but another paper showing that the peer review process was fundamentally flawed because very few papers are read and even less actually verified... brilliant. The researcher essentially wrote a paper in which everything was fabricated and substantiated by a prior paper in which everything was also fabricated. Not unlike many accepted theories which are also based on a foundation of quicksand.

It would seem the process is inherently flawed and many "scientists" are recieving large grants and investment funds based on nothing but vaporware. It sounds very much like pseudo-science in my opinion. Obviously the real issue here is not science but people who have bought into the religion of professionalism and credibility rather than hard facts which are proven beyond all shadow of doubt. You see I cannot believe you Mark for the same reasons you do not believe others because what your implying lacks credibility in light of the facts.

AC

With billions of humans on the planet there will always be exceptions.  Those exceptions tend to prove the rule of just how well the scientific method actually works.  Look around you at the technology advancement of the past: 5/10/20/50/100 years.  If the scientific method were doing a poor job of filtering out mistakes and fraud, technology development would have stumbled rather than accelerated.  When was the last time that we had an embarrassment along the lines of "Q Rays"? BTW the scientific method caught "Q Rays". 

It is the more speculative areas where hard data is difficult to obtain and hypotheses are difficult to verify where controversy exists for protracted periods.  That is not a failing of the scientific method.  It is in fact the scientific method that will ultimately resolve such controversies.  Politics enters where large sums of money get involved and decisions affecting those sums of money will be made before adequate reliable data can be obtained.

I don't ask people to "believe me".  I present what I understand as the facts and others are free to take exception.  Ultimately, using the scientific method: reliable data arbitrates the truth and what I think / argue or what anyone else thinks / argues doesn't matter.

[gravityblock]

Well said AC, and it can be summed up in two words, "willful ignorance"

Willful Ignorance:

The practice or act of intentional and blatant avoidance, disregard or disagreement with facts, empirical evidence and well-founded arguments because they oppose or contradict your own existing personal beliefs, and/or to forward a hidden agenda.

Gravock