It started with Darwin but it doesn't end with Darwin.

[J_B_]

Who are you?

That would also explain why we never talk. But to answer your question, I'm just an average guy who's been hanging around CF for years - though not very active recently.

 

[The Barbarian]

Agreed. If you don't want to encourage what you consider to be nonsense, then don't respond to it. I suspect, though, that many here enjoying baiting.

I'm a very patient guy. Often, what is taken as baiting or dishonesty is actually unfamiliarity with the facts.

 

[Shemjaza]

Um ... would you like to see some of their pictures?

There are some things science leaves behind that can't be corrected.

Science is a system of collecting information and understanding the world around us, not a person.

Knowledge is corrected, consequences are still on the people who perform actions or make decisions.

(Unless you want to complain about a newspaper artists impression of a certain extinct pig? Because that was just a mistake based on limited information... and as I said, it was corrected by more information and study.)

 

[AV1611VET]

Knowledge is corrected, consequences are still on the people who perform actions or make decisions.

Ya -- they sleep at night.

While those the actions were performed on carry their mistakes for life.

Remember Thalidomide?

 

[BCP1928]

Um ... would you like to see some of their pictures?

There are some things science leaves behind that can't be corrected.

Why should they be? They are merely artists' impressions based on the evidence available at the time.

 

[BCP1928]

Ya -- they sleep at night.

While those the actions were performed on carry their mistakes for life.

Remember Thalidomide?

Yes, but we blame it on marketing executives, not science. It worked on the diseases science intended it for.

 

[AV1611VET]

Yes, but we blame it on marketing executives, not science. It worked on the diseases science intended it for.

The hardware worked just fine, didn't it?

It was the software that got'em.

 

[The Barbarian]

Remember Thalidomide?

Funny you should mention that. A dedicated scientist kept expectant mothers in the U.S. safe:

Frances Oldham Kelsey, recipient of the highest recognition attainable for a U. S. civil servant for her role in saving perhaps thousands from death or life-long incapacitation, had a long an impressive career both before that turning point in medical history and afterwards.

Frances O. Kelsey

Women pioneers at FDA

www.fda.gov

And yes, she caught some pressure from non-scientists to just let it go. Thank the Lord, she maintained her scientific ethics.

 

[AV1611VET]

Funny you should mention that. A dedicated scientist kept expectant mothers in the U.S. safe:

Frances Oldham Kelsey, recipient of the highest recognition attainable for a U. S. civil servant for her role in saving perhaps thousands from death or life-long incapacitation, had a long an impressive career both before that turning point in medical history and afterwards.

Frances O. Kelsey

Women pioneers at FDA

www.fda.gov

And yes, she caught some pressure from non-scientists to just let it go. Thank the Lord, she maintained her scientific ethics.

Yes, indeed!

If you run a search of Frances Kelsey on this site, you'll see I have five pages of references to her.

Here is one of my earliest ones:

Post 352

And one of my recent ones:

Rigidity can be tough.

It can lead to two years of house arrest (Galileo); or it can lead to days of significant ridicule (Frances Kelsey).

 

[Shemjaza]

Ya -- they sleep at night.

While those the actions were performed on carry their mistakes for life.

Remember Thalidomide?

People's culpability isn't dependent on whether people acknowledge responsibility or not.

 

[AV1611VET]

People's culpability isn't dependent on whether people acknowledge responsibility or not.

That's probably what the scientists in L'Aquila were hoping for, when they pleaded NOT GUILTY.

From AI Overview:

The scientists on trial in L'Aquila pleaded not guilty, maintaining that they did not fail to predict the earthquake and that their advice was based on the best available scientific knowledge at the time. They argued that it is impossible to predict earthquakes with certainty and that their role was to assess and communicate risk, not to provide definitive predictions. The prosecution, however, argued that the scientists were negligent in their assessment of the seismic risk and provided misleading information that contributed to the high death toll.

 

[The Barbarian]

If you run a search of Frances Kelsey on this site, you'll see I have five pages of references to her.

Like Galileo, Kelsey was challenged, but science vindicated her.

 

[Shemjaza]

That's probably what the scientists in L'Aquila were hoping for, when they pleaded NOT GUILTY.

From AI Overview:

The scientists on trial in L'Aquila pleaded not guilty, maintaining that they did not fail to predict the earthquake and that their advice was based on the best available scientific knowledge at the time. They argued that it is impossible to predict earthquakes with certainty and that their role was to assess and communicate risk, not to provide definitive predictions. The prosecution, however, argued that the scientists were negligent in their assessment of the seismic risk and provided misleading information that contributed to the high death toll.

You're attacking scientists for not being prophets?

Science doesn't claim perfection or infallibility.

 

[AV1611VET]

Like Galileo, Kelsey was challenged, but science vindicated her.

Yup.

To the surprise of the other scientists, I'm sure.

And for the record, did science vindicate her -- or was it a generation of children what vindicated her?

I submit a generation of children MADE scientists go back to the drawing board.

And when they did, to their dismay, they found out they were wrong.

So they blamed it on management.

 

[The Barbarian]

That's probably what the scientists in L'Aquila were hoping for, when they pleaded NOT GUILTY.

They were prosecuted for not predicting a result that occurs only 2% of the time in such circumstances? What if we held politicians, insurance companies, doctors, etc. to such a standard?

 

[AV1611VET]

You're attacking scientists for not being prophets?

What does prophecy have to do about it?

If I ask you if I'll get burnt if I stick my hand in a fire, are you prophesying your answer to me?

Science doesn't claim perfection or infallibility.

Oh, well.

"That's what those victims in L'Aquila get for listening to us."

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Yup.

To the surprise of the other scientists, I'm sure.

And for the record, did science vindicate her -- or was it a generation of children what vindicated her?

I submit a generation of children MADE scientists go back to the drawing board.

And when they did, to their dismay, they found out they were wrong.

So they blamed it on management.

And for the record, I don't think you actually care and I'm going to put in request to get mods to give this thread a clean up of off-topic posts like this.

 

[The Barbarian]

Like Galileo, Kelsey was challenged, but science vindicated her.

To the surprise of the other scientists, I'm sure.

As usual, you're wrong in your imagination. By Galileo, most scientists realized that the geocentric model was wrong. And of course, Kelsey's position was openly challenged by drug companies and politicians, but not by many scientists.

I submit a generation of children MADE scientists go back to the drawing board.

The call of the scientist actually in charge of making that decision shows that you are wrong. Instead of peddling strawmen, why not study the reasons science protected the unborn?

 

[AV1611VET]

They were prosecuted for not predicting a result that occurs only 2% of the time in such circumstances?

Negative.

From AI Overview:

The scientists in L'Aquila were prosecuted for manslaughter related to their communication about earthquake risks before the 2009 L'Aquila earthquake. Specifically, they were accused of providing "inexact, incomplete and contradictory information" to the public about the risk of a major earthquake following a series of smaller tremors. This was interpreted as negligence in communicating potential dangers, leading some residents to remain indoors during the deadly earthquake, according to The Conversation.

What if we held politicians, insurance companies, doctors, etc. to such a standard?

We do, don't we?

 

[AV1611VET]

The call of the scientist actually in charge of making that decision shows that you are wrong.

From AI Overview:

Scientists were surprised by the devastating effects of thalidomide, particularly its teratogenic (causing birth defects) effects.