Creationism VS Public schools

[Cabal]

So do I. They have to be honest.

Just out of curiosity, what happens if a scientist is found to be consistently lying? Or even if he is found consistently wrong? Is there a way to revoke his status as a scientist?

And what makes a person an official scientist in the first place? Does he have to pass an examination of his peers and get certified?

I'm pretty sure there was a Korean scientist who recently made the papers for fabricating results on cloning experiments - again, nothing exactly official per se, but it is very easy these days using online databases to get a hold of a scientist's entire publication history, and if you make a big boo-boo like this Korean chap did, then you and your entire publication history will probably be the subject of intense scrutiny - I imagine his career has gotten a lot more complicated in recent years.

As for qualification, the reputation of a particular institute does play a large part - reputation is usually derived from faculty members coming up with consistent groundbreaking research and results, that are then peer-reviewed and found to be accurate. Thus, getting a degree from a reputable faculty is a representation of your "status" (to use your term) as a scientist.

Anyway, regarding your QV, I will look into it further, but in principle, when reading scientific papers I agree with Tomk80 regarding taking author's honesty at face value. Again, the numbers come into it again - the Bible is not subject to the same appraisals as a scientific paper (peer-review, e.g), so I don't treat it in the same way. I'm not saying it's wrong, just different.

 

[Cabal]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hwang_Woo-Suk

There we go. The usual consequences of shenanigans like this is losing your job and pretty much simultaneously losing your funding. With the level of knowledge and experimentation mankind has reached today, it's pretty hard if not impossible to continue research, and losing your job in acrimonious circumstances like this makes it incredibly unlikely to get another.

 

[Tomk80]

So do I. They have to be honest.

Just out of curiosity, what happens if a scientist is found to be consistently lying?

Usually he gets fired.

Or even if he is found consistently wrong?

Usually someone like that is usually first criticized in the forms of letters or comments on the articles he publishes. Then, if he keeps espousing wrong views he generally gets ignored more and more.

Is there a way to revoke his status as a scientist?

Firing him.

And what makes a person an official scientist in the first place?

A job as a scientist, where published papers and their reception usually serve as a marker of his productiveness and credibility.

Does he have to pass an examination of his peers and get certified?

There is no official certification, although most scientists will have completed a phD. Examination is in peer-review process of articles and the presentation of his work on conferences. It's a continuous testing of ideas in discussion and debate, in both these arenas.

 

[MasterOfKrikkit]

OK, a little late to this party, but since nobody's pointed this out yet...

Like Vioxx and Thalidomide.

Had this Scientific Method you guys worship so much been as effective as you guys say it is, we should never have had these products available to us.

And please don't lecture me on the government and big pharmaceutical companies. That doesn't explain how these big pharmaceutical companies got the formula in the first place.

I'm sure this poison was first "discovered" under a microscope. Explain how it ever got out of the lab in the first place.

AV, your inconsistency is showing. Again. You've just spent several posts taking wholesale shots at "science". Vene brought up the usual point that, while Vioxx, also aspirin and other such things that you no doubt use and benefit from... at which point, of course, you reminded us that you don't oppose science, just that which contradicts the Bible, right? Oh, right, no you didn't. Strange. Because you've said that before, very forcefully. You've said that it drives you nuts when people question whether you accept science that gives us medicine and computers and so forth. So where's the outcry this time? But it was probably best you kept quiet: it might have shown your hypocrisy.

Or is there a Bible verse I've forgotten "And the LORD said unto Glaxo, yea even unto the children of Pfizer, licketh thou the bark of the willow tree and it shall relieve thy headache, and of such salicylates thou mayest produce in great quantity, but create not such abominations as those anti-inflamatories which may require further testing to determine their cardiovascular effects, for the LORD thy God requires long-term clinical studies of thee"?

 

[AV1611VET]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hwang_Woo-Suk

There we go. The usual consequences of shenanigans like this is losing your job and pretty much simultaneously losing your funding. With the level of knowledge and experimentation mankind has reached today, it's pretty hard if not impossible to continue research, and losing your job in acrimonious circumstances like this makes it incredibly unlikely to get another.

Thanks for the info ---

 

[Tomk80]

OK, a little late to this party, but since nobody's pointed this out yet...

AV, your inconsistency is showing. Again. You've just spent several posts taking wholesale shots at "science". Vene brought up the usual point that, while Vioxx, also aspirin and other such things that you no doubt use and benefit from... at which point, of course, you reminded us that you don't oppose science, just that which contradicts the Bible, right? Oh, right, no you didn't. Strange. Because you've said that before, very forcefully. You've said that it drives you nuts when people question whether you accept science that gives us medicine and computers and so forth. So where's the outcry this time? But it was probably best you kept quiet: it might have shown your hypocrisy.

Or is there a Bible verse I've forgotten "And the LORD said unto Glaxo, yea even unto the children of Pfizer, licketh thou the bark of the willow tree and it shall relieve thy headache, and of such salicylates thou mayest produce in great quantity, but create not such abominations as those anti-inflamatories which may require further testing to determine their cardiovascular effects, for the LORD thy God requires long-term clinical studies of thee"?

Not to mention that Thalidomide effects weren't so much "science" being wrong as the effects being not sufficiently tested. It was proclaimed safe when the tests that were necessary (animal birth defects tests) were never done. Nowadays, such tests are required for medicines used during pregnancy.

I don't know the story around Vioxx, but if I recall correctly this was more an instance of people lying than of the science being wrong. Two different things that get confused so often by creationists, as well as many other crackpot theorists.

This doesn't negate that scientific models are constantly shown to be incorrect. But it also doesn't negate that once shown incorrect, the new models need to incorporate the evidence thus far. This makes a return to models that have been shown incorrect very unlikely, since the evidence that falsifies them does not suddenly disappear. Hence creationism, including a global flood, is very unlikely to ever gain any credibility again. There are to many observations that falsify it.

 

[AV1611VET]

Usually he gets fired.

Usually someone like that is usually first criticized in the forms of letters or comments on the articles he publishes. Then, if he keeps espousing wrong views he generally gets ignored more and more.


Firing him.


A job as a scientist, where published papers and their reception usually serve as a marker of his productiveness and credibility.

There is no official certification, although most scientists will have completed a phD. Examination is in peer-review process of articles and the presentation of his work on conferences. It's a continuous testing of ideas in discussion and debate, in both these arenas.

Okay, thanks --- that's interesting.

 

[Split Rock]

That's because your science is god.

Repeating this over and over does not make it true. Anyone of any faith can be a scientist and accept evolution at the same time. But only creationists can worship a man-made book.

 

[Vene]

Now back at you AV, what happens when a pastor is exposed as lying?

 

[AV1611VET]

Now back at you AV, what happens when a pastor is exposed as lying?

Depending on the severity of the lie, and the people/church affected, at best he needs to simply repent, and at worse, he needs to repent and step down.

 

[MasterOfKrikkit]

Depending on the severity of the lie, and the people/church affected, at best he needs to simply repent, and at worse, he needs to repent and step down.

So a lying pastor might possibly suffer some nasty consequences if their infraction is sufficiently egregious, but a scientist's career is finished if they're caught lying... hmm.

I guess we don't need you to "hold science to a Higher Standard", AV -- looks like scientists are doing that already.

 

[GoSeminoles!]

And what makes a person an official scientist in the first place? Does he have to pass an examination of his peers and get certified?

Speaking broadly, most anyone can be a scientist. Science is just a systematic way of approaching a question about the natural world. Hypothesize, collect and evaluate all relevant data, conduct controlled experiments, report your results cleanly and accurately to others. Stephen Hawking is a scientist. So are the guys on Mythbusters. So is a good auto mechanic.

A Ph.D. doesn't automatically make you a scientist because science is also a verb. If you're not actually doing science, then you're not a scientist. If you're not spending your summer in a burning desert digging up fossils, or sifting through poo, or risking frostbite to collect ice core samples in Antarctica, or peering through a microscope for endless hours, or doing other like activities, then you're not a real scientist. It's hard and often brutal work, like cleaning out the gutters on every house in the city in the middle of July. Science is not for weak or whiny people. Plenty of people have a Ph.D. in a scientific field but are not scientists -- anyone at the Discovery Institute for example.

 

[Naraoia]

It's hard and often brutal work, like cleaning out the gutters on every house in the city in the middle of July. Science is not for weak or whiny people.

Hey, don't you scare kids away from science

 

[AV1611VET]

So a lying pastor might possibly suffer some nasty consequences if their infraction is sufficiently egregious, but a scientist's career is finished if they're caught lying... hmm.

I guess we don't need you to "hold science to a Higher Standard", AV -- looks like scientists are doing that already.

Go back and read what I wrote, please:

Just out of curiosity, what happens if a scientist is found to be consistently lying? Or even if he is found consistently wrong?

The question that came back to me was:

Now back at you AV, what happens when a pastor is exposed as lying?

And I addressed it as a one-time incident.

 

[AV1611VET]

If you're not spending your summer in a burning desert digging up fossils, or sifting through poo, or risking frostbite to collect ice core samples in Antarctica, or peering through a microscope for endless hours, or doing other like activities, then you're not a real scientist. It's hard and often brutal work, like cleaning out the gutters on every house in the city in the middle of July. Science is not for weak or whiny people.

I couldn't agree more here, and I thank God for gifting us real scientists.

 

[Nathan Poe]

I couldn't agree more here, and I thank God for gifting us real scientists.

Including the ones who disagree with the Bible as you read it?

 

[AV1611VET]

Including the ones who disagree with the Bible as you read it?

Yes, them too; but not for the purpose of disagreement. They abuse their gift.

 

[Split Rock]

Including the ones who disagree with the Bible as you read it?

Yes, them too; but not for the purpose of disagreement. They abuse their gift.

Its a good thing you are here to serve as our Ultimate Arbitrator. I guess you see yourself as a combination of Moses and John the Baptist.

 

[AV1611VET]

Its a good thing you are here to serve as our Ultimate Arbitrator. I guess you see yourself as a combination of Moses and John the Baptist.

 

[Joe_Sixpack]

If you're not spending your summer in a burning desert digging up fossils, or sifting through poo, or risking frostbite to collect ice core samples in Antarctica, or peering through a microscope for endless hours, or doing other like activities, then you're not a real scientist.

Umm, I guess us theoretical particle physicists (former) aren't scientists because we get to hang in the relative comfort of the air conditioned halls of academia?

Well, the next time your digging through poo results in a theory that is predictively accurate to 15 or more significant figures and is the basis of thousands of new technologies, you let me and other fake scientists know.



We do though sometimes get the best toys though - how often have you got to fire particles down a mile long tube at .99c until they smash into each other in a spectacular (though very very small) explosion? I know it is out of date, but SLAC is just fun...