Professionals

[notto]

I would be interested in knowing just how many people can think for themselves to come up with a alternative view. Evolutionists tend to be very regimented and they tend to follow the party line, because they know that any disagreements among themselves will weaken their position.

When is the last time you read a scientific journal? This comment simply shows that you are not familiar with what actually happens in the community you are commenting on.

 

[Randall McNally]

It does not matter if the drugs work or not. They only make money if they actually sell the drugs.

Do you have any idea how much financial damage a class action suit - or even worse a bunch of individual suits - can do to even the most robust company?
Merck is probably hoping they can get away from Vioxx with their wallets intact.

 

[Ledifni]

BUZZZZZ, this looks like a flame and a personal attack to me. Careful because I have no problem with using that little report button on the bottom of the window. It is not any easier for me than it is anyone else, but we got to go by the rules here or everything will get out of control.

Excuses, excuses, John. The offending statement has been removed from my post; now that your excuse is gone, what do you have to say for yourself? Or do you think you can pretend to know more than the experts yet never offer a word to support your claims?

 

[Fleur]

The global warming thing is a good example. It probably explains a bit better what I am getting at. Note that I am not proposing that there is a credible alternative theory to evolution. But how do theories become credible? By being examined a lot. Are there theories out there that have not been examined a lot?

On second thoughts, though, it comes down to falsification. I guess a theory does not have to be examined all that much if there is a bloody great flaw in it.

 

[madarab]

Differentiation is a good tool in these kinds of things. What consequences and predictions exist which the new theory would make and would not be found if the old theory were true. This has been the problem with interpreting quantum mechanics for several decades now is that it been impossible so far to distinguish the various theories experimentally.

 

[JohnR7]

When is the last time you read a scientific journal?

I have read my dads medical journals all of my life. Although they are starting to have more and more articals about how to invest all the money they are making and how to keep the government from eating it all up in taxes. But they do still get around to talking about medicine every now and then.

 

[Vance]

In answer to the OP, the important thing to focus on is NOT individual scientists or their conclusions, but the consensus of the scientific community in that field as a whole. There are SO many scientists in most areas of study, that there will be a wide variety of motivations, biases, incentives, etc. This, combined with the cut-throat competitiveness of the scientific communities in general, mean that any given concept, theory or proposal from someone with a specific bias will have to run the gauntlet of critique of those who not only don't share that same bias, but many of whom are actively trying to find something wrong with it.

So, in most cases, the factors of bias and motivation will eventually be weeded out when it comes to the generally accepted theories.

 

[And-U-Say]

I would be interested in knowing just how many people can think for themselves to come up with a alternative view. Evolutionists tend to be very regimented and they tend to follow the party line, because they know that any disagreements among themselves will weaken their position.

Bold. Faced. Lie.

 

[And-U-Say]

IF they can come up with a NEW theory, that is fine. But you CAN NOT falsify a old theory without producing a better explaination. So they have no choice but to turn a "blind eye" even if there were to know that the theory is not a good one and that it is not supported by the evidence.

Wrong. Your knowledge of scientific history is slim.