Yeah.
They said aluminum cookwear did it.
Then it was teflon.
Last year they said iron causes it.
Now it's copper.
They have no clue.
Everything causes Alzheimers, cancer, baldness, blindness, projectile vomiting, and heart disease. Or doesn't, if you wait a year.
Yeah.
They said aluminum cookwear did it.
Then it was teflon.
Last year they said iron causes it.
Now it's copper.
They have no clue.
Everything causes Alzheimers, cancer, baldness, blindness, projectile vomiting, and heart disease. Or doesn't, if you wait a year.
Actually, this IS what science looks like -- even good science. Results have to be examined, methods scrutinized for flaws, hidden assumptions, bias; ideas have to be tested in as many ways as can reasonably be implemented. Eventually wrong ideas are ruled out and everyone knows they're wrong. And the vast majority of ideas turn out to be wrong in the end, even the ones that survive the first experimental tests.Proper scientific research doesn't exist any more.
And so when preliminary results are reported that later get turned upside down, they see that scientists are more often wrong than right and conclude that these guys aren't so smart after all, or that good research is a thing of the past.
Actually, this IS what science looks like -- even good science. Results have to be examined, methods scrutinized for flaws, hidden assumptions, bias; ideas have to be tested in as many ways as can reasonably be implemented. Eventually wrong ideas are ruled out and everyone knows they're wrong. And the vast majority of ideas turn out to be wrong in the end, even the ones that survive the first experimental tests.
The problem is, the public doesn't understand how science works. They only know that science (and engineering) has given us drugs and machines that help us live longer, ways of getting from point A to point B that our grandparents never imagined, wonderful gadgets that store and process information and connect people all over the world, and so they figure scientists are these brilliant people who are supposed to know everything. And so when preliminary results are reported that later get turned upside down, they see that scientists are more often wrong than right and conclude that these guys aren't so smart after all, or that good research is a thing of the past.
Say what?Sorry, I must respectfully disagree with you, anthropogenic Global warming science is settled, no scrutiny, no flaws, Al Gore and a bunch of poly-sci phds told us so......
Say what?
Scientists are still looking at it. There's a consensus now, but that will change when (if) someone comes up with a theory that explains the data we now have and makes predictions about the climate that we can test.
Say what?
Scientists are still looking at it. There's a consensus now, but that will change when (if) someone comes up with a theory that explains the data we now have and makes predictions about the climate that we can test.
Say what?
Scientists are still looking at it. There's a consensus now, but that will change when (if) someone comes up with a theory that explains the data we now have and makes predictions about the climate that we can test.
I think this is the issue. Science today is all about the press conference and the grants.
I hear this over and over and it remains hogwash. Scientists don't live off of grants - they have university salaries. Grants fund projects but are not the main source of personal income for the grantees. And scientists doing it for press and public recognition? I'd guess that 99.99% of basic research projects never result in a press conference.
I think this is the issue. Science today is all about the press conference and the grants. Preliminary reports are published and promoted, without the rigor and follow up they used to have.
Also, peer reviewed journals seem to be dropping in the quality and rigor of review.
My thought is that nothing really "causes" it other than being old. By artificially extending our lifespans longer than they evolved for, we get to witness all sorts of problems when our bodies start to break down. Some of it muscular, some of it skeletal, some of it neurological. Some people are going to be more succeptible to others based on genetic make up. No one gets Alzheimers at 20 or 30. It always seems to onset beyond what our life span had been for tens of thousands of year.
Want to fix the problem? Don't live so long.
So I can't really say if my father's early onset Alzheimers ....
If you can manage it, you may wish to read Tom Dibaggio's books. He essentially got diagnosed with early onset alzheimers and wrote about it. I heard an NPR interview with him as well. He used to run the local herb greenhouse here in northern Virginia (his son still has the business).
Wow, I guess you got me there, flyingron. I only have a degree in computer science with post grad work in statistics. Most of what I know about basic research and grants comes from two family members who have spent their lives in academia doing research, one in physics and one in chemistry.Chortle. You haven't spent much time in academia, have you.
Which is impossible with no control. It's not like we have another planet Earth at a Lagrange point, where we can watch what happens with no humans present.
The problem is that the scientific world is run by less than perfect human beings. It has unfortunately lost a lot of integrity and consequently credibility in recent years as more and more people are found to be cherry picking data in order to support the conclusions and biases that they have made up in their minds going into the research.The real problem today is this is the public's view of science and scientists. So long as it persists we won't see our best and brightest go into science and technology. Why should they work hard to join a bunch of grant-mongering scofflaws? Unfortunately, this is a huge danger to a society that makes its collective living developing cutting edge technology, as I have said before on more than one occasion.
Your "analysis" completely ignores early onset Alzheimer's
Or do you seriously suggest killing everyone before they hit 50?
The problem is that the scientific world is run by less than perfect human beings. It has unfortunately lost a lot of integrity and consequently credibility in recent years as more and more people are found to be cherry picking data in order to support the conclusions and biases that they have made up in their minds going into the research.
That isn't the scientific process as we know it, but too many people have taken short cuts and bypassed the true scientific process to prove their points.....and while I don't think that applies to all science, those that have sacrificied their integrity have negatively impacted the scientific community as a whole.
Which is impossible with no control. It's not like we have another planet Earth at a Lagrange point, where we can watch what happens with no humans present.
The real problem today is this is the public's view of science and scientists. So long as it persists we won't see our best and brightest go into science and technology. Why should they work hard to join a bunch of grant-mongering scofflaws? Unfortunately, this is a huge danger to a society that makes its collective living developing cutting edge technology, as I have said before on more than one occasion.
The problem is that the scientific world is run by less than perfect human beings. It has unfortunately lost a lot of integrity and consequently credibility in recent years as more and more people are found to be cherry picking data in order to support the conclusions and biases that they have made up in their minds going into the research.
That isn't the scientific process as we know it, but too many people have taken short cuts and bypassed the true scientific process to prove their points.....and while I don't think that applies to all science, those that have sacrificied their integrity have negatively impacted the scientific community as a whole.
The problem is that the scientific world is run by less than perfect human beings. It has unfortunately lost a lot of integrity and consequently credibility in recent years as more and more people are found to be cherry picking data in order to support the conclusions and biases that they have made up in their minds going into the research.
That isn't the scientific process as we know it, but too many people have taken short cuts and bypassed the true scientific process to prove their points.....and while I don't think that applies to all science, those that have sacrificied their integrity have negatively impacted the scientific community as a whole.
Why be a scientist at $150k per year max salary when you can go to Wall-street and steal millions as a banker or stock broker or trader or a number of other positions.
Sorry. Wrong.
You can do observational controlled studies. Just not the most simple minded strategies.
Do we have a universe with no gravity to test that out, or do we rely on the variations in the gravitational field to test it?
I guess Newton, Kepler and Eddington weren't "real" scientists.
Fail. Try again. Observations of planetary motions are not affected by looking at them with a telecsope. On second thought, don't bother, you obviously missed the point.
Again, you missed the point. Read what I said again. When you actually understand it, get back to me. Maybe you should have taken some reading classes, because that's certainly a demonstrated deficiency for you.
Let me dumb it down for you.
Looking at a planet with a telescope does not affect the motion of the planet.
It changes what you THINK the planet is doing. And even if it didn't, that's not enough to prove gravity by itself. You clearly didn't understand my response. Not that I'd expect anything else from you. Your mind is made up and you're not going to listen, even to those who really do understand it better than you.
Do you really mean to say that observing the climate changes it? REALLY?
I read just fine. You said that there were no controls. That is wrong.