"Scientifically Proven"

KimWalker

It seems that everything is "scientifically proven" these days.

Now it may just be me, but when I see "scientifically proven", I do not look smug and think of how advanced our little civilisation is. I think, here is another con job.

What do you think?

minidazzler

I think what they usually say is "Scientists have said....." That is NOT the same as Scientifically proven!

Is scientist even a protected title? Or can anyone call themselves a Scientist?

Hi, I'm minidazzler, I am a scientist in the field of getting drunk and through my scientific methods I have proven that vodka can in fact get me drunk in large quantities. Whiskey makes me drowsy and Gin makes me think.

BTW, in your third Poll option did you mean to say "I believe in Creationism....."?

Ickle Magoo

Depends, I tend to use a bit of common sense.

Is it a moisturiser advert telling me it's product is scientifically proven to help rewind the ageing process and give me the skin of a baby again? Or an oncologist telling me a particular drug has been shown to have a positive affect on cancerous cells?

You'd be a bit stupid to ignore everything that comes with claims of scientific analysis, tbh.

Raemie

generally the thing that they've scientifically proven is fairly flimsy anyway eg. this night cream has been scientifically proven to help reduce the appearance of wrinkles*

*Based on survey of 10 highly suggestible idiots

Hellrazer

These ads always do my head in.Then they make up mad names of super ingredients just to make it look important especially with those face creams.


A kerry scientist--A man simply out standing in his own field.

To me it just means that a scientist, or group of scientists have evaluated the product/thery and have come to a conclusion that they believe is correct.

Whether the conclusion is correct or not, can sometimes be debatable.

In many cases, there is an alternative conclusion(s), this also needs to be looked at to enable one to form an opinion.

KimWalker

minidazzler wrote: »

BTW, in your third Poll option did you mean to say "I believe in Creationism....."?

Oh no, I know everyone these days is a little darwinian. I always say, if the most advanced version yet plays the x box 6 hours a day at thirty years old, did the mark 1 version play the x box 12 hours a day?

bonerm

"Scientifically proven" was just the advertising exec's new way of selling more stuff to us when they realised we no longer cared what "8 out of 10 people/cats" thought about something.

I'm pretty sure the next slogan in their arsenal will be "your peer group shall reject you if you don't buy ..... "

Karl Hungus

KimWalker wrote: »

I always say, if the most advanced version yet plays the x box 6 hours a day at thirty years old, did the mark 1 version play the x box 12 hours a day?

Amazing logic. Truly amazing. Darwin has been utterly and unequivocally been disproven.

KimWalker

Karl Hungus wrote: »

Amazing logic. Truly amazing. Darwin has been utterly and unequivocally been disproven.

Thanks.

Survival of the fittest , must be some sort of joke. If dog eat dog was unleashed on these streets, the little mocha drinker wouldn't last too long.

Agricola

Scientifically proven * (with that all inportant asterisk) when used in advertising is just some bs they put on cans of hairspray to sell more of them.

Scientifically proven when used in a real field of science means that a theory has been formulated on something, and despite LOTS of attempts by other scientists to dissprove the theory, they cant. Its stands up all the time.

Essien

So are we saying volcanicity isnt real then?

KimWalker

Agricola wrote: »

Scientifically proven when used in a real field of science means that a theory has been formulated on something, and despite LOTS of attempts by other scientists to dissprove the theory, they cant. Its stands up all the time.

You seem to know what you are talking about.

Tell me this, if a group of scientists refuse to release their data to others so that it can be tested, would you consider this a breach of the scientific process?

KimWalker

Essien wrote: »

So are we saying volcanicity isnt real then?

and little ilcasei immunitas, where would little Chloe be without it?

KimWalker

KimWalker wrote: »

Tell me this, if a group of scientists refuse to release their data to others so that it can be tested, would you consider this a breach of the scientific process?

Yes, but for manufactured products, there are confidentaility and copyright issues as well.

If you are looking at scientific conclusions about things like global warming climate change, evolution of feathers on dinosaurs (latest theories have T-Rex wearing feathers) etc, you really need to have access to their data to be able to draw your own conclusions (assuming you are able to interpret it) or review the conclusions from different studies of the data.

Agricola

KimWalker wrote: »

You seem to know what you are talking about.

Tell me this, if a group of scientists refuse to release their data to others so that it can be tested, would you consider this a breach of the scientific process?

Yeah i think so. Open publication of data is an important part of scientific ethics. Why? Is this a climate change thing?

Ickle Magoo

KimWalker wrote: »

Tell me this, if a group of scientists refuse to release their data to others so that it can be tested, would you consider this a breach of the scientific process?

The scientific method requires full disclosure so results can be tested, repeated, falsified - generally subjected to peer review. That doesn't mean that it can't be claimed that something has been scientifically proven without providing full details to the public, however.

Son Of A Vidic

"Scientifically Proven" = take with a pinch of salt.

medicman2009

medicman2009 wrote: »

"Scientifically Proven" = take with a pinch of salt.

Salt

Diabhal Beag

medicman2009 wrote: »

"Scientifically Proven" = take with a pinch of salt.

Bold printing is scientifically proven to be really fcuking annoying when its not needed

Son Of A Vidic

Diabhal Beag wrote: »

Bold printing is scientifically proven to be really fcuking annoying when its not needed

Being ANAL has been scientifically proven to be extremely fcuking annoying, especially when it's not needed.

Pherekydes

When I see the words 'proof' or 'proven' I tend to assume the writer doesn't know the meaning of these words.

And they usually don't.

KimWalker

Agricola wrote: »

Yeah i think so. Open publication of data is an important part of scientific ethics. Why? Is this a climate change thing?

Mr Baker mentioned climate change as well, what do the scientists involved here not release their data or something?

Ickle Magoo

Pherekydes wrote: »

When I see the words 'proof' or 'proven' I tend to assume the writer doesn't know the meaning of these words.

And they usually don't.

I agree. Outside mathematics and logic, there are very few actual proofs and it's not something generally claimed in science outside those arenas. Science tends to be conducted in "likelihoods" or "probabilities" rather than proofs.

Some things can be easily proved, like walking in front of an express train going at full speed can be detremental to your health, while walking infront of an express train that is stationary is unlikely* to cause you any harm.

*It could explode!

ChocolateSauce

Didn't vote because the poll is stupid.

Anyway, if someone says "Scientifically Proven", be sceptical (especially if they're trying to sell something on TV, because real science never claims to prove anything, only to accumulate enough evidence to strongly suggest something is true.)

If they say "Results suggested" or "there was a strong correlation between", especially if it in a peer reviewed journal, then it is likely to be a real piece of evidence supporting a particular claim or hypothesis.

bonerm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wEolSjlcqng

Turtwig

I think Danone are the worst for this. "Broadcaster and Mum", so fcking what???
Scientifically proven is the ultimate statement of scientific ignorance as all science can do is prove the negative. And even then science can't prove anything absolutely. OP, next time someone tells you something is scientifically proven beat them on the head with a stick and tell them that's scientifically proven to knock rubbish out of your brain.

minidazzler wrote: »

Is scientist even a protected title? Or can anyone call themselves a Scientist?

No, rather depressingly it isn't.
Creationists,Homeoeopaths, etc frequently call themselves scientists and frequently give out BScs in their sh1t.:(

Turtwig

KimWalker wrote: »

Tell me this, if a group of scientists refuse to release their data to others so that it can be tested, would you consider this a breach of the scientific process?

Firstly it should be noted that scientists who's data question the AGW theory also refuse to release their data. If I was to hazard a guess I'd say the vast majority of scientists in various disciplines are opposed to the current UK system FOIs as like youtube it can easily exploited.

If the sceptics are sceptical then surely they'd have to agree that the best way to check the scientists results is to independently gather their raw data (which is freely available), compute the trends and work out the results. Instead they want to go the impractical optional and just post their analysis on the blogs. Make no mistake over 90% of the data that climate scientists used in freely available. The remaining ten percent, is stuck between proprietary data (under contract to companies or military) and the rest usually contains the scientists own coding algorithms and modified data that many feel to be their own. It isn't, but as I said this seems to apply to scientists on both sides.

Dave!

Stupid thread is stupid

Diabhal Beag

medicman2009 wrote: »

Being ANAL has been scientifically proven to be extremely fcuking annoying, especially when it's not needed.

Scientifcally disproven by leading Dutch scientist Francois Von SandinVagina :pac:

Sisko

KimWalker wrote: »

It seems that everything is "scientifically proven" these days.

Now it may just be me, but when I see "scientifically proven", I do not look smug and think of how advanced our little civilisation is. I think, here is another con job.

What do you think?

You are one of these people that still thinks the world is flat I assume.

Religious no doubt?

ilovelamp2000

Has anyone ever seen this list, it's a blog made by cataloguing what the Daily Mail has reported as causing and curing cancer over the years.

http://kill-or-cure.heroku.com/

All scientifically proven of course

Turtwig

Rosco1982 wrote: »

Has anyone ever seen this list, it's a blog made by cataloguing what the Daily Mail has reported as causing and curing cancer over the years.

http://kill-or-cure.heroku.com/

All scientifically proven of course

^^
I'll eat my hat if the dailymail ever publishes a paper with over 90% of the reported science stories representing the actual science 100% accurately and honestly. I think I'll be seeing a flying pig first though.

CrazyRabbit

It is scientifically proven that you rarely get serious answers in After Hours.

Mrmoe

CrazyRabbit wrote: »

It is scientifically proven that you rarely get serious answers in After Hours.

What is the statistical variance on that?

Dudess

Whenever I see a thread opening with "It seems that x... these days" I think to myself... Hi Casey!

MaybeLogic

Around the late 19th century in England there was a competition between some Flat-Earthers and Globalists to prove the earth was either flat or round.
The Globalists, led by Alfred Wallace, took measurements and performed calculations to prove the Earth is round. The Flat-Earthers, led by William Carpenter, repeated the experiments of Samuel Rowbotham, to prove the Earth is flat and while all this was going on, in the States, a fella named Koresh, who believed in the Hollow-Earth theory, proved that the Earth is in fact hollow.

Antbert

The poll is irritating.

The question is: 'Do you have a healthy level of skepticism?' Or, to dumb it down further, 'Do you have any common sense?'

Anyone truly interested in this should read Bad Science by Ben Goldacre.

To the OP, your 'believing in evolution' option is confusing. Did you put that in as a 'I'm the biggest gullible idiot of all' option? That's what it looks like.

My name is URL

The worst is when they say something is Dermotologically tested.. who the fcuk is Dermot and why should I trust him?

MaybeLogic

My name is URL wrote: »

The worst is when they say something is Dermotologically tested.. who the fcuk is Dermot and why should I trust him?

Professor Dermot O'Logical.
Don't say you haven't heard of him?

Archeron

Professor Farnsworth is a scientist, and I wouldnt believe a thing HE said.

My name is URL

Archeron wrote: »

Professor Farnsworth is a scientist, and I wouldnt believe a thing HE said.

Good news everyone!

I've invented a device that will cause you to read this in your head, in Farnsworth's voice

Overheal

Definitely, the reputation of Scientific Method has been ruined somewhere along the way.

Hank_Jones

My name is URL wrote: »

Good news everyone!

I've invented a device that will cause you to read this in your head, in Farnsworth's voice

That's not scientifically proven.

Son Of A Vidic

medicman2009 wrote: »

"Scientifically Proven" = take with a pinch of salt.

Due to a severe hangover the above initial post was entered in bold. Since I was too lazy to type the thread title into my post, I copied and pasted it instead. This resulted in the rest of the text appearing in bold, so in my incapacitated state I was unable to resolve this. So don't take it personally and calm down.

http://omg.wthax.org/scouser.jpg

hooradiation

Overheal wrote: »

Definitely, the reputation of Scientific Method has been ruined somewhere along the way.

Hardly.

tipperaryboy

Certainly it is just a marketing gimmick so these companies will sell more products just because they are scientifically proven what a load of bs

Capt'n Midnight

KimWalker wrote: »

It seems that everything is "scientifically proven" these days.

Now it may just be me, but when I see "scientifically proven", I do not look smug and think of how advanced our little civilisation is. I think, here is another con job.

What do you think?

You can prove some things in Maths*

In a court of law you only need to prove beyond reasonable doubt

In Science you only have theories not proofs. It doesn't matter how old the theories are or how popular or elegant, one repeatable experiment is all that's enough to prove that the theory is WRONG.





*it has been proven that you can't prove all things in maths cf. Gödel & Wittgenstein

bnt

Speaking of polls, here's a quick way of judging whether they're any guide: look for "margin of error", "95% confidence", or anything else that quantifies the statistical accuracy of the poll.

For example, a report in the Irish Independent yesterday has all kinds of stats about confidence in the government and banks, but nothing about the number of people polled or margins of error. The people who conducted the survey (Millward Browne) probably do have those supporting figures, as they do for other surveys, but they aren't in the paper. This older survey has the following statement:

Interviewing was conducted between September 14th – 18th 2009 amongst a nationally representative sample of 1000 aged 15+ via telephone. Quotas were placed on gender, age, social class and region. The estimated margin of error is +/- 3.2% at 50% with 95% confidence.

Giselle

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Is it a moisturiser advert telling me it's product is scientifically proven to help rewind the ageing process and give me the skin of a baby again?

Wait.

If its not scientifically proven, does that mean I'm not worth it?