"Scientifically Proven"

KimWalker · 14-02-2010 11:21AM #1

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 · 14-02-2010 11:27AM

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 · 14-02-2010 11:28AM

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 · 14-02-2010 11:28AM

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 · 14-02-2010 11:30AM

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.

14-02-2010 11:32AM

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 · 14-02-2010 11:32AM

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 · 14-02-2010 11:35AM

"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 · 14-02-2010 11:36AM

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 · 14-02-2010 11:39AM

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 · 14-02-2010 11:41AM

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 · 14-02-2010 11:46AM

So are we saying volcanicity isnt real then?

KimWalker · 14-02-2010 11:46AM

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 · 14-02-2010 11:52AM

Essien wrote: »

So are we saying volcanicity isnt real then?

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

14-02-2010 11:54AM

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 · 14-02-2010 11:59AM

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 · 14-02-2010 11:59AM

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 · 14-02-2010 12:00PM

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

14-02-2010 12:02PM

medicman2009 wrote: »

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

Salt

Diabhal Beag · 14-02-2010 12:04PM

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 · 14-02-2010 12:17PM

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 · 14-02-2010 12:18PM

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 · 14-02-2010 12:20PM

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 · 14-02-2010 12:23PM

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.

14-02-2010 12:25PM

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 · 14-02-2010 12:28PM

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 · 14-02-2010 12:31PM

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

Turtwig · 14-02-2010 12:37PM

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 · 14-02-2010 12:53PM

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! · 14-02-2010 12:53PM

Stupid thread is stupid

Diabhal Beag · 14-02-2010 12:53PM

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:

"Scientifically Proven"

Oh yes, scientifically proven! 44 votes

Comments