"Scientifically Proven"

Sisko · 14-02-2010 01:19PM

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 · 14-02-2010 01:42PM

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 · 14-02-2010 01:53PM

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 · 14-02-2010 02:55PM

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

Mrmoe · 14-02-2010 03:14PM

CrazyRabbit wrote: »

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

What is the statistical variance on that?

Dudess · 14-02-2010 03:39PM

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

MaybeLogic · 14-02-2010 06:10PM

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 · 14-02-2010 06:26PM

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 · 14-02-2010 06:45PM

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

MaybeLogic · 14-02-2010 06:52PM

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 · 14-02-2010 07:09PM

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

My name is URL · 14-02-2010 07:14PM

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 · 14-02-2010 07:45PM

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

Hank_Jones · 14-02-2010 07:46PM

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 · 14-02-2010 07:52PM

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 · 14-02-2010 08:12PM

Overheal wrote: »

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

Hardly.

tipperaryboy · 14-02-2010 09:40PM

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 · 14-02-2010 10:43PM

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 · 14-02-2010 11:41PM

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 · 15-02-2010 12:28AM

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?

Overheal · 15-02-2010 12:48AM

hooradiation wrote: »

Hardly.

You only need to look at the modern day FDA or the history of the Marijuana Ban. Lets not get started on the controversy over Climate Change skepticism.