"Beware of Amateur Scientists"

jh79 · 07-07-2011 10:35am #1

Good article, reminded me of this forum

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/sciencetoday/2011/0707/1224300202341.html

Joshua Jones · 07-07-2011 2:08pm

jh79 wrote: »

Good article, reminded me of this forum

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/sciencetoday/2011/0707/1224300202341.html

Tl;dr Do not question, big daddy is always right.

What a crock!.

He goes on about the benefits of GM food and I'd agree with somethings that he says but to blindly accept so called "expert" opinion on an ethically questionable practice is absurd.

A lot of people on this forum would be against Monsantos attempt to corner the market with their terminator seed and use of Monsanto specific Round up. Neither of which he mentions. Also, he blithly mentions incorporating vaccines in crops. WTF, who do scientists think they are. They're vital for propress but not the most ethical or conciencous, some anyway. Think Oppenheimer. Great scientist, crap human being.

studiorat · 07-07-2011 2:47pm

Joshua Jones wrote: »

Tl;dr Do not question, big daddy is always right.

Damn Straight!!

Mahatma coat · 07-07-2011 3:19pm

the article was a bit Skewed alright, he focuses on the ''percieved' benefits of GM Food and more intensive agricultural processes without mentioning the tangible physical problems it causes like excessive nitrogen Runoff, land exhaustion, Natures inate ability to develop resistances to our pesticides leading to much hardier weeds and parasites, forced dependance on a small number of suppliers for seed, the homogonisation of crops to the detriment of Biodiversity....

for someone decrying amatuer Analysis the author really should have researched his position a bit better

Mahatma coat · 07-07-2011 3:22pm

also You've got Oppenheimer wrong, he was an average to good Scientist, but it was his Humainty and ability to relate to people, to unify them to a single purpose that made him a great person

read
an American Prometheus for a more indepth look at him

jh79 · 07-07-2011 3:22pm

studiorat wrote: »

Damn Straight!!

CT's are just like WWF (wwe? these days), 99% know its not real, 1% convince themselves it is real, but all in all its just a bit of fun

Mahatma coat · 07-07-2011 3:24pm

so what do you Know is not Real, how do you come to these conclusions????

I'm genuinley curious as to how people come to that conclusion

ETA, anyone else look at that photo and think
Jaysus Mairt/Makikomi has REALLY Let himself go recently

:D:D

Joshua Jones · 07-07-2011 3:32pm

Mahatma coat wrote: »

also You've got Oppenheimer wrong, he was an average to good Scientist, but it was his Humainty and ability to relate to people, to unify them to a single purpose that made him a great person

read
an American Prometheus for a more indepth look at him

In fairness you would know more about him than I do but in saying that he must have known what he was developing and its future use. I would call his humanity into question for that reason.

Also my main point was that some scientists push the boundries of what we can do but fail to ask should we do it.

hooradiation · 07-07-2011 3:46pm

Joshua Jones wrote: »

Tl;dr Do not question, big daddy is always right.

What a crock!.

Your link must lead to a different article than it did for me.

He's got a point, questioning things is good, but as he points out when it comes down to something I don't understand and two differing opinions are being presented, one from a "professional" and one from an "amateur" then I am going to listen to the former over the latter.

Though i will say that the middle part is mostly a scattergun listing of what the author considers to be the negative impact of amateur being given more credibility than he feels they deserve, and is a poor way to argue the core point.

studiorat · 07-07-2011 3:49pm

Joshua Jones wrote: »

Also my main point was that some scientists push the boundries of what we can do but fail to ask should we do it.

Who should they have to ask?

Mahatma coat · 07-07-2011 3:53pm

link borked studiorat, what was it???

oh and ME, they should have to ask me:D:D:D thers no way I would have alowed some of the more monstorous inventions of the 20th century, like Furbies or poptarts or FWD Cars

:D:D

tricky D · 07-07-2011 3:57pm

The MMR bit is funny. He neglects to mention the flawed study was from a professional scientific expert, not some amateur.

His GM negative issues are also narrowed down to merely the ingestion of synthetic herbicide. There's more to the issue than that.

studiorat · 07-07-2011 4:01pm

Mahatma coat wrote: »

link borked studiorat, what was it???

oh and ME, they should have to ask me:D:D:D thers no way I would have alowed some of the more monstorous inventions of the 20th century, like Furbies or poptarts or FWD Cars :D:D

It was to Copehagen Fall Out about Bohr and Heisenberg's discussions and the ethics of the atom bomb. And then I though, what's the point why waste it on the flying saucer brigade.:pac:

Mahatma coat · 07-07-2011 4:09pm

this??
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3325831859220140461#

thanks I'll watch it tonight

and hey, We have feelings too

the Nom de jour for our ilk is
TinfoilHat Brigade not Flying Saucer brigade

those Flying Saucer folk are a right bunch of wierdos

:D:D

hooradiation · 07-07-2011 4:23pm

tricky D wrote: »

The MMR bit is funny. He neglects to mention the flawed study was from a professional scientific expert, not some amateur.

Not really though, because while wakefield was, at the time, a professional, by the time his work became news we had people like Carol Vorderman giving their opinion and that opinion being given the same consideration as anyone other professional scientific expert.
And while i have no doubt that Ms Vorderman is a bright person, she's still an amateur in that area.

Brown Bomber · 07-07-2011 4:24pm

jh79 wrote: »

Good article, reminded me of this forum

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/sciencetoday/2011/0707/1224300202341.html

Beware of trolls.

jh79 · 07-07-2011 4:29pm

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Beware of trolls.

How does linking that article make me a troll? Its a pretty apt article for this forum where a bit of perspective is sometimes needed.

Brown Bomber · 07-07-2011 5:11pm

jh79 wrote: »

How does linking that article make me a troll? Its a pretty apt article for this forum where a bit of perspective is sometimes needed.

Well perhaps you should elaborate on what the talking points actually are and how they are specifically related to this forum.

Mahatma coat · 07-07-2011 5:56pm

jh79 wrote: »

How does linking that article make me a troll? Its a pretty apt article for this forum where a bit of perspective is sometimes needed.

whilst this thread in itself wouldnt make you a Troll, your 99% statement would raise a few eyebrows

My name is URL · 07-07-2011 6:01pm

Since we're listing off those who should not be taken seriously, perhaps scientists who regularly write columns for religious publications should be included

http://www.irishcatholic.ie/site/search/node/william%20reville

studiorat · 07-07-2011 6:09pm

Mahatma coat wrote: »

this??
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3325831859220140461#

thanks I'll watch it tonight

and hey, We have feelings too the Nom de jour for our ilk is
TinfoilHat Brigade not Flying Saucer brigade

those Flying Saucer folk are a right bunch of wierdos :D:D

That's the one, hope it's not too mainstream for ya.

Enjoy.

My name is URL wrote: »

Since we're listing off those who should not be taken seriously, perhaps scientists who regularly write columns for religious publications should be included

http://www.irishcatholic.ie/site/search/node/william%20reville

It's true, I know a man in Enniscorthy, goes to mass everyday, 94 years old!
Atheists have the shortest lifespan of all of the preponderant doctrines of religious and philosophical thought.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9780470147658.chpsy0117/full

fontanalis · 07-07-2011 6:56pm

studiorat wrote: »

That's the one, hope it's not too mainstream for ya.

Enjoy.

It's true, I know a man in Enniscorthy, goes to mass everyday, 94 years old!
Atheists have the shortest lifespan of all of the preponderant doctrines of religious and philosophical thought.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9780470147658.chpsy0117/full

Proof of god?

Mahatma coat · 07-07-2011 7:04pm

Does that Aulfella ya know live somewhere up near Vinegar hill????????

if its ther same aulfella I'm thinkin of the Mass aint doin the Miserable aul b****x any good, I think the only reason he's still here is that God cant face the Prospect of an eternity with the Whingin Fecker

:D:D

Monty Burnz · 07-07-2011 8:04pm

tricky D wrote: »

The MMR bit is funny. He neglects to mention the flawed study was from a professional scientific expert, not some amateur.

But the study was proved to be flawed, and the people who ran with its faulty conclusions were amateurs. Scientists can be wrong or corrupt too - the scientific method relies on the community finding out the charlatans.

jh79 · 08-07-2011 10:20am

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Well perhaps you should elaborate on what the talking points actually are and how they are specifically related to this forum.

Well on this forum there has been threads on cures for cancer and stuff about AIDS and GM food. The GERSON therapy thing is especially bad from a scientific stand point and colloidal silver also, but because it can be percieved to be some sort of "big pharma" conspiracy the obvious scientific flaws are ignored because the narrative is so appealing.

jh79 · 08-07-2011 10:29am

Mahatma coat wrote: »

whilst this thread in itself wouldnt make you a Troll, your 99% statement would raise a few eyebrows

Fair enough, but CT are generally pretty outlandish so odds are only a small minority will turn out to be true, which CT's that have featured on this forum do you believe to be accurate?

Even for the most ardent CT'er it doesn't make sense for all of them to be true so how do you which ones have legs?

espinolman · 08-07-2011 11:26am

I would beware of scientists with vested interests , that would include any scientist with a job .
The only ones i would trust are the amateurs with no vested interests , preferably with no job and no hope of ever making money from what they publish .

hooradiation · 08-07-2011 11:45am

espinolman wrote: »

I would beware of scientists with vested interests , that would include any scientist with a job .
The only ones i would trust are the amateurs with no vested interests , preferably with no job and no hope of ever making money from what they publish .

This assumes that there is such a thing as having a person with absolutely zero vested interest, which given your amazingly wide definition of vested interest, is an impossibility.

jh79 · 08-07-2011 11:47am

espinolman wrote: »

I would beware of scientists with vested interests , that would include any scientist with a job .
The only ones i would trust are the amateurs with no vested interests , preferably with no job and no hope of ever making money from what they publish .

Science is one of the worst paid professions in Ireland for the level of qualifications needed, if you want to get rich don't become a scientist.

So you expect people to find cures for various illnesses but do it for free?

Also the majority of stuff that gets published has no commercial value, if a drug has commercial potential the findings are held back until the intellectual property is protected by a patent.

jh79 · 08-07-2011 11:56am

espinolman wrote: »

I would beware of scientists with vested interests , that would include any scientist with a job .
The only ones i would trust are the amateurs with no vested interests , preferably with no job and no hope of ever making money from what they publish .

The term amateur scientist in the original article refers to people spouting scientific information without actually having any sort of sciene education. How can you have strong opinions on something that you couldn't possible understand?

You are either a scientist or your not

jackiebaron · 08-07-2011 1:03pm

jh79 wrote: »

CT's are just like WWF (wwe? these days), 99% know its not real, 1% convince themselves it is real, but all in all its just a bit of fun

Stupid statement.

jh79 · 08-07-2011 1:56pm

jackiebaron wrote: »

Stupid statement.

Regret that now.

What I consider a CT is probably different to what you do. The whole David Icke/aliens on the moon or mars/chemtrails/elvis are all a bit outlandish and not to be taken seriously.

Goverments up to no good i would call just modern politics

My pet hate is the alternative medicine vs big pharma thing on here. They are both industries run by shareholders. Just because something is natural doesn't make it good. As the article in the op says, the natural pesticides in plants are equally as toxic as the synthetic and in a higher conc. The pharma industry is extremely regulated wih only 1 in 5000 drugs making it from r&d to market so where the conspiracy? If they are bribing left right and centre they are not getting much in return. When they have been caught stepping out of line the fines have been massive. When St John Wort was taken off the market were any of the natural remedy companies fined for not testing their product before putting it on the market?

Joshua Jones · 08-07-2011 3:37pm

jh79 wrote: »

Regret that now.

What I consider a CT is probably different to what you do. The whole David Icke/aliens on the moon or mars/chemtrails/elvis are all a bit outlandish and not to be taken seriously.

Very few threads on any of those topics from what I can see. Going to extremes to try and prove a point doesn't look too good.

Goverments up to no good i would call just modern politics

I think this is the basis of your problems. For me, Governments up to no good is not acceptable on any level. They cover up/hide what their at but doesn't mean they should be allowed to do as they wish and any wrongdoing should be uncovered if possible.

My pet hate is the alternative medicine vs big pharma thing on here. They are both industries run by shareholders. Just because something is natural doesn't make it good. As the article in the op says, the natural pesticides in plants are equally as toxic as the synthetic and in a higher conc. The pharma industry is extremely regulated wih only 1 in 5000 drugs making it from r&d to market so where the conspiracy? If they are bribing left right and centre they are not getting much in return. When they have been caught stepping out of line the fines have been massive. When St John Wort was taken off the market were any of the natural remedy companies fined for not testing their product before putting it on the market?

Their getting pleny of return. Lets look at the overall Big Pharma spend on lobbyists and then Johnson and Johnson.

From Wiki:The top twenty pharmaceutical companies and their two trade groups, Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) and Biotechnology Industry Organization, lobbied on at least 1,600 pieces of legislation between 1998 and 2004. According to the non-partisan Center for Responsive Politics, pharmaceutical companies spent $900 million on lobbying between 1998 and 2005, more than any other industry. During the same period, they donated $89.9 million to federal candidates and political parties, giving approximately three times as much to Republicans as to Democrats.[1] According to the Center for Public Integrity, from January 2005 through June 2006 alone, the pharmaceutical industry spent approximately $182 million on Federal lobbying.[2] The industry has 1,274 registered lobbyists in Washington D.C. [3]

That's some amount of brown envelopes.

J&J: Turnover: 62 Billion
R+D: 7 Billion
Net Profit: 12 Billion

Just one Pharma company getting plenty in return from conering the market and destroying competition i.e natural remedies etc.

ed2hands · 08-07-2011 6:56pm

Mahatma coat wrote: »

the article was a bit Skewed alright

A bit???:)

Monsanto themselves couldn't have written a more skewed piece of garbage.
He's basically intoning that that all "amateur" criticism or enquiry is null and void unless you have a science degree. His side-swipes at his percieved media championing of the amateur opinion over "expert analysis" is a thinly veiled advocating of some form of censorship on these matters.
Oh yeah so these amateurs have to bow down before their learned masters unless they can satisfy the door policy for credentials before daring to utter any opinions or criticisms?

This scientific person then then puts forth the completely biased and one-sided views that GM food is so fantastic, it has virtually single-handedly saved mankind from starvation, and provided "food security"

Pass me the sick bag...

ed2hands · 08-07-2011 7:06pm

jh79 wrote: »

The term amateur scientist in the original article refers to people spouting scientific information without actually having any sort of sciene education. How can you have strong opinions on something that you couldn't possible understand?

You are either a scientist or your not

Pure and utter tosh old chap.

espinolman · 08-07-2011 7:45pm

jh79 wrote: »

So you expect people to find cures for various illnesses but do it for free?
.

Yes . Definitely . The way it used to be .

Lab_Mouse · 09-07-2011 7:04pm

espinolman wrote: »

Yes . Definitely . The way it used to be .

ah i remember when it was like this...get a dock leaf for a nettle sting etc etc.

some diseases/illnesses need solving by throwing fuk loads of money and research at them.while there is no doubt it involves making money for the people that do it,they have the resources and know how(and by know how i dont mean an internet connection;))to do it.As a whole we all benefit.

ignoring the financial side of things,we live longer,procreate longer because people/companies put cash up front to fix us.

We live in a first world country,who was the last person you knew that died of TB?Syphilis?Leprosy?

Even AIDS isnt the death sentence it was...

leave it to amatuers me hole.......

Monty Burnz · 09-07-2011 7:21pm

espinolman wrote: »

Yes . Definitely . The way it used to be .

Well, look at the medical advances for the last 150 years, and compare with the previous 200,000 years. Which system seems to work better?

By the way, sorry to cross threads, but did you ever explain why nobody has ever discussed or even phographed the 'vitrified buildings' of the Aran Islands?

espinolman · 09-07-2011 10:53pm

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Well, look at the medical advances for the last 150 years, and compare with the previous 200,000 years. Which system seems to work better?

Organic foods and herbs do work for cancer , what the conventional crowd do be at , does'nt , because so many people die , i know more than a few people who have died in their hands , whom had cancer
When i had cancer , i sorted it out with herbs and organic foods , of course the fffing EU is banning all that now , herbs and vitamins , because they want more people to die , what the codex thing is about , population reduction .
l

CiaranMT · 09-07-2011 11:55pm

[QUOTE=espinolman;73215097]Organic foods and herbs do work for cancer , what the conventional crowd do be at , does'nt , because so many people die , i know more than a few people who have died in their hands , whom had cancer
When i had cancer , i sorted it out with herbs and organic foods , of course the fffing EU is banning all that now , herbs and vitamins , because they want more people to die , what the codex thing is about , population reduction .
l[/QUOTE]

Sorry to be so predictable, but, source?

espinolman · 10-07-2011 9:57am

CiaranMT wrote: »

Sorry to be so predictable, but, source?

The source is myself , i figured out how to sort cancer out years ago , before the internet was around .

King Mob · 10-07-2011 1:10pm

espinolman wrote: »

The source is myself , i figured out how to sort cancer out years ago , before the internet was around .

Care to explain how you figured it out and how you know it works?
Or are you selfishly hogging the cure for cancer like those evil corporations?

espinolman · 10-07-2011 3:18pm

King Mob wrote: »

Care to explain how you figured it out and how you know it works?
Or are you selfishly hogging the cure for cancer like those evil corporations?

In japan there was very little cancer and heart disease compared to other countries , so i figured out it must be because of their diet , so then i had to find out what is missing from our diet here in ireland . Its trace elements and minerals and other things . So i had to experiment with different foods , i was so ill that my stomach would not accept mineral rich foods , i could not stomach them , so to handle that i found out certain herbs can help to increase the absorbtion of the stomach , so i got a lot of them herbs and took them everyday , while eating mineral rich foods and organic foods .
I soon recovered my health .
Today , all these years later , i just do the same thing if the tumours come back , and it works , they just go away .

King Mob · 10-07-2011 3:23pm

espinolman wrote: »

In japan there was very little cancer and heart disease compared to other countries , so i figured out it must be because of their diet , so then i had to find out what is missing from our diet here in ireland . Its trace elements and minerals and other things . So i had to experiment with different foods , i was so ill that my stomach would not accept mineral rich foods , i could not stomach them , so to handle that i found out certain herbs can help to increase the absorbtion of the stomach , so i got a lot of them herbs and took them everyday , while eating mineral rich foods and organic foods .
I soon recovered my health .
Today , all these years later , i just do the same thing if the tumours come back , and it works , they just go away .

And any chance you can back any of this up with anything resembling evidence?
Maybe name the herbs and the minerals you think are involved?

Because if you genuinely believe you've discovered the cure for cancer (regardless of whether or not it works in reality) then by not publishing you work and getting the information out there in as much detail as possible, then how are you any different to all those evil companies?

espinolman · 10-07-2011 5:43pm

King Mob wrote: »

Because if you genuinely believe you've discovered the cure for cancer (regardless of whether or not it works in reality) then by not publishing you work and getting the information out there in as much detail as possible, then how are you any different to all those evil companies?

Thats a very point there King Mob .

King Mob · 10-07-2011 5:45pm

espinolman wrote: »

Thats a very point there King Mob .

So that's a no about actually backing up what you've claimed?
Why is that?

jh79 · 11-07-2011 10:51am

espinolman wrote: »

Yes . Definitely . The way it used to be .

When was it ever done for free? Would you work for free? Assuming you mean that the scientist worked for free how would they pay for the lab supplies and equipment and space? We are talking millions here where would this come from?

Give us an example of a scientist that worked for free without any support financially and what they achieved?

jh79 · 11-07-2011 12:12pm

espinolman wrote: »

Organic foods and herbs do work for cancer , what the conventional crowd do be at , does'nt , because so many people die , i know more than a few people who have died in their hands , whom had cancer
When i had cancer , i sorted it out with herbs and organic foods , of course the fffing EU is banning all that now , herbs and vitamins , because they want more people to die , what the codex thing is about , population reduction .
l

Simple question, how? Diet is a risk factor in terms of developing cancer alright but to say it cures it is a big statement.

Why does it need to be organic? Whats the molecular target? What affect did it have on normal cell growth seeing as both normal and cancerous cells share pretty much the same cell biology?, this is where the difficulty lies when treating cancer.

The EU aren't banning vitamins or herbs, they just want proof of clinical benefits and safety before they go on sale. Seems pretty reasonable to me. Have to be careful with alternative medicines, anything could be present. Chinese remedies sometimes contain lead because it deposits in the eyes and gives a shiny appearance which is considered healthy in their culture.

Why would this bother the alternative medicine crowd, if it works they'll make a fortune even if it can't be patented , companies still make money from aspirin

ed2hands · 11-07-2011 4:45pm

jh79 wrote: »

Give us an example of a scientist that worked for free without any support financially and what they achieved?

Einstein.

jh79 · 11-07-2011 5:02pm

ed2hands wrote: »

Einstein.

Really, how did he pay the rent, feed himself? Must of had a good part-time job on the side?

studiorat · 11-07-2011 8:55pm

jh79 wrote: »

Really, how did he pay the rent, feed himself? Must of had a good part-time job on the side?

I think he was a patent clerk or something like that and then wrote for science journals. Einstein is the exception to the rule and had degrees in maths and physics etc.

"Beware of Amateur Scientists"

Comments