Public perceptions of science: was Why Most Published Research Findings Are False

From: Don Nield <d.nield@auckland.ac.nz>
Date: Thu Sep 08 2005 - 17:51:15 EDT

I largely agree with Bob and Michael, but I would say that ID is not
entirely to blame. People like Richard Dawkins, who holds an Oxford
chair which is meant to enhance the public understsnding of science, are
actually counter-productive when they add atheistic scientism to their
science. For many members of the public, who are unable to distinguish
the scientism from the science, this puts science in a bad light.
Don

Michael Roberts wrote:

> I am surprised that no one has picked Bob up on this . does everyone
> agree or is Bob just a leftie?
>
> I consider this to be a very serious issue, but it treads on many toes.
>
> Tonight a leading light of Christians in Science described ID to me as
> devilish and needing to be stamped under foot. Is he just another r
> Episcopalian leftie like Bob and myself?
>
> Michael
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* Robert Schneider <mailto:rjschn39@bellsouth.net>
> *To:* Michael Roberts <mailto:michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk>
> *Cc:* asa@calvin.edu <mailto:asa@calvin.edu>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, September 06, 2005 12:13 PM
> *Subject:* Re: Why Most Published Research Findings Are False
>
> I agree, Michael, but I think, unfortunately, that the attitude
> toward scientists expressed in Janice's screed are all too common
> among ID supporters and reflect a growing anti-science movement in
> the US. Science has become enmeshed in the culture wars here.
> The inherent methodological skepticism that a scientist should
> bring to the reading of any published research is one thing. But
> what we have here, I think, is the creation of negative images of
> the scientific endeavor for the purposes of ideological agendas,
> and loaded rhetoric that characterizes any scientific hypotheses
> or research the anti-science people don't like with terms
> like "junk science" promoted by advocates of "the religion of
> scientism." As charges that the present US administration's
> ideologues have been manipulating scientific research, some by its
> own agencies, for its own purposes, e.g., in the controversy over
> global warming, becomes more of a public issue, you can bet
> that partisan attacks against the research and those who conduct
> it will grow. I think that the scientific community as a whole
> have been slow to respond to this state of affairs publically, for
> example it has taken a decade to wake up to the assault on
> mainstream science by the ID advocates and see the growing
> negative effects it has engendered in the American public. Public
> confidence in science in this country has eroded, perhaps for a
> number of reasons (e.g., the unintended negative effects of some
> technological applications of scientific discoveries; or
> technological applications that go against some peoples' religious
> beliefs), but one of them has been the conflict over evolution and
> ID and the success of the ID people in morphing sincere believers'
> apprehensions about evolution into a more general distrust of
> science. All of the above is, of course, MHO.
>
> Bob Schneider
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* Michael Roberts <mailto:michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk>
> *To:* Pim van Meurs <mailto:pimvanmeurs@yahoo.com> ; janice
> matchett <mailto:janmatch@earthlink.net>
> *Cc:* asa@calvin.edu <mailto:asa@calvin.edu>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, September 06, 2005 1:55 AM
> *Subject:* Re: Why Most Published Research Findings Are False
>
> Wow! What utter nonsense
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* janice matchett <mailto:janmatch@earthlink.net>
> *To:* Pim van Meurs <mailto:pimvanmeurs@yahoo.com>
> *Cc:* asa@calvin.edu <mailto:asa@calvin.edu>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, September 06, 2005 12:45 AM
> *Subject:* Re: Why Most Published Research Findings Are False
>
> At 04:33 PM 9/4/2005, Pim van Meurs wrote:
>
>> It pays off to read the paper in question as it presents
>> a much better understanding as to why this is the case.
>>
>> The paper itself states " However, this should not be
>> surprising. It can be proven that most claimed research
>> findings are false."
>>
>> Interesting study which shows why science is such a
>> challenging endeavor.
>>
>> *dila813 on
>> http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1473915/posts
>> explained it quite well*
>>
>> Pim
>>
>> What's your conclusion Janice?
>
>
> ## My conclusion? Follow the money. Money, power, and
> approval from their peers is what motivates those who
> engage in *junk *science and the *religion* of
> scien*tism.* They outnumber serious scientists 99 to 1.
> Many of them teach their *religion* of scien*tism *in
> science classes in the public schools.
>
> If children come out of the tax-payer funded schools
> believing that man will "destroy the planet" unless the
> USA signs the Kyoto "treaty", they have not learned
> "science" in science class.
>
> That is going to stop.
>
> Janice
>
>> janice matchett wrote:
>>
>>> Interesting article in case some haven't seen it. ~ Janice
>>>
>>> *Why Most Published Research Findings Are False
>>> *Published online 2005 August 30. doi:
>>> 10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124.
>>> http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pubmed&pubmedid=16060722
>>> <http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pubmed&pubmedid=16060722>
>>> <http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pubmed&pubmedid=16060722
>>> <http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pubmed&pubmedid=16060722>>Copyright
>>> <http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/about/copyright.html>:
>>> 2005 John P. A. Ioannidis.
>>>
>>> The above was posted by me here in the thread below:
>>> http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1473915/posts?page=34#34
>>>
>>> *Most scientific papers are probably wrong
>>> <http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1473915/posts>**newscientist.com
>>> ^
>>> <http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1473915//%5Ehttp://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7915>
>>> *| 02:00 30 August 2005 | Kurt Kleiner
>>> Posted on *08/31/2005 3:09:18 AM EDT* by *dila813
>>> *http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1473915/posts
>>>
>

-- 
Donald A. Nield
Associate Professor, Department of Engineering Science
University of Auckland
Private Bag 92019
Auckland, NEW ZEALAND
ph  +64 9 3737599 x87908 
fax +64 9 3737468
Courier address: 70 Symonds Street, Room 235 or 305
d.nield@auckland.ac.nz
http://www.esc.auckland.ac.nz/People/Staff/Nield/
Received on Thu Sep 8 17:53:12 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Sep 08 2005 - 17:53:12 EDT