Re: Research and scientists

[Guest guest]

Carruthers<Carruthersjam@a...> wrote:

> Can any research article be completely flawless?

> What is correct today maybe erroneous tomorrow. Nevertheless, it is

> a difficult task to change the methods of some researchers due to the

> fact that scientists are religious in their own beliefs.

Mel Siff:

<Science exists for the very reason that it proves and disproves theories

every day and for the fact if we knew every answer, there would be

absolutely no need for science at all!

Note that, unlike most " religious " folk, some scientists are " multi-religious "

and apply, change and adapt to different " religions " and levels of skepticism at

different times. Note that any scientific article, right in the beginning, is

classically supposed to clearly state its " scope and limitations " , while its

results are supposed to offer some sort of error analysis and

recommendations for further study. In addition, every statement is supposed to

be

backed up by a literature review and a list of relevant references. If this is

not done, it is not the fault of science, but of some reviewers and some

scientists.

> We need science - however, are we becoming slaves of science? Science

> should serve humanity and not the other way round.

Mel Siff:

<Contrary to what people may say, most of the time, science is subservient to

humanity.

Science discovers and develops, but humans, very often in the form

of politicians and unnecessarily greedy entrepreneurs exploit and abuse it.

Science needs to be a lot less of a servant and far more of a leader than it

currently is.

Per scientiae ad astra - through knowledge to the stars! >

An absolutely super answer, Mel, but with reference to the last

paragraph do you feel that science will ever become the 'leader' so

to speak? 'Greedy entrepreneurs exploit and abuse it' - the industry

employs young scientists who today, in most cases, are employed for a

fixed period. At the start of work they feel that it is possible to

work independently, without any interference, but after some time it

will be realised that the results of his/her research/work are

appreciated when they comply to the wishes of the employer. If the

scientist dared to question some of the expected results, pretty soon

they'd have to look for a new job. It becomes the quest for survival

rather than the truth. People then because of the 'large

business/money/power' lose their creativeness.

If I were working for a supplement company and had to say what I was

being told - I can't say that I wouldn't do it especially if I had no

money - that quest for survival does something to us all are we right

in doing so or do we have to rebel and say no its no the truth I'm

not going to say that or write that.

Cheers

Carruthers

Wakefield

England

[Guest guest]

> From: " carruthersjam " <Carruthersjam@...>

>

> Can any research article be completely flawless?

No, almost all research will have some type of flaw. But that doesn't mean

it isn't useful and that we can't draw meaningful conclusions from it.

> What is correct today maybe erroneous tomorrow.

This is true, but the beauty of science is in its self-correcting nature.

The good stuff is kept while the bad stuff is thrown away as new evidence is

gathered.

>Nevertheless, it is

> a difficult task to change the methods of some researchers due to the

> fact that scientists are religious in their own beliefs.

What do you mean that scientists are " religous in their own beliefs " ? Are

you referring to some scientists who hold dogmatically to certain hypotheses

despite conflicting evidence? Yes, there are scientists like this, but

again, given enough time and enough evidence, the poorly supported ideas

will eventually be thrown away by the scientific community as a whole.

Krieger

Graduate Assistant, Exercise Science

Washington State University

Webmaster, WSU Strength and Conditioning

http://www.wsu.edu/~strength

Science Editor, Pure Power Magazine

http://www.purepowermag.com