The Top 40

The thing is, I wouldn't be surprised if this hasn't always been the case, but is only most recently getting close examination. Science is a lot of trust that your colleagues actually know what they're doing and are doing professional work.

Since no one scientist can possibly be an expert in everything, they have to rely on the expertise of others not in their field. That's why there was this whole "consensus" in climate science; a basic comprehension of greenhouse gas in theory and the presumption that guys in the field knew what they were doing and weren't con men.

This is a beautiful yet short scientific critique. Saganism is the apologetics of unbelief. It is the foundation of an amazing illogical and banal processing of evil by the secularist. It always starts and ends with the very speculative THEOLOGY of: "THERE IS NO GOD".

Science — shmience. All I believe is what I have learned from watching Mr. Wizard.

As Horace so succinctly observed:

Naturam expellas furca, tamen usque recurret.
(You may drive out Nature with a pitchfork, yet she still will hurry back.)
Quintus Horatius Flaccus (65 BCE – 8 BCE)

I loved Carl and he was a most interesting guy and he always makes me wonder about things. But really, that's about it.

C.H. Spurgeon, views on the infallibility of science:

"What is science? [it is]the method by which man tries to conceal his ignorance. It should
not be so, but so it is. You are not to be dogmatical in theology, my brethren, it is
wicked; but for scientific men, it is the correct thing. You are never to assert anything very strongly; but scientists may boldly assert what they cannot prove, and may demand a faith far more credulous than any we possess. "

"The great scientists live by killing those who went before them. They know nothing for certain, except that their predecessors were wrong"

One [scientist]said to his minister, “My dear sir, surely you ought to adjust your beliefs to the progress of science.” “Yes,” said he, “but I have not had time to do it to-day, for I have not yet read the morning papers.”

Hey, maybe some university could offer a course in "Bad Science" or something?
"Latest Stanford University Studies Show...Bad Science"?

How to assess the ideas of a purported scientist: 1) Determine his specialty. If it's narrow (e.g. cross-pollination of ruffled petunias) he's a scientist; go to step 2. If it's broad (e.g. climate science, gender studies...) he's a surveyor; forget him. 2) Determine whether his ideas fall within his narrow specialty. If they do, give them due consideration. If they don't; forget him. All of these sweeping, generalized theories about how things work are useful only to scientists in better understanding their own work and determining how to proceed with their research. They are always a work in progress, and are displaced by new theories when they no longer explain observations.

Some might like to read the late Bryan G. Wallace's book, The Farce of Physics, which may be downloaded as a text file here:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/148507612/Wallace-The-Farce-of-Physics-1994

Thus the reason for peer reviews. Ever wonder why the data used for global warming basis wasn't subject to peer review and now that it has the data used (tree ring growth) has been totally discredited by the science community. Only the lib pols and scientists desperate for grants with an agenda are keeping it alive. A law suite that is currently before the courts will finally seal its fate.

LaZrtx, the left has largely taken over peer review as well. Bruce Charlton ran a journal named Medical Hypotheses, rejecting peer review entirely in favor of ideas which were " radical, interesting, dissenting, or sometimes amusing in a way likely to stimulate thought." The journal was so successful for thirty-five years that it was essentially bought out by Science Inc. and canned.

http://medicalhypotheses.blogspot.co.uk/2010/05/rip-medical-hypotheses.html

Yeah Peer Review process, meant to be a careful examination by skeptics and thinkers has become a rubber stamp by like-thinking zealots in too many fields.

I'm glad Global Warming has brought all this to light and has given people a more healthy level of skepticism and discernment when it comes to scientific issues but again THIS IS NOT NEW.

Today's "Peer Review" is nothing more than a kissy face circle for more grant money. You lie, I'll swear to it!

After having watched a couple of episodes of the new Cosmos, and Degrasse-Tyson (what is with the hyphenated names?), I am most struck by the repeated use of "Science tells us..." or "Science says that..." and similar.

Gee, replace the word science with the word religion and say the sentence again and see what it sounds like. Not self-aware at all.

The new Cosmos is designed to convince the "rubes" that they mustn't question the scientists. It's been subtle so far. I expect it to become more blatant as the show goes on.

He looks like Reggie Jackson.

Yeah and he's one of those manufactured cools. He's not cool in and of himself, there's nothing dynamic, fresh, or charismatic about the man, he's just been presented as cool and the undiscerning and mentally feeble nod and agree. Most of America has been carefully conditioned to think anyone with a high melanin content is cooler to begin with.