On 8/24/2013 3:18 PM, Warp wrote:
> clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
>>> Given the propensity of creationists to lie, distort and misinterpret in
>>> order to promote their religion, that puts into question anything that
>>> they write, even if they are just quoting facts.
>
>> The same thing can be said about most scientific studies as well (except
>> that there it's not about promoting a religion, but the sponsor's
>> interests).
>
> *sigh*
>
> That's precisely one of the most persistent lies that creationists spout
> all the time (in order to try to give more credibility to their own
> position.)
>
> Why do some people swallow creationist propaganda without any kind of
> fact-checking? Also, that claim makes absolutely no sense. What possible
> interest woud these "sponsors" have to make scientist come up with
> conclusions that are opposite to creationist claims? (For example, what
> possible interest would these "sponsors" have in making scientist claim
> that the Earth is billions of years old? That claim just doesn't make
> any sense.)
>
The problem here is that there "are" now paid shills (lots and lots more 
of them than back when the people paying them thought science would 
vindicate their ideas, not disembowel them), like Cato, and those 
working for certain corporations/interests, who do both cherry pick 
their data, and lie, to promote the positions they are *paid* to. 
Unfortunately, unlike doctors, you can't pull a scientists license to do 
research, even blatantly bad, or false, research. All you can do is 
refuse to hire them at reputable institutions. The problem being, the 
public isn't stupid, and they know they people exist, but they don't 
know enough to tell which ones are presenting facts, and real evidence, 
and which ones where paid to muck up the details, then present gibberish 
to policy makers, or anyone else that decides to listen. And, the direct 
result of this is that you are as likely to find people believing the 
"experts" who are paid to push bullshit, as they are to believe the real 
science. And, this is *especially* true when the bullshit a) will 
protect their job, b) makes false, but, to them, believable, promises, 
or c) is made out to be, by various similarly paid shill news agencies, 
to be one of two options, and the difference between those a "controversy".

Just look at things like Dr. Oz, and Dr. Phil. Both are obvious quacks, 
both promote things that are just plain nuts, Phil had his medical 
license taken away, and I can't imagine that Oz will last either, given 
his insane tendency to use aroma therapy, and who the hell knows what 
else, as "part" of his surgeries. Not only is at least one of them still 
working in his field, both have prominent jobs as spokesmen for things 
that imho, should get both of them permanently banned from even 
suggesting they know anything about medicine. And, neither even works 
for a so called "think tank". Those, can also promote any bullshit they 
want, but they *must* do so in a way that is actually believable, to 
people that should know better.

Sometimes they are doing "applied science". And, here is the thing - 
that doesn't generate new information, since its directed at getting a 
specific result, and producing a specific end product, and they only 
give a damn whether it works, or it doesn't, not what gets "learned" 
from it. They also, in such cases, all sign NDEs, and rarely, if ever, 
will the public ever hear "anything" from them.

So, yeah, if some scientist has a "sponsor", you might want to question 
what they are doing, especially if they spend like 90% of their time 
writing papers about other people's work, and not doing any actual 
research. Such people are not, however, conducting science, they are 
"marketing", while presenting the sale, to the buyer, as though it was 
science. Creationists are only notable in that they do this, with a 
absurd purpose of, on one hand, trying to use as much real information 
as they can, without undermining their argument, they think, all so they 
can prove that the universe was created by a being that, by definition, 
didn't need to use science to do any damn bit of it. Of course, they 
can't manage it without claiming that he did such and such X way, but 
didn't do it Y way, and did so in a way we can't detect, even though we 
detected it, and on, and on, while often claiming two contradictory 
things in the same sentence..

Most real scientists never so much as speak to the public, even if they 
work for some "sponsor" company, are more often than not pissed when 
they find out how their results got misused (or just misinterpreted), 
and/or are doing their research on the government dime, not on the 
behest of private companies/interests. At most, some of them might work 
for colleges, who got some money, from some private source, but.. those 
people are not looking to "make up" results, they expect to actually do 
the research, find a real result, and only report on the details, when 
they actually know what the hell is going on, whether its "useful" for 
someone or otherwise. They are most certainly not expect to "produce" 
such results. The very idea presumes they already know enough about what 
they are experimenting on to know the outcome, or how to believably fake 
one. Which makes, logically, about as much sense as an explorer thinking 
they can get by with "describing" a location no one has been to, without 
bothering to actually go there and look, because, of course.. no one 
else is going to either, right? lol

Post a reply to this message