Quote from Cervid1. It seems you are only interested in funding research that has a direct, and applicable benefit to humans. So, you're against most basic research?
Quote from Cervid2. Scientists publish their results routinely. They aren't trying to hide their research, they're trying to conduct their research without being constantly harassed by people who are looking to warp their research into anything but the truth. The data will eventually get published, and a case made for whatever conclusions they make.
Quote from beebopbellopumI have a question: would you consider Richard Feynman, under your definition, to be a "legitimate scientist?"
Quote from beebopbellopumOh I see, you believe scientific research must be done in order to benefit the public, never mind then. It seems that you are typifying all scientists as the "climate scientist," and scientific research as "research done by climate scientists."
Quote from HarkiusCommunication is a two-way street. You can't explain calculus to someone that doesn't understand addition.
Quote from HarkiusFor example. Attempting to communicate science to lay people is not impossible, it is just often time consuming and difficult. Assuming that you are willing to invest the time and effort, you also have difficulties with bias against certain ideas (for example, I can't explain Bayesian statistics without mocking it), oversimplification, and other factors.
Quote from HarkiusWe're saying that the people who already know it can ask for the data, and they will understand it. It's not the case that people here are arguing that data and results should be completely withheld. We're saying that it is difficult to explain it to people, not that educated persons shouldn't be allowed to have it.
Quote from HarkiusYou can't really predict where research is going to end up. For example, dual-use research.
Quote from HarkiusNo, but the NIH and NSF are the largest granting agencies, and they give money to scientists to do research. What's your point?
Quote from HarkiusYou see that "ought" that you typed? You notice that it wasn't an "is"? Yeah, you might want to work on that.
Quote from HarkiusLegitimate requests are usually responded to favorably by scientists. Ridiculous ones are seen as the burden that they are.
Quote from HarkiusTime taken from research would be better spent by educating the public on the off-chance that they might do the research themselves. But...oh wait...they would be educating other people. Damn. I guess we'd better do some research.
Quote from HarkiusYou make several staggering assumptions there. First, that their help would be more valuable than the person doing the research in the first place.
Quote from HarkiusSecond, that they won't fund the research willingly without understanding what they really do (which they currently are).
Quote from HarkiusThird, that they will increasingly fund it when rationally convinced that it would be in their "best interest". These are unreasonable assumptions.
Quote from HarkiusYeah. Let's give it a try for a while, see what happens.
Quote from HarkiusYou've wildly missed my point. I am saying that, currently, an FoI request usually operates the way that you are arguing against. Give me a good reason, i.e., something better than, "It's extortion! Oh noes!!!".
Quote from HarkiusAs long as you understand that the FoI is a claim, you see that there are two claims. One of them is illegitimate. Which one?
Quote from HarkiusYour true motives come to light.
Quote from HarkiusYeah, because Robert Boyle used a computer to calculate his law. : /
Quote from HarkiusDo you think that scientists are so stupid as to assume that it cannot be?
Quote from HarkiusYou know, most of the links I can find about the Electric Sun Theory are conspiracy theories. That's all that I know about it. It doesn't disprove it, but it makes me really suspicious. It doesn't even have a Wikipedia page, just a bunch of YouTube videos.
Quote from HarkiusSeriously? No. Seriously? Did you just say that people aren't scientists if their emails are disorganized? And that is a piece of what you call "proof"?
Quote from HarkiusThere you go with that "ought"/"is" problem again...
Quote from LogicXSo if the material a scientist is working on requires such a detailed knowledge of the field that someone without a degree in it couldn't understand it, then it is not science?
Originally Posted by http://www.ahrp.org/infomail/05/09/23c.php
Fri, 23 Sep 2005
A special issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association, JAMA, focuses on medical research spending and findings.
A study that examined US spending for medical research---$95 billion approaching $100 billion--57% is spent by industry, 28% by NIH.
But in an effort to answer whether this money is spent wisely--the answer is a resounding NO.
"The data in this article make it plain that we are spending huge amounts of money, more than any other country, to develop new drugs and devices and other treatments," said Dan Fox, president of the Milbank Memorial Fund, a philanthropic group that works on health policy issues. "But we are not spending as much as we could to disseminate the most effective treatments and practices throughout the health system."
The findings corroborate critics' analyses that most medical research funds are spent on marketing non-essential, "me too" drugs and treatments, while neglecting to develop treatments for intractable diseases. The findings also confirm the continuing health risk posed by industry's profit driven drug development.
Once a market has been created--even lethal drugs are aggressively marketed, mostly with false and misleading claims about their safety and efficacy--e.g., Vioxx and its class of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs; Paxil and its class of antidepressants; Risperdal and Zyprexa and their class of antipsychotics.
Quote from LogicXSo, what, you think they are making it up? If say, a physicist can't explain to a person with no knowledge of physics the basis of his research on quantum physics, then he is just a fraud because how could the material possibly be that difficult?
Quote from Blinking SpiritWhat does this say about your own theories? Have you ever explained any of them coherently to anyone?
Quote from RodyleAh, yes. I'd forgotten how they'd picked their data out of their own arse.
Quote from RodyleBecause apparently they do not exist, or at least not as they claim to be, as there is no scientific community.
Quote from RodyleYou said there was no scientific community, and we both were clearly talking about the scientific community as a whole. And now, you're moving the goal around by changing what we're talking about.
Quote from RodyleAnd Fred Singer, you mean Fred "second-hand smoking is untrue and the people who thought that up are quacks" Singer? Sure, he's a clever man, but there are quite a few other clever men who disagree with him.
Quote from RodyleThen it's a badly written paper and it needs to be rewritten.
Quote from RodyleIndependent panels have found that these guys didn't do all the stuff they were accused of.
Quote from RodyleAnd again: please learn the difference between climatologists and scientists as a whole. You made a thread about the latter, so please also discuss the latter.
Quote from RodyleRed herring. These scientist feel they are being hampered in their research by unreasonable requests. That hardly constitutes as what this law is meant for.
Quote from RodyleGoing through a few thousand mails, or going back a few thirty, perhaps forty versions of a paper and documenting each change and why you make it is not the 'appropriate scientific methodology'.
Quote from RodyleStraw man. My argument was that most scientists have no interest in entering spotlights and educating people.
Quote from RodyleI've helped a guy at my university with a paper on the effect of ubiquitination of the EGFR on its trafficking. It was a highly complicated article which people without the proper knowledge would not understand. But then again: to explain every detail about everything in that experiment would require a book about the size of your average novel.
Quote from RodyleWhere the idea comes from matters not. The only thing that matters if it turns out to be correct, and what evidence backs it up or disproves it.
And really? "attitudes antagonistic to mankind"?
Quote from RodyleBecause there is no such thing as a 'materials and methods' in any article.
OH WAIT, YES, THERE IS!
Quote from RodyleOr rather: they'd rather not release their preliminary results, since later experiments could disprove them. And seeing as how scientific results are misinterpreted so often by journalists, I don't blame them.
Quote from RodyleAlso, methods change. A lot. There is no such thing as "the biology method". There are literally thousands and thousands of ways to measure the same thing, and quite often, multiple are combined to try to deliver an as honest result as possible.
Quote from MarquothI haven't laughed this hard in ages.
Quote from MarquothIs it not absolutely blindingly obvious to you that grasping a particular concept may depend on first understanding more basic concepts?
Quote from MarquothTo borrow the example above, one must understand addition before one can hope to understand calculus. By the same token, a scientist may be researching what we might call (in an over-simplified, but easy-to-follow attempt to make my point) fourth or fifth tier concepts?
Quote from MarquothIt is perfectly acceptable to suppose the lay person will understand first and second tier concepts, but it is also inevitable that scientists will be researching topics which are simply far too esoteric for the lay person to ever have a hope in hell of coming close to understanding - there is simply too much prerequisite knowledge in the field. This is in no way a failure on the part of the scientist/researcher in question; it is an inevitability inherent in the furthering of any area of study.
Quote from SerafisThat's not the job of a scientist. That's the job of a middle man, which has traditionally been scientific journalism.
Quote from MarquothIt's a very different way of thinking to be able to bridge scientific understanding of reality to distill into something any layperson can understand.
Quote from HarkiusProbably. But it would take hundreds or thousands of generations. The selection pressure isn't that high.
Quote from HarkiusFirst, it won't be little time, evolutionary or otherwise. Second, your understanding of selection forces is failing here. Third, your understanding of population size is also failing here.
Quote from HarkiusIn brief, you aren't comprehending the problem. Dunbar's Number doesn't have anything to do with pure altruism. It has to do with the expectation of reciprocal altruism. This latter is predicated on knowledge of the person to whom you're being altruistic.
Quote from MarquothThis presupposes that there is a relevant selection pressure*.
Quote from InfinityAlarmIf one believes a holy text to be the literal word of a benevolent and infallible God, then Truth is laid out before them in the holy texts.
Quote from InfinityAlarmIf a holy text is to be taken literally, how does one reconcile things written that seem to conflict with the world around them or with other things in the same set of texts which are literally true?
Quote from InfinityAlarmHow does one deal with the problem of trying to determine what is literally meant when the language used is ambiguous in meaning?
Quote from InfinityAlarmIf holy texts are open to interpretation, and thus a person sees in them whatever they wish, in what sense are they special or reflective of some sort of Ultimate Truth?
Quote from InfinityAlarmDoes God show a person the meaning He wishes for them to see? If this is so, why would He want different people reading conflicting things as Truth?
Quote from InfinityAlarmIf one believes in interpretation of holy texts, how do they recognize whether or not their interpretation is correct?
Quote from InfinityAlarmHow does one distinguish a correct interpretation from an incorrect one? Are all interpretations correct? What about contradictory interpretations?
Quote from InfinityAlarmWhat are your thoughts on Literalism vs. Interpretation of holy texts?
Quote from Shining Blue-eyesThat takes time. Man has only lived in large-scale communities as opposed to small tribes for a very small period of time, evolutionarily.
Quote from Blinking SpiritDunbar's number. Reciprocal altruism doesn't work nearly as well among strangers who are never going to see each other again.
Quote from Harkius It depends on what they request. For example, see the requests to Professor Lenski at the U Michigan by people who sincerely lack the ability to understand his work.
Quote from HarkiusThey're saying, reasonably, that they don't have the time to educate a person who, in all likelihood has a 6th grade education in science, about all the details of their research.
Quote from HarkiusKnow why? Because you don't write a paper that explains how you got an idea. No one cares where the idea came from.
Quote from HarkiusYou don't understand the intersection of science and public policy.
Quote from HarkiusBecause the amount of time it would take detracts from what the government is actually giving them money for. I.e., performing research.
Quote from HarkiusYes. Especially considering the time that it honestly takes to do so.
Quote from HarkiusNo it wouldn't.
Quote from HarkiusMake an FoI request to the government. I've done it. You usually have to pay both 25 cents/page and for the copyists' time at like 12$/hour.
Quote from HarkiusBecause some of that information is not yet ready for the light. Some of it needs to be clarified. Some of it needs to be more detailed. And some of their research is preliminary and they haven't had a chance to finish it yet.
Quote from HarkiusWhat if I asked you for ten thousand emails scattered across your computer, your employee's computers, and such from the last ten years. How long do you think that it would take you to find it? Especially if you didn't think that you would need to later?
Quote from HarkiusYou're wrong.
Quote from TussOf course science involves community. Without other scientists you're just some guy saying things.
Quote from TussIt takes scientists recognising each other as scientists based on more-or-less objective standards for there to be scientists at all.
Quote from NisIt can if you don't have any system in place to organize and/or search the archived emails. Combing through thousands if not tens of thousands of emails by hand is a tedious process. So why doesn't VA have software to index archived emails? Because state law gives the government an out for paying contractors. Very few government contractors will actually work with VA because there is no guarantee that they'll get paid. The state therefore relies on outdated technology if they have any at all.
Quote from NisIt's not blackmail. It's a cost deferral measure to cover up the state's technology impotence.
Quote from NisI come to your house once every few years to ask for a cup of sugar. Reasonable.
I come to your house once every few days to ask for a cup of sugar. Unreasonable and possible a nuisance.
Quote from RodyleWhat makes them legitimate scientists is that they challenge hypothesis they believe to be incorrect, not that they are paranoid enough to see foul play in every article.
Quote from RodyleBetter tell that to my university then.
Quote from RodyleHHAHAHAHA, HAHAHAHAHA!
Oh, phew, wow, good one...
Wait, you're serious?
Quote from RodyleYou fail to answer my question: why do they need to have a look at the drafts of a paper for doing so?
Quote from RodyleCitation needed.
Quote from RodyleThe scientists beg to differ, I believe.
Quote from RodyleOr it's just that the way this law is set up means that scientists will be forced by law to document everything they do in such detail that they spend more time doing that than the actual research.
Quote from RodyleMother of all 'no true Scottsman's you're using there. As mentioned: scientists aren't usually the types to enter the spotlights and tell everybody about the results of their research.
Quote from NisNope. This.
Quote from NisVA law allows those costs to be put upon the requester.
Quote from NisReasonable request? State should pay. Repeated nuisance requests? Requester should pay.
Quote from RodyleDon't think this should be our assumption though.
Quote from RodyleAgain: any paper without a proper hypothesis will be disregarded by the entire scientific community. Why do you need to look at this beforehand?
Quote from RodyleWhy is a matter of vital importance to look at an unfinished paper?
Quote from bighabenThese people aren't asking for journals, and already published information that is hidden in some way, their asking for scientific papers that aren't published, and works in progress to be revealed, and throughly explained why each change was made to their work. It's just simple harassment at that point. If my teacher asked for me to explain every change I made to my papers it would be hell to get one paper done. The final product should be enough, and once it's published it's out there for public scrutiny.
Quote from bighabenSo, I fail to see how this article sparks a debate, and there is no debate as science is open to scrutiny. The only way you get your voice heard in the scientific world is to get something published, or express your opinions loudly enough that people hear, and that's the very definition of open.
Quote from dcartistProblem is that if the law CAN be legally used to harass and slow down research one side doesn't like, it WILL be used to do so.
Quote from dcartistSo now we'll probably have to eventually modify the FoI to get rid of the "nuisance requests" of the FoI.
Quote from NisVirginia's FoI laws put the cost of compiling the information on the shoulders of the requester. While this could have a chilling effect on FoI requests (for example, a recent request totaled $8,000) it can cut down on the nuisance requests.
Quote from RodyleExcept that papers without the data to back up their claims will never be published in any self-respecting journal, much less be taken seriously by anyone with half a brain.
Quote from RodyleNo, it's more along the lines of you being critiqued for every line you draw on a painting, in stead of the person being polite and waiting until it's finished to take a look at the end result.
Quote from Captain_MorganI'm not opposed to a "shield law" for completed research in the same way we shield informants to reporters.
Originally Posted by http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/may/25/freedom-information-laws-harass-scientists
Bob Ward of the Grantham Research Institute at the London School of Economics said the intention of many of those making freedom of information requests was to trawl through scientists' work with the intention of trying to find problems and errors.
Originally Posted by http://www.latimes.com/news/local/sc-dc-0524-court-prisons-web-20110523,0,2337401.story
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court ordered California on Monday to release tens of thousands of its prisoners to relieve overcrowding, saying that "needless suffering and death" had resulted from putting too many inmates into facilities that cannot hold them in decent conditions.
It is one of the largest prison release orders in the nation's history, and it sharply split the high court.
Justices upheld an order from a three-judge panel in California that called for releasing 38,000 to 46,000 prisoners. Since then, the state has transferred about 9,000 state inmates to county jails. As a result, the total prison population is now about 32,000 more than the capacity limit set by the panel.
Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, speaking for the majority, said California's prisons had "fallen short of minimum constitutional requirements" because of overcrowding. As many as 200 prisoners may live in gymnasium, he said, and as many as 54 prisoners share a single toilet.
Kennedy insisted that the state had no choice but to release more prisoners. The justices, however, agreed that California officials should be given more time to make the needed reductions.
In dissent, Justice Antonin Scalia called the ruling "staggering" and "absurd."
He said the high court had repeatedly overruled the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals for ordering the release of individual prisoners. Now, he said, the majority were ordering the release of "46,000 happy-go-lucky felons." He added that "terrible things are sure to happen as a consequence of this outrageous order." Justice Clarence Thomas agreed with him.
In a separate dissent, Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. and Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. said the ruling conflicted with a federal law intended to limit the power of federal judges to order a release of prisoners.