'Legal highs' should be automatically banned, says government drugs adviser

[specialspack]

Lol... I think everyone gets what you were trying to say MrM. With the exception of our friend here.

So the Koch brothers funding a known climate change sceptic by mistake proves that global warming funding is free from political bias?

No, because that isn't remotely what MrM said.

I'm gonna make this real simple for you...

1. All science delivers results that agree with its patron's opinions ("Ismene's Thesis")

2. Various examples counter to this - e.g. Halpern's study, the link MrM posted.

Therefore, proposition 1 is false. Quod erat demonstrandum.

 

[MrM]

Lol... I think everyone gets what you were trying to say MrM. With the exception of our friend here.

Thanks specialspack, i assumed as much, hence i didn't attempt to explain myself again. But it's nice to have some confirmation (and to have someone else lay things out so clearly).

 

[Ismene]

1. All science delivers results that agree with its patron's opinions ("Ismene's Thesis")

No, not "All", almost all, particularly in areas of science with enormous political consequences. If the researcher goes native like Richard Muller or David Nutt then you're going to get unfavourable results. It doesn't happen very often.

Various examples counter to this the link MrM posted

No, all that proves is that the Koch brothers arn't infallible. Almost every study they fund supports their political motive. That's why Greenpeace are so concerned about it. According to you it wouldn't make a lick of difference if the all funding in climate change was by the Koch brothers.

Quod erat demonstrandum

Why not take this proof to Greenpeace? Explain it to them like you've explained it to me and they'll be able to drop their campaign against the Koch brothers funding. Take MrM along with you for backup. I'll bet you change Greenpeace policy overnight.

Or maybe not..

 

[Ismene]

Thanks specialspack, i assumed as much, hence i didn't attempt to explain myself again. But it's nice to have some confirmation (and to have someone else lay things out so clearly).

Don't be a Koch.

 

[specialspack]

You seem incapable of understanding the most elementary logic. What I said above has precisely zero bearing on the Koch brothers or Greenpeace's campaign. Stop trying to derail the thread. Why don't you get back to the more pertinent Halpern example? He's well known to be pro-MDMA, and yet (shock horror) the US government continues to fund him.

According to you...

ah yes, another straw man. Did I say that? No. Yawn.

No, not "All", almost all

ah yes, so that the "good" examples of science are the ones that agree with you?

When you have time do please reply to my other points, there's a good chap.

 

[tragiclemming]

IMO, there is no such thing as impartial research in science, with the exception of 14/15 year old students doing bubble counts to determine the rate rate of reaction between an acid and metal carbonate. There, I said it.

In most instances, if the research goes against the 'ethos' of the sponsor or paymaster, it will never take place. It follows, that the majority of research fits with the ethos of the sponsor/paymaster and is therefore a tool used to help give credence to a set of pre-determined values. Or I could be talking utter bollocks.

 

[MrM]

In most instances, if the research goes against the 'ethos' of the sponsor or paymaster, it will never take place. It follows, that the majority of research fits with the ethos of the sponsor/paymaster and is therefore a tool used to help give credence to a set of pre-determined values. Or I could be talking utter bollocks.

If that were true there would never be surprising results from scientific research as no sponsor or paymaster would be expecting the unexpected, rather they'd be looking to confirm their initial biased viewpoint. There are often surprising results from scientific research.

Although it is definitely true that individual scientists can be just as prone to personal bias as anyone else, the scientific method is supposed to ensure any results are as free from bias as possible.

 

[Marmalade]

N
Why not take this proof to Greenpeace? Explain it to them like you've explained it to me and they'll be able to drop their campaign against the Koch brothers funding. Take MrM along with you for backup. I'll bet you change Greenpeace policy overnight.

Or maybe not..

attaching yourself to Greenpeace by proxy in no way compensates for, or distinguishes you from, your total lack of understanding what MrM's point was. speaking on behalf of them 'ie: Greenpeace agrees with me', is not only pretty arrogant, it's also nonsense.

you really don't have any sort of understanding about your own extreme bias in this situation, how it blinds you from understanding a presented point [supported by information], how you're unable to see a point that's contrary to your own.

try to forget what your talking about or trying to 'prove' for just one second, go back and reread Mr M's points again ... cut him a little slack [for your own benefit] and try to think, 'hrm, what is it I'm not seeing, that a number of people I don't know, but have nonetheless taken the time to actually type words on the internet, are trying to tell me'.
have a little faith in others for a minute ... suspend current beliefs and convictions, and try to see what the original point of difference is ...

good luck .. I mean that genuinely [edit], however patronising it is or isnt

[pee ess: i seals]

 

[specialspack]

IMO, there is no such thing as impartial research in science, with the exception of 14/15 year old students doing bubble counts to determine the rate rate of reaction between an acid and metal carbonate. There, I said it.

In most instances, if the research goes against the 'ethos' of the sponsor or paymaster, it will never take place. It follows, that the majority of research fits with the ethos of the sponsor/paymaster and is therefore a tool used to help give credence to a set of pre-determined values. Or I could be talking utter bollocks.

Absolutely, which is why it is foolish to take one study and expect it to be the final word on anything. Science relies on results being repeated, many times, before we can say "this looks like it might be the case". Confirmation bias is rife; all data is "theory laden". With MDMA research, however, it is no longer the case that there are only few groups pushing a particular political angle - the experiments have been repeated over and over, and while we're not certain, it's not looking good at all in terms of neurotoxicity. See all the refs I posted upthread.

Again we have a very narrow idea of a sponsor though - much University research is performed with grants from very large funding bodies who are often not pushing a specific agenda (not that the results are therefore free from bias, bias creeps in at every level).

The best place to see the degree of bias present is on the cutting edge of science where data is scarce. Harry Collins, one of the leading lights in the sociology of scientific knowledge, has written extensively on the subject of gravitational wave detection (or lack of it). His book "The Golem: What Everyone Should Know About Science" is excellent reading.

For those interested:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Collins
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Golem-Should-about-Science-Canto/dp/0521645506

 

[Ismene]

You seem incapable of understanding the most elementary logic.

Either that, or you arn't capable yourself special.

What I said above has precisely zero bearing on the Koch brothers or Greenpeace's campaign

Eh? You and MrM have been pushing this argument as definitive proof for the last page and a half. I'm guessing you've now realised you're talking bollocks right?

Or would you be really happy if the Koch brothers were funding the majority of research into global warming - after all, who funds it makes no difference in your world does it?


ah yes, so that the "good" examples of science are the ones that agree with you?

No, as I've already explained. The Koch brothers arn't infallible and neither is the government. That's why they appointed David Nutt. Presumably, following your logic, the fact that they ever appointed Dr Nutt is "proof positive" that the government arn't biased in who they appoint?

Why don't you get back to the more pertinent Halpern example? He's well known to be pro-MDMA

So this is your last gasp is it? If I research Halpern I'll find a raging pro-illegal drug fiend funded by the DEA? You're assuring me of that are you? It's going to be another Quod erat demonstrandum is it?

 

[Ismene]

attaching yourself to Greenpeace by proxy in no way compensates for, or distinguishes you from, your total lack of understanding what MrM's point was. speaking on behalf of them 'ie: Greenpeace agrees with me', is not only pretty arrogant, it's also nonsense.

I'm not "attaching myself to Greenpeace" dearest marma, I'm just pointing out that they're running a campaign to try and alert the public to the dangers of oil billionaires funding global warming research. I can see why they're doing it. You, MrM and special somehow can't. I don't know if it's something in the water where you all live or what. It's pretty obvious to anyone who looks at it.

Are you honestly telling me you wouldn't mind if the Koch brothers decided which global warming projects got funding?

 

[Ismene]

Absolutely

Come again special? Tragics just demolished your entire theory and you're saying "absolutely"? Are you now saying who funds the research does affect which research gets done?

 

[tragiclemming]

If that were true there would never be surprising results from scientific research as no sponsor or paymaster would be expecting the unexpected, rather they'd be looking to confirm their initial biased viewpoint.

I think you missed the 'in most instances' introduction
In the US, the govt funds approx 35% of all scientific research, with a large proportion of that going to the military. The (most) funding comes from private entities of which the biggest player is the pharmaceutical industry. There is of course research funded by not-for-profits. These are in the minority. Money matters. Always.

 

[tragiclemming]

With MDMA research, however, it is no longer the case that there are only few groups pushing a particular political angle - the experiments have been repeated over and over, and while we're not certain, it's not looking good at all in terms of neurotoxicity. See all the refs I posted upthread.

I haven't read any of this research. I will take a look.
I decided to 'jump in' here as much of the essence of what Ismene is saying is spot on, even if some factual information may be wrong (and I don't know this part).
Healthy debate is always key and one sided beat downs are not really in the best interest of anyone here. Save that for the govt

The best place to see the degree of bias present is on the cutting edge of science where data is scarce. Harry Collins, one of the leading lights in the sociology of scientific knowledge, has written extensively on the subject of gravitational wave detection (or lack of it). His book "The Golem: What Everyone Should Know About Science" is excellent reading.

Sounds interesting. Will take a look. Thanks.

 

[specialspack]

I haven't read any of this research. I will take a look.
I decided to 'jump in' here as much of the essence of what Ismene is saying is spot on, even if some factual information may be wrong (and I don't know this part).
Healthy debate is always key and one sided beat downs are not really in the best interest of anyone here. Save that for the govt

Oh, I appreciate healthy debate. I don't appreciate repeated use of straw man "arguments", personal insults and trolling as exhibited by Ismene. Feel free to read back through this thread as I have provided plenty of references.

 

[Ismene]

Oh come on special, you're sounding like MrM now. None of this is personal (well, maybe it is with MrM and me as he's been following me around the board for a year or two :D I'm not insulting you or "trolling" or giving you any "straw men", I'm just pointing out the errors in your thinking. I'm sorry if you don't like it, but we're here to give our opinions not agree with everything you say.

Tragic appears to have no problem with the idea that politically motivated funding is a massive problem in a whole host of scientific areas, I'm sure that deep down you can see it too.

Oh, here's a "straw man" (or perhaps "trolling") from David Nutt for you, from February this year no less (apparantly when the funding into ecstasy was going great guns according to you):


"I always assumed that, when properly designed studies were carried out, we would find ecstasy does not cause brain damage," said Professor David Nutt

Properly designed studies eh? Do you think that means the studies done so far havn't been "properly designed"? Why do you think they havn't been "properly designed"? The plot thickens...

 

[Ismene]

I think you missed the 'in most instances' introduction

I don't think he missed it but I'm not sure he has the mindset to grasp what you're saying. He's convinced himself that the Koch brothers being involved in this one study when Richard Muller went native, proves everything. I don't think you'll change his mind now..and it's probably not worth wasting your time trying to

 

[MrM]

And he's still not grasped my rather basic point. I can't be bothered explaining it again.

Although i must admit i find it ironic that anyone would use a computer and the internet, 2 of the more sophisticated products scientists and technologists have come up with in recent times, to criticise this sort of thing.

If you don't trust the process at all you should go live in a cave.

 

[Ismene]

And he's still not grasped my rather basic point. I can't be bothered explaining it again.

I grasped it and then explained it was horseshit. I'm waiting for the truth to dawn for you. I fear it will be a long, long time.

to criticise this sort of thing.

What "sort" of thing? The fact that politics and money can influence which research gets done? It appears to be an entirely new concept to you but I've wasted more than enough time on you to explain it any furthur.

 

[MrM]

What "sort" of thing? The fact that politics and money can influence which research gets done? It appears to be an entirely new concept to you but I've wasted more than enough time on you to explain it any furthur.

Obviously money and politics influences which research gets done. If the scientists involved have any self respect it will not influence the results of the research. So if MDMA isn't (edit - when used in moderation) harmful and the funders of research are trying to prove it is, you'll end up with lots of studies showing little relationship between MDMA use and brain damage (for example) as the results fail to prove the biased hypothesis and then a few that show it to be mostly safe when decent research is done, which is pretty much exactly what i've seen.

That means, going back to my original point, you can accept the research at face value, as long as you have a brain and realise that faliure to prove something counts as a result too.