more BS when it comes to reliable scientific studies

[allone]

Critical flaw found in lab models of the human blood-brain barrier

Cells used to study the human blood brain barrier in the lab aren't what they seem, throwing nearly a decade's worth of research into question, a new study from scientists at Columbia University Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons and Weill Cornell Medicine suggests.

medicalxpress.com

im getting kind of tired finding out each month almost! that science is so behind and lagging, corrupt and pure BS a lot of the time!! I question ANYTHING EVER in scientific articles because there were always those RED FLAGS OF REPLICATION. I should have been smarter, noticing a pattern there, that is never , ever any quality science based replications of a study. Science has taken over the Religious sector , but just like that, its all about MAGIC and make BELIEVE!! Some how I have a trouble discerning Science from Religion. Both are heavily relying on good articles confusing and encouraging people's faith and belief.
Current science is good reliable source as religion was in Jesus Christ time. Still a long way to go.

 

[Skorpio]

Religion is less self correcting than science.

 

[Vastness]

The very fact that scientific studies can expose flaws in older studies is a signifier of the strength of the scientific method, not an indicator that the whole field of science should be distrusted. Additionally - this is a fairly specific error affecting a fairly specific category of scientific research, it has no bearing whatsoever on the accuracy of other entirely unrelated fields which make up the vast majority of scientifically derived human knowledge.

The scientific method is, broadly speaking, an abstraction of basic principles of logic applied to the physical world in which we find ourselves. If you think you have a better way to understand reality I'm sure everyone would love to hear it, but I'm certain that you don't. If you have trouble discerning science from religion I'd suggest that you probably don't really understand either.

 

[JessFR]

The very fact that scientific studies can expose flaws in older studies is a signifier of the strength of the scientific method, not an indicator that the whole field of science should be distrusted. Additionally - this is a fairly specific error affecting a fairly specific category of scientific research, it has no bearing whatsoever on the accuracy of other entirely unrelated fields which make up the vast majority of scientifically derived human knowledge.

The scientific method is, broadly speaking, an abstraction of basic principles of logic applied to the physical world in which we find ourselves. If you think you have a better way to understand reality I'm sure everyone would love to hear it, but I'm certain that you don't. If you have trouble discerning science from religion I'd suggest that you probably don't really understand either.

Yeah, it's so frustrating that people want absolutes.

That's what politicians and religions try and emphasize because they're simple and people like simple.

Whereas in reality knowledge is an ongoing effort.

But people would rather a belief that never changes and is 100% false, rather than a changing answer that probably 80% true and closing in on 100% over time as we continually reexamine it.

This is another example of the complete failure in our societies to emphasize science education. We need to be teaching scientific method and rational thought and reteaching it at the earliest levels.

But, unfortunately we have an uneducated public that doesn't want that because they don't wanna hear about science that contradicts them.

 

[allone]

The very fact that scientific studies can expose flaws in older studies is a signifier of the strength of the scientific method, not an indicator that the whole field of science should be distrusted. Additionally - this is a fairly specific error affecting a fairly specific category of scientific research, it has no bearing whatsoever on the accuracy of other entirely unrelated fields which make up the vast majority of scientifically derived human knowledge.

The scientific method is, broadly speaking, an abstraction of basic principles of logic applied to the physical world in which we find ourselves. If you think you have a better way to understand reality I'm sure everyone would love to hear it, but I'm certain that you don't. If you have trouble discerning science from religion I'd suggest that you probably don't really understand either.

sounds good in theory. but science is influenced by politics, religion, what people want to hear, and very very importantly SPONSORS AND CORPORATIONS!!!!
find me a single science study NOT SPONSORED, HAVING NO DONORSHIP FROM POLITICIANS OR CORPORATIONS WITH ABSOLUTE CERTAINLY, ILL GIVE YOU 100 DOLLARS ON PAYPAL RIGHT NOW!!!!
On paper, just as the science presenting its point, is GOOD. BUT..... Science just like Religion = POLITICS!!!!!

 

[JessFR]

Yea the "absolute certainty" requirement there seems suspicious. I get the feeling it's your out.

Especially since "I'll pay x to anyone who proves y to my satisfaction" is an age old political stunt.

 

[novaveritas]

Yeah, it's so frustrating that people want absolutes.

That's what politicians and religions try and emphasize because they're simple and people like simple.

Whereas in reality knowledge is an ongoing effort.

But people would rather a belief that never changes and is 100% false, rather than a changing answer that probably 80% true and closing in on 100% over time as we continually reexamine it.

This is another example of the complete failure in our societies to emphasize science education. We need to be teaching scientific method and rational thought and reteaching it at the earliest levels.

But, unfortunately we have an uneducated public that doesn't want that because they don't wanna hear about science that contradicts them.

Absolutely you hit the nail on the head here.
People want absolute simplistic answers that evidence based science often cannot provide.

Some scientists want to preach absolute answers that again their science cannot back which is turning science into a deeply flawed pseudoreligeon, with the scientists being priests. I have talked about this for a long time and this is a problem that has been building for some time and was an issue long before the current highly politicised NuScience mortally wounded science.

It has long been said sceince progresses one funeral at a time. Instead of changing and being honest and saying we don't actually know, career sceintists become dogmatic and take the position that they are right and dissenting opinion must be crushed and expunged. The public can see through that charade and it doesn't make any difference about overall scientific literacy it undermines trust in the scientific method itself. Joe sixpack thinks if it was so settled sound and clear then why all the fury and venom directed to people including fellow scientists who dissent?

Welcome to the new dark ages.

Follow the science actually means think it out for yourself, weigh the evidence. ask the akward questions. Nullis in verba look at the evidence and take no ones word for it

 

[Vastness]

sounds good in theory. but science is influenced by politics, religion, what people want to hear, and very very importantly SPONSORS AND CORPORATIONS!!!!
find me a single science study NOT SPONSORED, HAVING NO DONORSHIP FROM POLITICIANS OR CORPORATIONS WITH ABSOLUTE CERTAINLY, ILL GIVE YOU 100 DOLLARS ON PAYPAL RIGHT NOW!!!!
On paper, just as the science presenting its point, is GOOD. BUT..... Science just like Religion = POLITICS!!!!!

Let's try to organise your outrage a little. Firstly, we live in a capitalist world. If one is looking hard enough, you will find potential sources of bias everywhere, because quality research is expensive to do, and even on-paper neutrally academic institutions such as universities will receive funding from less neutral corporate entities and individuals with corporate interests.

Additionally, scientists need to earn money to live, as we all do, and therefore even scientists working solely for non-profits may have worked previously at large corporations with an interest in biasing studies that they fund, or at the very least will have been educated at universities which are exposed to this same corporate bias (I haven't looked any of this stuff up, it just seems an obvious likelihood given the world we live in - it's possible academic institutions take more steps to prevent bias than I've assumed, and it's possible there are scientists who have somehow never been exposed to capitalist biases - but it's not necessary for this to be the case to demonstrate the overall reliability of science as a method to understand reality).

All that being said - while, in theory, a shady company could publish a convincing but entirely falsified study supporting their commercial interests (as has happened many times, big tobacco, radium safety, etc) there are limits to how much bad science can persist in the long term, as entities with conflicting interests attempt and fail to replicate this bad data. Additionally, the results of science are demonstrably real and cannot be ignored. All the technology of the modern world that we enjoy is a result of decades or more of painstaking scientific research. Religion and political bias does not, on it's own, result in a global internet, the mobile phone, or software to splice together garbled conspiracy theory videos and put them on YouTube.

It's not a coincidence that the meteoric pace of technological advancement just in the last 100 years or so has occurred concurrently with an ever increasing understanding of how to think critically about reality. Scientific bias still exists for sure, and suppression of science by politicians still happens, but the more that critical thinking skills are diffused throughout society, the harder this becomes and the more ridiculous it looks. 200 years ago it would be easy for a study that suggested that, say, gay marriage would probably not lead to the collapse of society to be suppressed and the author dismissed as a Satan-inspired gay-sympathising lunatic with probably few people batting an eye. On the other hand (to use a topical example) a few years back when the UK government dismissed Professor Nutt for suggesting that current drug laws in most of the world are unjustifiably unscientific and nonsensical, this was clearly seen by almost everyone as a blatant attempt to suppress science in favour of politics.

Science does not equal politics, and neither does religion, although all of them play a part in our world today of course. Again though, if you have a better way to understand reality than the scientific method, I'm sure everyone would love to hear it.

 

[allone]

Let's try to organise your outrage a little. Firstly, we live in a capitalist world. If one is looking hard enough, you will find potential sources of bias everywhere, because quality research is expensive to do, and even on-paper neutrally academic institutions such as universities will receive funding from less neutral corporate entities and individuals with corporate interests.

Additionally, scientists need to earn money to live, as we all do, and therefore even scientists working solely for non-profits may have worked previously at large corporations with an interest in biasing studies that they fund, or at the very least will have been educated at universities which are exposed to this same corporate bias (I haven't looked any of this stuff up, it just seems an obvious likelihood given the world we live in - it's possible academic institutions take more steps to prevent bias than I've assumed, and it's possible there are scientists who have somehow never been exposed to capitalist biases - but it's not necessary for this to be the case to demonstrate the overall reliability of science as a method to understand reality).

All that being said - while, in theory, a shady company could publish a convincing but entirely falsified study supporting their commercial interests (as has happened many times, big tobacco, radium safety, etc) there are limits to how much bad science can persist in the long term, as entities with conflicting interests attempt and fail to replicate this bad data. Additionally, the results of science are demonstrably real and cannot be ignored. All the technology of the modern world that we enjoy is a result of decades or more of painstaking scientific research. Religion and political bias does not, on it's own, result in a global internet, the mobile phone, or software to splice together garbled conspiracy theory videos and put them on YouTube.

It's not a coincidence that the meteoric pace of technological advancement just in the last 100 years or so has occurred concurrently with an ever increasing understanding of how to think critically about reality. Scientific bias still exists for sure, and suppression of science by politicians still happens, but the more that critical thinking skills are diffused throughout society, the harder this becomes and the more ridiculous it looks. 200 years ago it would be easy for a study that suggested that, say, gay marriage would probably not lead to the collapse of society to be suppressed and the author dismissed as a Satan-inspired gay-sympathising lunatic with probably few people batting an eye. On the other hand (to use a topical example) a few years back when the UK government dismissed Professor Nutt for suggesting that current drug laws in most of the world are unjustifiably unscientific and nonsensical, this was clearly seen by almost everyone as a blatant attempt to suppress science in favour of politics.

Science does not equal politics, and neither does religion, although all of them play a part in our world today of course. Again though, if you have a better way to understand reality than the scientific method, I'm sure everyone would love to hear it.

well, its a much better statement than JessFR catty post. even he agrees with a like!

but it still doesnt solve anything really. you were just giving me a lecture, like im a teenager. then conclude with, "whats your better solution" without your own. thanks though!

im going to repeat this again and again and again until you get it. science IS politics and religion IS politics. those two things connect them till death do em apart

although, as i am getting older now, i believe more in religion than science. now i can feel more "liberated" rather than "confined" to certain expectations and rules that science forces upon you, like religion used to do at one point. really never thought that people are going to come one day to work saying science says its good for you or thats the right way! similar to what religion used to do, but here we go! but im free more in religion now as i get older. rather than be confined to this science cult going on.

anyway, its not in the religious or political part of the forum i posted this. i put it here because i was just upset i cannot find any reliable science based articles anymore and im just upset. i wish at least one of those 1000 curcumin articles was good enough to take it, you know. then i have the fish oil articles.... boy, dont get me started! i do not believe there is a single reliable fish oil article out of 10,000. goddamn!

well, ill just go back to religion as i said, i believe in it more now than ever. since, it only has FEW VERSES, not thousand of articles with conflicting interest. I can just BELIEVE curcumin and fish oil IS GOOD because of FAITH!!!!

 

[Vastness]

Not lecturing, I'm explaining. I wouldn't have been surprised if you were a teenager, although I didn't assume you were one, because - sorry to say - you sound like a child.

Eh... I guess I'm done here. Good luck to you in life.

 

[neversickanymore]

There is much to be admired about physics..

 

[MsDiz]

Not lecturing, I'm explaining. I wouldn't have been surprised if you were a teenager, although I didn't assume you were one, because - sorry to say - you sound like a child.

Eh... I guess I'm done here. Good luck to you in life.

I don’t even bother with these posts... like I spent 8 years studying (and currently taking on a PhD whilst being a lead researcher) to be bribed by companies to fudge studies.

@allone if you’re so angered then do something about it, the world can always do with more scientists.

 

[TripSitterNZ]

its why critivcal thinking is important so when you do read studies you can quickly tell if they are telling the truth or the person who did it made up data and makes no sense in the published thing. Trust me i once tried to copy some Chinese research papers in chemistry and quickly realized they fucking lied there entire ass off.

I can tell that this so called Columbia university is the one which is fucking bullshit with my critical thinking not the other way around. Human blood-brain model has worked for decades correctly now some 3rd world shit hole with some retarded crack smoking idiots is telling us it is isn't. Man who should i believe its hard give me some help.

 

[Skorpio]

Using the failings of nutrition to negate all of science is analogous to using the failings of Scientology to negate all religion.

 

[Jabberwocky]

I can just BELIEVE ... because of FAITH!!!!

the thing with science is you don't just have to believe. if you are so minded and have the necessary intellect, you can study, get your PhD, then do a post doc and research for yourself.

i can't join a monastery with the realistic expectation that i'll actually meet god.

also if you actually read the original material or speak to scientists, you will notice good ones select their language precisely and hedge where they are uncertain. scientists know that they are almost certain wrong and are merely presenting theories consistent with the best available evidence. formally, there are an infinite number of models that satisfy a given set of empirical data, so the probability of hitting on the right one (and its impossible to tell between them without new distinguishing data) is negligible.

when you post on here, you believe others will read it. so implicitly you believe in semiconductors, fibre optics, information theory, web protocols- these were all originally developed for scientific purposes. when you take a medicine, you put your faith in medical science. its pretty much impossible to live without showing implicit trust in science, and unless you are careful that none of your actions show such trust, your position is fundamentally untenable.

 

[JessFR]

People who compare science with religion, are ignorant of what science is. They think science is a set of beliefs like religion is.

It's not, comparing the two is like comparing an instruction manual with a book of fairy tales and saying that because both are books they are equally helpful and accurate.

The only "faith" such as it is involved in science is faith that the principles and methods work to aquire knowledge... And if they didn't we wouldn't have anything like the accomplishments that we do. Beyond that everything else is just the application of those methods and principles. There is no faith.

Science is not a type of religion, if you believe that then you don't know the first thing about what science is.

 

[JessFR]

when you post on here, you believe others will read it. so implicitly you believe in semiconductors, fibre optics, information theory, web protocols- these were all originally developed for scientific purposes. when you take a medicine, you put your faith in medical science. its pretty much impossible to live without showing implicit trust in science, and unless you are careful that none of your actions show such trust, your position is fundamentally untenable.

Yeah those arguments don't work with some people.

I once argued with someone, right here on bluelight. About time dilation. His (I assume) argument was that time dilation does not exist.

On what basis did he believe it didn't exist? Because it was absurd and obviously false. It was self evident.

I told him that time dilation is actually accounted for to allow GPS satellites to keep accurate time. And he replied no, it's still false, because time is time, and time dilation is obviously wrong.

I more or less told him if he believes that that he should throw out any GPS devices he has because clearly he doesn't believe in them.

Some people know so little about anything that they can't even begin to comprehend the shear magnitude of how much they are ignorant of. Everything becomes equally plausible because they know almost nothing about anything.

 

[JessFR]

I don’t even bother with these posts... like I spent 8 years studying (and currently taking on a PhD whilst being a lead researcher) to be bribed by companies to fudge studies.

@allone if you’re so angered then do something about it, the world can always do with more scientists.

In my experience these types of people have no interest in science. If they did, they'd have been curious enough to find out more about it, they would have a hunger to know how the world works and how humanity has accomplished the things that it has. They would already have self taught at least enough to realize science as a system must be effective in the discovery of reality, far more so than being spoonfed religious lies.

In their limited defense though, our education system does a great job of crushing people's interest in science, and further education generally. Not to mention making maths, arguably the most essential discipline of human knowledge to exist into a chore.

 

[Rectify]

Human Blood Brain Barrier Basics: A hydrocarbon (HC) can have up to one carboxylic acid group (R-CO2H) and up to three alcoholic (R-OH) functional groups. However, even one phenolic hydroxyl group appears to be a no go. If I'm wrong about that last point, I would love to be corrected. It is based on the solitairy fact that 2-methylamino-eugenol is approximately 1/50th the potency of MDMA (aka 2-methylaminosafrole).

EDIT: Morphine gets in the brain and has 1 aliphatic alcohol and 1 phenolic alcohol, so perhaps my eugenolic methamphetamine info is spurious; is it active after all?

EUGENIUS
1-(3-methoxy-4-hydroxyphenyl)-2-methylaminopropane

I do know that eugenius is a metabolite of MDMA.

 

[Jabberwocky]

I once argued with someone, right here on bluelight. About time dilation. His (I assume) argument was that time dilation does not exist.

On what basis did he believe it didn't exist? Because it was absurd and obviously false. It was self evident.

Haha that is pretty absurd. time dilation is an ironic one to pick as the Lorentz transformations were derived to explain Michaelson and Morley's results in light of the 'self evident' truth that light travels through a medium.

Some people know so little about anything that they can't even begin to comprehend the shear magnitude of how much they are ignorant of. Everything becomes equally plausible because they know almost nothing about anything.

i get that but i don't get how people can therefore hold such strong beliefs. like i know fuck all about chemistry and most of biology, more physics cos i studied it at undergrad and phd. so, unless i can see that one theory violates conservation of energy or momentum or some other basic principle, i hold back from judgement as i know i'm not qualified to make a call.

i echo @MsDiz - i did not go through 9 fucking years at uni, nearly destroying myself during the stress of my PhD, to commit fraud. there's easier ways to make money if you're prepared to con people.