A lot of confusion and acrimony could be mitigated on ScubaBoard if there were agreement on some of the words used....
Info Words used differently by the public and scientists
- Thread starter tursiops
- Start date
Please register or login
Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.
Benefits of registering include
- Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
- A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
- You can make this box go away
OP
As a biologist myself, I have run into a great number of researchers with the highest of professional standards; so too have I encountered those, who are would nicely fall into that derisive "public" ilk of that chart -- venal, cynical, negative, contrary, speculative, subjective; often working on hunches, and who were all too capable of cooking the books, should it ever suit them.
Harvard Medical School, alone, was recently required to retract six scientific studies and to "correct" thirty-one others that fell into question, for falsification of data and "the manipulation of images," that had been published by the lauded Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, by top researchers, including its CEO; and where, laughably, the Research Integrity Officer, had been the author of two.
The various sciences are not some venerable priesthood, outside of common human experience and petty conceits -- far from it, and quite often the very opposite, especially where longterm reputations and vast sums of grant money, in terms of millions if not billions nowadays, within the public or private sector are at stake; and the whole notion of "consensus" is antithetical to the whole of science, and should only occupy a political role on election night.
My old physics professor loathed that consensual notion -- would never accept its now-popular use in academia; would even red-line mention of it in class assignments; and he prized a Galileo quote which had been posted above the blackboard, in its original cribbed Italian, which he carefully translated during that first early morning session: "In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual . . ."
Harvard Medical School, alone, was recently required to retract six scientific studies and to "correct" thirty-one others that fell into question, for falsification of data and "the manipulation of images," that had been published by the lauded Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, by top researchers, including its CEO; and where, laughably, the Research Integrity Officer, had been the author of two.
The various sciences are not some venerable priesthood, outside of common human experience and petty conceits -- far from it, and quite often the very opposite, especially where longterm reputations and vast sums of grant money, in terms of millions if not billions nowadays, within the public or private sector are at stake; and the whole notion of "consensus" is antithetical to the whole of science, and should only occupy a political role on election night.
My old physics professor loathed that consensual notion -- would never accept its now-popular use in academia; would even red-line mention of it in class assignments; and he prized a Galileo quote which had been posted above the blackboard, in its original cribbed Italian, which he carefully translated during that first early morning session: "In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual . . ."
OP
Perhaps, but I can't find it. There are always new eyeballs to see stuff....
Depends, are you using "correct" as the public would use it or a scientist?
Similar threads
- Suggestion
Suggestion
Slowing thread with semantics.
