that has something to do with the quality of research? I heard of a Christian who stole from a bank. Of course, I have no attribution for that, but it does show that many fields of christianity are suffering from an ethics problem.
"stole", "wire and identity fraud"? On February 20, 2012, Gleick announced he was responsible for the unauthorized distribution of documents from The Heartland Institute in mid-February. Gleick claimed he had received "an anonymous document in the mail describing what appeared to be details of the Heartland Institute's climate program strategy", and in trying to verify the authenticity of the document, had "solicited and received additional materials directly from the Heartland Institute under someone else's name".[32] Responding to the leak, The Heartland Institute said one of the documents released, a two-page 'Strategy Memo', had been forged.[33] Gleick denied forging the document. Gleick described his actions as "a serious lapse of my own and professional judgment and ethics" and said that he "deeply regret[ted his] own actions in this case" and "offer[ed his] personal apologies to all those affected". He stated that "My judgment was blinded by my frustration with the ongoing efforts often anonymous, well-funded, and coordinated to attack climate science and scientists and prevent this debate, and by the lack of transparency of the organizations involved."[32][34] On February 24 he wrote to the board of the Pacific Institute requesting a "temporary short-term leave of absence" from the Institute.[35][36] The Board of Directors stated it was "deeply concerned regarding recent events" involving Gleick and the Heartland documents, and appointed a new Acting Executive Director on February 27.[37] He was reinstated following an investigation.[38]
Yes when you assume the identity of someone else to acquire something that doesn't belong to you that is stealing through identity fraud. When you do it over wired communications like e-mail and phone that is also wire fraud. The reason Gleick is not in jail is because the Obama administration doesn't prosecute liberal heroes.
Of course, it just isnt possible that the reason is simply that no crime was committed. Not when collusion on the highest levels can be claimed? This page: Share: On this page Word Browser Advertisement (Bad banner? Please let us know) Fraud A false representation of a matter of fact—whether by words or by conduct, by false or misleading allegations, or by concealment of what should have been disclosed—that deceives and is intended to deceive another so that the individual will act upon it to her or his legal injury. Fraud is commonly understood as dishonesty calculated for advantage. A person who is dishonest may be called a fraud. In the U.S. legal system, fraud is a specific offense with certain features. Fraud is most common in the buying or selling of property, including real estate, Personal Property, and intangible property, such as stocks, bonds, and copyrights. State and federal statutes criminalize fraud, but not all cases rise to the level of criminality. Prosecutors have discretion in determining which cases to pursue. Victims may also seek redress in civil court. Fraud must be proved by showing that the defendant's actions involved five separate elements: (1) a false statement of a material fact,(2) knowledge on the part of the defendant that the statement is untrue, (3) intent on the part of the defendant to deceive the alleged victim, (4) justifiable reliance by the alleged victim on the statement, and (5) injury to the alleged victim as a result. These elements contain nuances that are not all easily proved. First, not all false statements are fraudulent. To be fraudulent, a false statement must relate to a material fact. It should also substantially affect a person's decision to enter into a contract or pursue a certain course of action. A false statement of fact that does not bear on the disputed transaction will not be considered fraudulent. Second, the defendant must know that the statement is untrue. A statement of fact that is simply mistaken is not fraudulent. To be fraudulent, a false statement must be made with intent to deceive the victim. This is perhaps the easiest element to prove, once falsity and materiality are proved, because most material false statements are designed to mislead. Third, the false statement must be made with the intent to deprive the victim of some legal right. Fourth, the victim's reliance on the false statement must be reasonable. Reliance on a patently absurd false statement generally will not give rise to fraud; however, people who are especially gullible, superstitious, or ignorant or who are illiterate may recover damages for fraud if the defendant knew and took advantage of their condition. Finally, the false statement must cause the victim some injury that leaves her or him in a worse position than she or he was in before the fraud.
If someone is pissing on your back and telling you its raining is it possible that its rain? He impersonated someone else to get documents that didn't belong to him. Its open and shut.
The simple facts are not in dispute. Your claims about fraud, criminal behaviour, collusion at the highest levels and belief that right now many fields of science are suffering from an ethics problem. Its all about getting published no matter how is in no way supported by this particular incident.
First I made no claims about fraud. I said poor ethics. Fraud would be an extreme case of poor ethics but it seems like it is more common now. Ethics would be choosing methods that you know before hand will giver you the desired result. Ioannidis goes into great detail about this in "Why Most Published Research Findings Are False" http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124 There is such a desire to get positive results that researchers manipulate their method until they do. Its hard to get published if you do a study and conclude that you found nothing. They often have no idea that what they are doing is wrong as universities no longer teach ethics and ethics presentations at seminars are barely attended.
While you certainly are entitled to your opinion, it is likely it is uninformed and inaccurate. Until you actually deal with the realities of this topic you are basing opinion on unconfirmed and biased content. Though there is most certainly inaccuracy and corruption found in every human activity...I wish to state that few in the realm of the sciences follow this practice, and those that do are discredited.
And that was what people said about Ioannidis original paper. Then he showed that the same problems extended to the most cited papers in medical research. http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=201218
What the hell makes you think I have no expertise or training of any sort. I'm willing to bet that I have way more than you as you sound as though you are fresh out of school. I simply dont too my own horn like a jackass. As for data free go (*)(*)(*)(*) off I provided data. Your response was 'well if we exclude that and after excluding that you have no data'. Pure lowball debate tactics. Doesn't fly I'm not playing such stupid games. You cant simply choose to exclude the entire field of medical research because it doesn't fit your paradigm.
We werent aware that jackasses have horns, but if you are comparing yourself to me, in that regard, you is slippin' your moorings. A person can claim as they like on an internet forum. So you can claim, or not, as it suits. We have another feller on this same thread who says " I am a scientist and an atheist" then goes right into some creo-spiel of nonsense that shows as plainly that he does not know waht he is talking about as i would if I tried to be an announcer at a football game. For your part, you can say as you like too; but as you have given usso far one guy who committed an ethical breach as basis for all your generalizations, I think I will stick with my statement about a data-free op ed, As for your experience in the halls of academia, you have not said anything that indicates you have been there. I dont mean the oh I have blah blah, I mean the clues that are given in context. The things you described are not similar to my experience, so... who knows. ( like when i talk about the net and the goalie and innings, they will know im not really a football expert!) Speaking of student, I think I should be studying, not talking about it!! byefer!
So I pegged you correctly. All to easy. You don't post any science. All you engage in are poor transparent lowball debate tactics. I posted two studies put forward in major journals. You then try and say that we can ignore them. No we cannot. I think you are just mad because I can cut through all your poorly worded bull(*)(*)(*)(*).
You supplied quite a list of assertions you couldnt back up. So vicious you get, so quickly! I see you came back and added, the cursing and lying after I responded. Tsk, so excitable! You are the one, btw, that was saying how wonderful the medical field is for their standards, while I was saying that it is notorious for the level of fraud. How things turn about, so you can make up some more, like this "paradigm". I should have seen how this would go when you were doing your black helicopter talk about corruption at the highest levels of liberal america.
I hope you don't refer to my first post. I said, quote: We neither see algue develop into protozoae... Protozoae are the most primitive form of what we call "living organism" in contrary to algues, being "plants". Both,protozoae and algues are not what we call "mammals". In addtion not all mammals are idiots and ignorants not capable of reading and understanding easy-to-read text. Just some are,
What is Algue? Is this French Alga? If so...why would we expect a plant to evolve into an animal....unless we are amongst the idiot/ignorant mammals you refer to?
A biologist would at least put the word "primitive" in quotation marks. They'd also know that bacteria are more "primitive" than protozoans. An English major could probably spell well and use punctuation properly. What are you? And, who are "we" who neither consider plants to be alive, nor organisms?
I do no want to go into discussing those details any deeper. The "Algae**/protozoan" example was a simple illustration of a fact:which is that evolution seems to be frozen. The counter argument, quote: One will never understand Evolution without incorporating time. The process is not at a standstill, and is occurring as I type this (see virus), but as species adaptation takes place over hundreds of thousands or millions of years we can only note those changes from the past...fortunately there are many to view. End of quote appears to met to be unlogic. Every development no matter how slow it is must have a definite time point of change. If species develop stepwise with all steps of evolution remaining in existence there must be one which is the last step of the former and one being the first step of the next one. All of those steps should be visible for us in at least some species. Regarding the time period of the process running, species developing with different "velocity" there is no reason why we shouldn't see ."conversios" today. We (answer to the question above: "WE" means: mankind, people, you and I, boys and girls, old and yound, Republicans and Democrats) would have to wait Milllions of years for any visible changes if the process would start today. Having started Millions of years ago would mean we must see at least some changes in this very present time. The virus example: virus are reproduced in Zillions of copies by the infected organism. The likelihood of producing a new functional and virulent variant is very high therefore and actually is one reason fpr new epidemics circulating around the world. The virus producing an incredible amount of copies achieves this kind of evolution in a very short time by the number of copies. For the same process more complex animals need very long time. The process of evolution however is running since the early days of this planet earth and therefore the "waiting time" for at least some species to convert from one into the other should be over. In the virus we can see change. But even the "conversion" of a virus is only producing a new subvariante of the same virus species, not an entirely new virus. In the rest of the flora and fauna of this planet, we don't see "stepping" even if protozoae, algae or bacteria multiply nearly as fast as virus. . (Just in preparation: Comparing "living organisms" to "plants" I meant "living organisms" and "living plants".). Do we see Prokaryotes develop into Eukaryotes and Eukaryotes into whatever? Or Metazoa into Eumetazoa and further "upwards"? If that is the case you have convinced me and I will accept the theory of evolution as being without flaw. Some remarks: 1. As non native speaker of the English language I dare to ask questions among a group of individuals having the advantage of being native speakers. I have no ambitions to achieve any comparable stage of linguistic excellence and accept the philological superiority of those distinguihed academics. Malicious remarks about my low skills in mastering the English or American language however are considered to be unnecessarily insulting by myself, to come from an own standpoint of arrogance and to be scientifically irrelevant as long as the core message of a question or remark can be apprehended. 2. Neither Biology, nore palaeontology or anthropology are my own academic disciplines. Concerning "edvolution" I consider myself therefore as layperson. This does not mean not to have any questions and dare to ask experts about them. If those questions are caused by own ignorance of the topic I am grateful for being professionally educated and made aware of my misconceptions.. I will not tell you which academic discipline is my own. From my own experience however it is not libelous for a scientific professional to take into account if there is at least something to be considered even in the uneducated mind of the common people. Abrasively repudating non professional contributions to my personal opinion is bad style and professional arrogance. One raison d'etre of science is education and educated can only be the uneducated. Quibbling remarks about grammar, punctuation or deeper meaning of trivial words like mocking misspellings are on an academic level of making abusive comments of a person' stature, gender or nationality if that person would be present in a discussion. For this reason I do not disclose my own academic background and appreciate to be enlightened about the French spelling of "algae", because Paris / France is the place where I live. My nationality however is represented by the flag symbols on top of my contribution. If correct guessing of my provenience could change your bias would be interesting to learn. It is however the better solution to avoid bias, especially in science. 3. I was convinced that "stupid" questions don't exist but stupid people not daring to ask questions. At least in this particular point I have changed my opinion. I have learned that intelligent professionals can give stupid answers preventing the stupid from becoming educated. That at least was a major success.
I remarked about putting "primitive" in quotation marx because you seem quite adamant about this or that not being "superior". Calling something primitive is a similar misusage.That was a small correction i wanted to offer, I dont intend to play "Quibbling remarks about grammar, punctuation or deeper meaning of trivial words like mocking misspelling". To suggest i did is being a bit abusive yourself, which i've noted before tends to be your style. I wont do it,you cut it out, we will all be better off. Fair? Now, on the topic of my post... You made as statements of fact some things that i noted are not correct; that protozoans are not the simplest / most "primitive" or living things, and, that algae are living organisms. I If you do not care to acknowledge that you are mistaken on these points and dont want to make a minor change in your English usage that will avoid misunderstandings, that is of course your biz. If you knew that all along but merely didnt express yourself well, please say so. It would tho be a good indicator whether there is any point to discussing anything with you. So, of course, would be if you desist from mocking / condescending as in previous posts. I have some thoughts about your idea of evolution being "frozen", which I'd be glad to share as long as its on a civil basis. Deal? Remarks.. Im not a native speaker of English either. I did have some advantages, mom being a professor and my living in the USA for 15 years. I do appreciate that it is not easy to learn, and far prefer to help someone than make fun of them. I did spend some years in "life sciences" as well as geology / and a bit of paleontology, so I feel I have some idea of what Im talking about. What relevance points 2 and 3 that you made above might have to me, why you put those in, i dont know. Do you mean them to be personally about me? ps dont ever accept any theory as being without flaw!
