Quote:
Originally Posted by unsunghero
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
Lol ok mr scientist explain to me how many studies you believe were funded by entities interested in a particular outcome. None?
Remember when cigarette companies funded studies showing how smoking wasn’t that bad?
Remember when the ridiculously unhealthy food pyramid studies were funded by grain companies?
How about testing drug safety funded by the companies that sell the drugs, that oh golly gee look the drug is proven as safe by studies then goes on to harm people?
You can manipulate the sample, you can manipulate the data parameters, you can manipulate the control group, you can manipulate the test executed
Anyone who thinks studies aren’t easy to manipulate is a combination of stupid and naive
|
Again, you're speaking from a place of massive ignorance, as the examples you list aren't examples of science failings.
Can humans (eg. cigarette-selling humans) mislead other humans ... in science or anywhere else, to some extent? Sure. But
scientists weren't convinced of anything by misleading, un-peer-reviewed, or unreproducible tobacco studies.
Politicians were.
Same deal with the food pyramid: there was
never a "food pyramid study"! What there was a bunch of legitimate dietary studies ... and then (again) a bunch of politicians, influenced by farm lobbies and such, who ignored many of those studies, so they could give us the food pyramid.
Drug safety? Obviously, there's a tension between wanting to make drugs safe, and wanting to get new drugs to sick people as quickly as possible. But (again), scientists don't make those decisions: government regulators (whose bosses are politicians) do.
Ultimately you're misunderstanding science, and blaming it for stuff that has nothing to do with it ... and everything to do with politics and politicians deliberately
ignoring scientists to push their own special interests.