RugbyRebels

morepork wrote:

kk67 wrote:I believe there is a scientific/philosophical conundrum along the lines of: 'You only find what you're looking for'.
Karl Popper..?.

Alexander Flemming and his bad housekeeping.

No,....that's the anachronistic view that Popper turned on it's head.

Well, he hasn't referenced anything so the ownership of details can go round and round like a merry go round without actually reaching a conclusion. He states "leftism" in the context of psychology. Difficult definition that. Or maybe its not a definition at all! Ha Ha lefty scientists!

morepork wrote: Ha Ha lefty scientists!

As opposed to those scientists getting paid huge sums by the rightwing to disavow existing scientific evidence ??.
Yeah. Science.

morepork wrote:Well, he hasn't referenced anything so the ownership of details can go round and round like a merry go round without actually reaching a conclusion. He states "leftism" in the context of psychology. Difficult definition that. Or maybe its not a definition at all! Ha Ha lefty scientists!

It sounds like he triggered one.

Vengeful Glutton wrote:

morepork wrote:Well, he hasn't referenced anything so the ownership of details can go round and round like a merry go round without actually reaching a conclusion. He states "leftism" in the context of psychology. Difficult definition that. Or maybe its not a definition at all! Ha Ha lefty scientists!

It sounds like he triggered one.

You know what they say about assumption old chap.

kk67 wrote:

morepork wrote: Ha Ha lefty scientists!

As opposed to the scientists getting paid huge sums by the right to disprove existing scientific evidence ??.

Individuals receiving resources from vested interest tend to get triaged pretty quickly by available evidence. I'm looking at you Andrew Wakefield.

morepork wrote:

kk67 wrote:

morepork wrote: Ha Ha lefty scientists!

As opposed to the scientists getting paid huge sums by the right to disprove existing scientific evidence ??.

Individuals receiving resources from vested interest tend to get triaged pretty quickly by available evidence. I'm looking at you Andrew Wakefield.

But you're not looking at ICI, Welcome, Glaxo.

These are probably outdated names for these companies. Everytime they fuck things up they change their name.
Anyone know what Union Carbide call themselves these days..?.

kk67 wrote:

morepork wrote:

kk67 wrote:
As opposed to the scientists getting paid huge sums by the right to disprove existing scientific evidence ??.

Individuals receiving resources from vested interest tend to get triaged pretty quickly by available evidence. I'm looking at you Andrew Wakefield.

But you're not looking at ICI, Welcome, Glaxo.

These are probably outdated names for these companies. Everytime they fuck things up they change their name.
Anyone know what Union Carbide call themselves these days..?.

Then attack the companies, not the science they abuse. I'm advocating for valid scientific literacy which would provide a buffer between people getting effed over and the potential for abuse.

morepork wrote: Then attack the companies, not the science they abuse. I'm advocating for valid scientific literacy which would provide a buffer between people getting effed over and the potential for abuse.

The science they abuse and the companies that exploit it are inextricable. In fact, they're one and the same.
It's pointless trying to separate these multinational big pharma from research.
...and it certainly isn't scientific.

kk67 wrote:

morepork wrote: Then attack the companies, not the science they abuse. I'm advocating for valid scientific literacy which would provide a buffer between people getting effed over and the potential for abuse.

The science they abuse and the companies that exploit it are inextricable. In fact, they're one and the same.
It's pointless trying to separate these multinational big pharma from research.
...and it certainly isn't scientific.

If it isn't scientific, they are not one and the same. Do you honestly believe that the science behind identifying the agents of antibiotic effects against pathogens or opiate solutions to pain are one and the same as the abuse of supply and demand? They are not one and the same.

morepork wrote:

kk67 wrote:

morepork wrote: Then attack the companies, not the science they abuse. I'm advocating for valid scientific literacy which would provide a buffer between people getting effed over and the potential for abuse.

The science they abuse and the companies that exploit it are inextricable. In fact, they're one and the same.
It's pointless trying to separate these multinational big pharma from research.
...and it certainly isn't scientific.

If it isn't scientific, they are not one and the same. Do you honestly believe that the science behind identifying the agents of antibiotic effects against pathogens or opiate solutions to pain are one and the same as the abuse of supply and demand? They are not one and the same.

They are inextricably linked.
FFS, Fella.....how many times do big pharma have to be proven to be corrupt before you understand that funding is bound by the same vested interests.
Don't pretend that scientists aren't falsifying their evidence. Because all the evidence suggests that many of the right wing scientist dicks have done exactly that.
For money

Please do not mention peer review at this time. Peer review is now meaningless in economic questions.
It's upsetting that economics now drives professional ethics......but that IS what is happening.
We'd be dicks to pretend this isn't happening,.......and we need to be ready to go to the mattresses about it.

kk67 wrote:

morepork wrote:

kk67 wrote:
The science they abuse and the companies that exploit it are inextricable. In fact, they're one and the same.
It's pointless trying to separate these multinational big pharma from research.
...and it certainly isn't scientific.

If it isn't scientific, they are not one and the same. Do you honestly believe that the science behind identifying the agents of antibiotic effects against pathogens or opiate solutions to pain are one and the same as the abuse of supply and demand? They are not one and the same.

They are inextricably linked.
FFS, Fella.....how many times do big pharma have to be proven to be corrupt before you understand that funding is bound by the same vested interests.
Don't pretend that scientists aren't falsifying their evidence. Because all the evidence suggests that many of the right wing scientist dicks have done exactly that.
For money

Please do not mention peer review at this time. Peer review is now meaningless in economic questions.
It's upsetting that economics now drives professional ethics......but that IS what is happening.
We'd be dicks to pretend this isn't happening,.......and we need to be ready to go to the mattresses about it.

Legitimate peer review is independent of economic interest by definition. Again, Wakefield. "Big pharma" are not the only source of scientific novelty. Scientific novelty is, also, not exclusively funded by "big pharma". Economics is a factor in scientific ethics, but it does not drive it, it is regulated. All scientists are falsifying their "evidence"? I assume you mean data. Where do you think the scientific basis for investment originates? Exclusively from proprietary intellectual property? You appear to have a fundamental misunderstanding of the purpose of peer review.

morepork wrote:I'm not feeling the whole cow thing.

Who is that strange looking mush in your avatar? looks familiar, I've seen him somewhere before. Got it, the Beverly Hillbillies, Jed Clampett's cousin Bubba.

Sandydragon wrote:Many of the key campaigners in the British anti skavery movement were altruistic and kept up considerable pressure, even passing acts of Parliament that gradually made slave ownership unprofitable until they could get a majority to oppose it.

I'm not suggesting that Britain woke up one day and went on a moral crusade, but given that some want us to feel bad about our history, I see no reason to airbrush out some of the good things that we have done.

The earl of Sutherland's wife was busy with emancipation as her husband forced highlanders out of their homes to the coast... to America... and to... (shudder)... Glasgow.

Sent from my SM-J500FN using Tapatalk

Vengeful Glutton wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:Many of the key campaigners in the British anti skavery movement were altruistic and kept up considerable pressure, even passing acts of Parliament that gradually made slave ownership unprofitable until they could get a majority to oppose it.

I'm not suggesting that Britain woke up one day and went on a moral crusade, but given that some want us to feel bad about our history, I see no reason to airbrush out some of the good things that we have done.

Christianity played a bigger role in the abolition movement. Imperial Britain itself had its own practical reasons for hopping on the bandwagon.

I don't disagree that the modern Brit should feel bad about British Imperial history, mind. The bad stuff is always going to be highlighted because that's what gets people yakking.

Mongols, Romans, or more recently, the Nips and Krauts during WW2 were far more brutal. Sadists, as far as I'm concerned. I'm surprised the seppos didn't drop a bomb on Germany, and a few more on Japan.

There are quite a fair few examples of incredible brutally led by the British Empire. It wasn't systematic, and quite geographically specific.

Sent from my SM-J500FN using Tapatalk

Adder wrote:

Vengeful Glutton wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:Many of the key campaigners in the British anti skavery movement were altruistic and kept up considerable pressure, even passing acts of Parliament that gradually made slave ownership unprofitable until they could get a majority to oppose it.

I'm not suggesting that Britain woke up one day and went on a moral crusade, but given that some want us to feel bad about our history, I see no reason to airbrush out some of the good things that we have done.

Christianity played a bigger role in the abolition movement. Imperial Britain itself had its own practical reasons for hopping on the bandwagon.

I don't disagree that the modern Brit should feel bad about British Imperial history, mind. The bad stuff is always going to be highlighted because that's what gets people yakking.

Mongols, Romans, or more recently, the Nips and Krauts during WW2 were far more brutal. Sadists, as far as I'm concerned. I'm surprised the seppos didn't drop a bomb on Germany, and a few more on Japan.

There are quite a fair few examples of incredible brutally led by the British Empire. It wasn't systematic, and quite geographically specific.

Sent from my SM-J500FN using Tapatalk

At what point did anyone suggest the empire was universally lovely? The abolitionist movement was an example of a country doing the right thing agains t economic interests. Doesn't happen often.

Vengeful Glutton wrote: ...the great Emancipator declared that secession was constitutional, and then changed his mind

We Irish recognise Danny O'Connell as the Great Emancipator. Lincoln was merely some usurper who cashed-in on the emancipation fad and while I would concede that he emancipated some, even by his own admission he would have done otherwise if he could.

morepork wrote: All scientists are falsifying their "evidence"? I assume you mean data.

Yeah, sorry. It was a poor choice of words. I thought I'd edited it.

kk67 wrote:

morepork wrote: All scientists are falsifying their "evidence"? I assume you mean data.

Yeah, sorry. It was a poor choice of words. I thought I'd edited it.

Yes, that makes the generalisation much more credible.

People who generalise tend to be a right bunch of cunts.

Sandydragon wrote:

Adder wrote:

Vengeful Glutton wrote:
Christianity played a bigger role in the abolition movement. Imperial Britain itself had its own practical reasons for hopping on the bandwagon.

I don't disagree that the modern Brit should feel bad about British Imperial history, mind. The bad stuff is always going to be highlighted because that's what gets people yakking.

Mongols, Romans, or more recently, the Nips and Krauts during WW2 were far more brutal. Sadists, as far as I'm concerned. I'm surprised the seppos didn't drop a bomb on Germany, and a few more on Japan.

There are quite a fair few examples of incredible brutally led by the British Empire. It wasn't systematic, and quite geographically specific.

Sent from my SM-J500FN using Tapatalk

At what point did anyone suggest the empire was universally lovely? The abolitionist movement was an example of a country doing the right thing agains t economic interests. Doesn't happen often.

It's a SNP thing mate.

Genralissimo Cunty Baws

OptimisticJock wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

Adder wrote: There are quite a fair few examples of incredible brutally led by the British Empire. It wasn't systematic, and quite geographically specific.

Sent from my SM-J500FN using Tapatalk

At what point did anyone suggest the empire was universally lovely? The abolitionist movement was an example of a country doing the right thing agains t economic interests. Doesn't happen often.

It's a SNP thing mate.

Calm down Mr Brexiter

Sandydragon wrote:

Adder wrote:

Vengeful Glutton wrote:
Christianity played a bigger role in the abolition movement. Imperial Britain itself had its own practical reasons for hopping on the bandwagon.

I don't disagree that the modern Brit should feel bad about British Imperial history, mind. The bad stuff is always going to be highlighted because that's what gets people yakking.

Mongols, Romans, or more recently, the Nips and Krauts during WW2 were far more brutal. Sadists, as far as I'm concerned. I'm surprised the seppos didn't drop a bomb on Germany, and a few more on Japan.

There are quite a fair few examples of incredible brutally led by the British Empire. It wasn't systematic, and quite geographically specific.

Sent from my SM-J500FN using Tapatalk

At what point did anyone suggest the empire was universally lovely? The abolitionist movement was an example of a country doing the right thing agains t economic interests. Doesn't happen often.

I actually misread VG's second paragraph. sorry

Adder wrote:

OptimisticJock wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:
At what point did anyone suggest the empire was universally lovely? The abolitionist movement was an example of a country doing the right thing agains t economic interests. Doesn't happen often.

It's a SNP thing mate.

Calm down Mr Brexiter

Raging.