Not Josh nor Fenbeagle, but still pretty funny. I think maybe this comic was penned around the time Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth came out, which was enough to make any thinking person start doubting science.
See this and many other funny cartoons about science and academia at: http://tapastic.com/episode/40056
ZombieSymmetry says:
“Indeed, if you are a “good” scientist, your first assumption should always be that you are screwing it up and that your objectivity is tainted by bias. Those who consider themselves immune to bias are the ones you need to look out for.”
This is true for every field of endeavor where actual results are desired. One should always question one’s conclusions and look for contrary data. The more complex the system the more that this is required for success.
brilliant, funny and informative
Mark Luhman:
“Government do not pay for science they pay for something that will support advocacy for what ever position they are using to extort more money out of the population, the left is just far more successful than those whom pretend to be on the right, someone truly on the right does not care what the science truly determines they just don’t want the tax payer to pay for it.”
Have you ever heard of an NSF grant? Or an NIH grant? Have you ever written a proposal for either?
I agree that funding processes become biased and are often influenced by whatever is politically trendy, but you’re making a blanket statement there that is absurd. You are effectively saying that every grant for any scientific research of any kind exists solely for advocacy. So, if I write a proposal to build a certain class of molecules in a new way, and I get it funded through NIH because those molecules have potential as oncology drugs, that whole process is tainted by … what … molecular advocacy?
Brian H says:
May 23, 2014 at 11:34 pm
Heh! I guess we should update our proclamation to:
And they should update the Communist Manifesto from the original:
to the more pressing:
It certainly gave me a laugh for the day. On the more serious side, it is unfortunate that this turns out to be true all too often. False hypotheses and staged results hold up actual scientific advancements and soak up funds that could be put to better use.
“False hypotheses and staged results hold up actual scientific advancements and soak up funds that could be put to better use.”
The feature of global warming climatology that makes it pseudoscientific is not generally that its hypotheses are false but that that they are not falsifiable. The lack of falsifiability is obscured by widespread applications of the equivocation fallacy on the part of climatologists.