The collection of persistent science tales

[C C]

The science myths that will not die
http://www.nature.com/news/the-science-m...ie-1.19022

EXCERPT: Some dangerous myths get plenty of air time: vaccines cause autism, HIV doesn't cause AIDS. But many others swirl about, too, harming people, sucking up money, muddying the scientific enterprise — or simply getting on scientists' nerves. Here, "Nature" looks at the origins and repercussions of five myths that refuse to die....

---

Ten myths of science
http://www.bluffton.edu/homepages/facsta...Myths.html

EXCERPT: This article addresses and attempts to refute several of the most widespread and enduring misconceptions held by students regarding the enterprise of science. The ten myths discussed include the common notions that theories become laws, that hypotheses are best characterized as educated guesses, and that there is a commonly-applied scientific method. In addition, the article includes discussion of other incorrect ideas such as the view that evidence leads to sure knowledge, that science and its methods provide absolute proof, and that science is not a creative endeavor. Finally, the myths that scientists are objective, that experiments are the sole route to scientific knowledge and that scientific conclusions are continually reviewed conclude this presentation. The paper ends with a plea that instruction in and opportunities to experience the nature of science are vital in preservice and inservice teacher education programs to help unseat the myths of science....

---

5 BS Science Myths Your Entire View Of The World Rests On
http://www.cracked.com/article_24413_5-s...wrong.html

EXCERPT: Every child in the US -- save for the weirdo home school kids, and those being raised by wolves (not the only place those demographics overlap) -- must endure the public education system. Jaded teachers, shoveling facts hand over fist into generation after generation of rambunctious children and sullen teens until, at last, the students graduate and are free to believe whatever stupid crap they want. But it's all worth it, because at least you leave school knowing a few undeniable truths. Perhaps fewer than you think...

---

It's time for these 101 ridiculous science 'facts' to die
http://uk.businessinsider.com/worst-scie...ths-2016-1

EXCERPT: Who hasn't shared an amazing science fact only to feel embarrassed later on, when you find out the information was wrong? No more. It's time to put an end to the most alluring science myths, misconceptions, and inaccuracies passed down through the ages. To help the cause we've rounded up and corrected dozens of the most shocking science "facts" that are bizarrely wrong about food, animals, the Earth, biology, space, alcohol, and health....

---

My Review of Galileo Goes to Jail
http://scienceblogs.com/evolutionblog/20...goes-to-j/

EXCERPT: In a couple of recent posts I have mentioned the book "Galileo Goes to Jail and Other Myths About Science and Religion" edited by Ronald Numbers. Since I have now finished reading it, I figure it is time for a proper review. [...] "Galileo Goes to Jail" consists of twenty-five short essays, each centered around some “myth” related to science and religion. Some of the myths are of the sort that make religion look bad (so that by correcting them religion’s image is improved), while others are those that tend to make science look bad....

[Magical Realist]

Shhhhh! Don't say the scientific method is a myth too loud. It might get you burned at the stake.

[RainbowUnicorn]

The science myths that will not die
http://www.nature.com/news/the-science-m...ie-1.19022

EXCERPT: Some dangerous myths get plenty of air time: vaccines cause autism, HIV doesn't cause AIDS. But many others swirl about, too, harming people, sucking up money, muddying the scientific enterprise — or simply getting on scientists' nerves. Here, "Nature" looks at the origins and repercussions of five myths that refuse to die....

vaccines cause autism,

soo...
in the test group of babbies that have not been immunised what is the autism rate ?

edited to add... i am not a "anti-vacca"
i am pro vaccinations.

my personal opinion about Autism being triggered(lets use scientific terms rather than joinging the idiot ranting noise) is around a 60% probabillity.

several scientific facts remain.
1 there is no test currently being provided & proven to show pre disposition for autism.
2 there is no group of doctors & parents happy to offer up their babbies for double blind studys
3 there is more than 1 type of vacine
4 there are no tests to show allergic reaction to heavy metals in babies and no doctors or parents are offering their babbies up for double blind tests.
5 in the USA Profit is the driver of medical science. nothing more nothing less.
5.1 concepts of liable which may result in millions of dollars worth of liability to a company will be hidden as history shows in all cases. the only proof that has been proven is after the company has hidden all the results and a private citizen with millions of dollars worth of free legal aid has proven it over several years in courts working to fight the capitalist for profit judicial system as much as the company.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3558419

The metal concentrations found in the majority of these products were low or undetectable. The metal levels varied from manufacturer to manufacturer,

http://www.publichealth.org/public-aware...s-vaccine/

Back in 1997, children were receiving three vaccines that together contained more mercury than the EPA recommended limit (though not more than the FDA limit). This led to speculation that thimerosal in vaccines could be linked to autism or other conditions.

and no scientific study has found a link between ethylmercury and autism or any other harmful effects.

{{}} this is me speculating now, as you will be aware a toxic poisoning of a person does not preclude a person being allergic to some type of chemical in trace amounts.
peanuts is an easily used example.

scientificaly there is no proof that various types of *vaccines do not trigger a pre-disposition to Autism.

*vaccines contain many things, least of which are actual bacteria. it would not be unreasonable to expect some babbies wil have developmental allergy to some bacteria just like some viruses kill some people who seem perfectly healthy while others are barely efected by the same virus.

it appears the majority of the debate is surrounding heard effect in a individual rights construct of social engineering.
The jury is still out if the state can force babies to be immunised against their will(who owns the babies?)
This ownership of babies is at the heart of the issue but is dodged by the people debating the perepheral toos & frows.
in some instances the baby is owned by the state in others the baby is owned by the Genetic parents.

Denial of blood transfusion & various other forms of medical science is seen as child abuse via neglect or willful denial.
interestingly enough denial of immunisation is yet to be judged by the state to define if it constitutes willful neglect.


http://info.cmsri.org/the-driven-researc...ntaminants

Researchers examining 44 samples of 30 different vaccines found dangerous contaminants, including red blood cells in one vaccine and metal toxicants in every single sample tested – except in one animal vaccine.

maybe ... just maybe it is the private profit that sits in the way of this evolution of social consciouseness.
how do you trust a door to door vacuum cleaner sales man pushing vaccines with your babys life ?

does FLINT make your vaccines  ? would your baby like a glass of water while you wait ? 

[C C]

Science (or its social interface to the public which lobbies itself as a policy-maker or stimulus for such) loses some of its authoritative teeth when it comes to issues that lack consensus support from Hollywood and SJWs. Thus the anti-vaccination movement has managed to elude the full brunt of an evil or sacrilegious label -- in contrast to, say, Anthropogenic Climate Change Denial. (Blame Hollywood For Anti-Vaxxers)

Even politics in general, as unconditioned by left or right polarities, plays a major factor in these conclusions dispensed by science. A quick flyover offered in Freeman Dyson's quote below.

So it may seem a fine line between farcical and potentially tragic that unsettled research often gets declared as "__x__ does not cause __z__" in the public sector. Especially when, in the particular case of whether or not cellphones cause cancer in humans, the usage of the devices hadn't even spanned a long enough time back in earlier decades to justify the confidence in science as having determined anything with its studies. (But all ideological factions are so addicted to / dependent upon mobile transmitters, anyway, that even if the "science social-portal" did do a turnaround and proclaim them utterly unsafe, its authority would thereby lack effectiveness for stimulating sweeping policy.)

Freeman Dyson: In the modern world, science and society often interact in a perverse way. We live in a technological society, and technology causes political problems. The politicians and the public expect science to provide answers to the problems. Scientific experts are paid and encouraged to provide answers. The public does not have much use for a scientist who says, “Sorry, but we don’t know”. The public prefers to listen to scientists who give confident answers to questions and make confident predictions of what will happen as a result of human activities. So it happens that the experts who talk publicly about politically contentious questions tend to speak more clearly than they think. They make confident predictions about the future, and end up believing their own predictions. Their predictions become dogmas which they do not question. The public is led to believe that the fashionable scientific dogmas are true, and it may sometimes happen that they are wrong. That is why heretics who question the dogmas are needed.

As a scientist I do not have much faith in predictions. Science is organized unpredictability. The best scientists like to arrange things in an experiment to be as unpredictable as possible, and then they do the experiment to see what will happen. You might say that if something is predictable then it is not science. When I make predictions, I am not speaking as a scientist. I am speaking as a story-teller, and my predictions are science-fiction rather than science. The predictions of science-fiction writers are notoriously inaccurate. Their purpose is to imagine what might happen rather than to describe what will happen. I will be telling stories that challenge the prevailing dogmas of today. The prevailing dogmas may be right, but they still need to be challenged. I am proud to be a heretic. The world always needs heretics to challenge the prevailing orthodoxies. Since I am heretic, I am accustomed to being in the minority. If I could persuade everyone to agree with me, I would not be a heretic.

We are lucky that we can be heretics today without any danger of being burned at the stake. But unfortunately I am an old heretic. Old heretics do not cut much ice. When you hear an old heretic talking, you can always say, “Too bad he has lost his marbles”, and pass on. What the world needs is young heretics. I am hoping that one or two of the people who read this piece may fill that role. --Heretical thoughts about science and society ... edge.org ... Aug 7, 2007

[RainbowUnicorn]

Science (or its social interface to the public which lobbies itself as a policy-maker or stimulus for such) loses some of its authoritative teeth when it comes to issues that lack consensus support from Hollywood and SJWs. Thus the anti-vaccination movement has managed to elude the full brunt of an evil or sacrilegious label -- in contrast to, say, Anthropogenic Climate Change Denial. (Blame Hollywood For Anti-Vaxxers)

Even politics in general, as unconditioned by left or right polarities, plays a major factor in these conclusions dispensed by science. A quick flyover offered in Freeman Dyson's quote below.

So it may seem a fine line between farcical and potentially tragic that unsettled research often gets declared as "__x__ does not cause __z__" in the public sector. Especially when, in the particular case of whether or not cellphones cause cancer in humans, the usage of the devices hadn't even spanned a long enough time back in earlier decades to justify the confidence in science as having determined anything with its studies. (But all ideological factions are so addicted to / dependent upon mobile transmitters, anyway, that even if the "science social-portal" did do a turnaround and proclaim them utterly unsafe, its authority would thereby lack effectiveness for stimulating sweeping policy.)

Freeman Dyson: In the modern world, science and society often interact in a perverse way. We live in a technological society, and technology causes political problems. The politicians and the public expect science to provide answers to the problems. Scientific experts are paid and encouraged to provide answers. The public does not have much use for a scientist who says, “Sorry, but we don’t know”. The public prefers to listen to scientists who give confident answers to questions and make confident predictions of what will happen as a result of human activities. So it happens that the experts who talk publicly about politically contentious questions tend to speak more clearly than they think. They make confident predictions about the future, and end up believing their own predictions. Their predictions become dogmas which they do not question. The public is led to believe that the fashionable scientific dogmas are true, and it may sometimes happen that they are wrong. That is why heretics who question the dogmas are needed.

As a scientist I do not have much faith in predictions. Science is organized unpredictability. The best scientists like to arrange things in an experiment to be as unpredictable as possible, and then they do the experiment to see what will happen. You might say that if something is predictable then it is not science. When I make predictions, I am not speaking as a scientist. I am speaking as a story-teller, and my predictions are science-fiction rather than science. The predictions of science-fiction writers are notoriously inaccurate. Their purpose is to imagine what might happen rather than to describe what will happen. I will be telling stories that challenge the prevailing dogmas of today. The prevailing dogmas may be right, but they still need to be challenged. I am proud to be a heretic. The world always needs heretics to challenge the prevailing orthodoxies. Since I am heretic, I am accustomed to being in the minority. If I could persuade everyone to agree with me, I would not be a heretic.

We are lucky that we can be heretics today without any danger of being burned at the stake. But unfortunately I am an old heretic. Old heretics do not cut much ice. When you hear an old heretic talking, you can always say, “Too bad he has lost his marbles”, and pass on. What the world needs is young heretics. I am hoping that one or two of the people who read this piece may fill that role. --Heretical thoughts about science and society ... edge.org ... Aug 7, 2007

"Fasionably acceptable science"
i have been pondering if this is a subjective symptom of ego centric sociopothy "the cult of perosnality" as it were.
is the narcissist normalised as the ideal leader ?
why is that ?
because the current average mind of the public animal is incapable of computing & comprehending larger volumes of perspectives and ideologies ?
is this the Entropy of the median intellectual civilisation... hump in the road ... ?

roll up your trouser legs lest we get caught in the backwash

[Carol]

Shhhhh! Don't say the scientific method is a myth too loud. It might get you burned at the stake.

I don't think we have to fear that in this forum, but in others it could be a problem.  

The myth that bothers me is that there is one scientific method and history is outside a reliable account of important information.

What the world needs is young heretics. I am hoping that one or two of the people who read this piece may fill that role. --

If we want heretics we need to return to teaching our young how to think, instead of what to think. That means an end to present day testing. I have an old textbook that advises the teacher to not be overly concerned with dates and places, but to pay attention to if the child understands the concept. Education for independent thinking is teaching increasing complex concepts, not facts. The test for knowledge of concepts of open-ended question with no right or wrong answer.

That understanding of education goes with an old logic book that I have. The way that book explains logic makes a person question what anyone knows. There are just so many variables. A terrible problem with social research is after it is narrowed to one pure measurement, it is so far removed from reality, it is useless. I studied public policy and administration at the U of O and it was the most depressing time of my life. I think science leads to a useful understanding of reality, but not social research done for planning public policy, and when the bureaucrats rely on this research and we rely on them, no one has a good connection with reality.

Our technological society is as dysfunctional as the church of old, but I have hope we will develop beyond this and end up with something that is really good. That would be a return to education that uses the Conceptual Method and is intolerant of the Behaviorist Method and the testing we doing now.

[C C]

[...] A terrible problem with social research is after it is narrowed to one pure measurement, it is so far removed from reality, it is useless. I studied public policy and administration at the U of O and it was the most depressing time of my life. I think science leads to a useful understanding of reality, but not social research done for planning public policy, and when the bureaucrats rely on this research and we rely on them, no one has a good connection with reality. [...]

Yah, we actually live our discrete lives in an equally concrete world of particulars and contingent events. Not the generalizations, overarching patterns, and abstract models and conclusions extracted from quantitative data.

"Understanding" occurs at a broader level where specific phenomena are subsumed or organized under and correlated to concepts. Triggering prescriptive responses or plans. But that Platonic furniture is not something one can sit in, dine at, or sleep on.

Reality (for us) is still what's occurring in immediate experience rather than enduring principles behind the scenes regulating the world and personal thought. The past is significant, the future is significant. Judgements and guidance are significant. But the unexpected, undocumented, personal body-chemistry reaction to recently approved drug #^%@ is what has acquired the tangibility and the demanding of real-life attention. Or what's barreling out of control down the hill on Highway 00.