Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Is science today an overrated endeavour?

arroba Email

In “Clueless in Toronto,” neurosurgeon Michael Egnor writes,

Science is an overrated endeavor. Obviously there have been substantial advances, but most of them have been in applied sciences like medical research and engineering, not ideology-infested “disciplines” like climate science and evolutionary biology. Ninety-five percent of the scientific literature is garbage, most of it is irreproducible, and most of the rest is irrelevant except to tenure. A lot of published science is so dodgy with data and logic that if it were a financial prospectus the authors would be prosecuted by securities authorities. And of course scientific literature is a prospectus, attracting hundreds of billions of research dollars annually. More.

This follows on a New York Times science writer asking, “Could physics be as bad as social psychology for scandals?”

The surest sign of trouble is that worry about these problems is seen as “anti-science,” despite the steady drumbeat of bad news. That makes reform impossible instead of just difficult.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Roomy cages built from DNA could one day deliver drugs, devices - March 13, 2014 http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/03/140313142716.htm bornagain77
I say there is no such thing as science or scientists. its just people figuring out things. Science is a verb and not a noun. Science rises or falls in effect and prestige relative to individuals who do something noteworthy in certain disciplines or in the public mind. The only person who is a scientist is one actively trying to figure something out or show someone else didn't. ID thinkers nere are scientists. literally. they strive to figure out things and debunk things by careful investigation in thought and deed. Science can only claim its a higher standard of investigation that can demand confidence in its conclusions. Its a methodology if it exists. In reality its just above average intelligent people, mostly, in certain subjects investigating same . Evolution was never created and supported by the smartest people and it did not employ a high standard of investigation before conclusions drawn. Its not science but unsupported hypothesis relative to biology. its now on the way out by smarter people taking it on. YEC was there first though. Robert Byers
Science Owes Nothing To Darwinian Evolution - Jonathan Wells - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4028096 In fact, the greatest advances in molecular biology for use by humans, which holds the greatest promise of technological breakthrough for mankind, owe absolutely nothing to Darwinian Evolution either: Introducing "Bi-Fi": The Biological Internet - October 3, 2012 Excerpt: They already achieved 5 petabits per cubic millimeter! That's 1,000 terabits of data -- nearly twice the entire volume of digital records at the Library of Congress1 -- in a cube the size of the space between your thumb and forefinger when you hold them slightly apart.2 There are more reasons they think DNA storage is the wave of the future: "DNA is particularly suitable for immutable, high-latency, sequential access applications such as archival storage. Density, stability, and energy efficiency are all potential advantages of DNA storage, although costs and times for writing and reading are currently impractical for all but century-scale archives. However, the costs of DNA synthesis and sequencing have been dropping at exponential rates of 5- and 12-fold per year, respectively--much faster than electronic media at 1.6-fold per year. Hand-held, single-molecule DNA sequencers are becoming available and would vastly simplify reading DNA-encoded information." Hand-held? You mean your smartphone might read and write documents in DNA? Why not? Well, if DNA is the ideal storage medium, how about using it for the Internet? In fact, "Bi-Fi: The Biological Internet" is in development at Stanford School of Medicine. (links provided at site) http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/10/introducing_bi-064781.html Biochemical Turing Machines “Reboot” the Watchmaker Argument - Fazale Rana - July 2012 Excerpt: Researchers recognize several advantages to DNA computers.(7) One is the ability to perform a massive number of operations at the same time (in parallel) as opposed to one at a time (serially) as demanded by silicon-based computers. Secondly, DNA has the capacity to store an enormous quantity of information. One gram of DNA can house as much information as nearly 1 trillion CDs. And a third benefit is that DNA computing operates near the theoretical capacity with regard to energy efficiency. http://stevebrownetc.com/2012/07/02/biochemical-turing-machines-%E2%80%9Creboot%E2%80%9D-the-watchmaker-argument/ Biological Computer: Stanford Researchers Discover Genetic Transistors That Turn Cells Into Computers - March 29, 2013 (w/video) Excerpt: This isn't to say that highly functional biological computers will arrive in short order, but we should certainly begin to see simple biological sensors that measure and record changes in a cell’s environment. Stanford has contributed the...gate design to the public domain, which should allow other research institutes, such as Harvard's Wyss Institute, to also begin work on the first biological computer. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/29/biological-computer_n_2981753.html bornagain77

Leave a Reply