3 ms·
You bring up a good counterpoint. But scientific fraud is extremely common, more than half of peer reviewed journal published research results are wrong, and m
by bugsy 16y ago
You bring up a good counterpoint.
But scientific fraud is extremely common, more than half of peer reviewed journal published research results are wrong, and many if not most professional scientists do research to support a corporate or political agenda. Saying that scientists are liars is not inaccurate, as a general statement, because many scientists are indeed liars, particularly that they claim things which are not true, which is certainly true per Ioannidis (http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124 http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal...).
As applied to specific scientists it is not necessarily true, but the lyricist does use a collective addressing form. In the loose poetic form of a song "y'all" is not generally interpreted to mean all in a strict mathematical sense, but is a plural second person pronoun that addresses those it addresses.
- archgoon 16y agoThe generally accepted definition of 'liar' is not someone who says something that is wrong, but rather, someone who knowingly says something is wrong. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/lie http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/lie Note that only the third definition is the purely factual one. When you are using the word 'liar', you are typically implying the first two. (People differ as to whether spreading a lie makes you a liar). Now typically in science, you only get accused of lying if you intentionally misrepresent your data. This is _not_ what the linked to article says is happening. For those interested, here's a somewhat more digested summary of the paper (with a few caveats mentioned): http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2005/09/why_most_publis.html http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2005/09/why...