4 ms·

What makes you think that they aren't trying to get it right? There's countless examples of fraud, complacency and bias in scientific research, but I'll just q

What makes you think that they aren't trying to get it right? There's countless examples of fraud, complacency and bias in scientific research, but I'll just quote the wise (albeit fictional) Jedi Master Yoda: "Do, or do not. There is no try." Especially when the fate of sentient life hangs in the balance.

icegreentea 13y ago
Still doesn't make sense. There are countless examples of shit gone wrong, but until you can prove that it is systemic and/or that the responsibility of the fraud, complacency, etc lie in the majority (or hell, say significant minority) of researchers and scientist, it's really not fair to paint them all with the same brush. Certainly there are countless examples of fraud, complacency and bias in all human endeavors, but that hardly indites all of humanity to "not trying to get it right". Furthermore, "do or do not" is childish when applied out of its proper context. The intention of "do or do not" is to remind you that in terms of your effect on the world, the effort you put into an unsuccessful act doesn't get you any closer to the actual act. What "do or do not" does not make -any- sense in is in situations with many factors out of your control (especially factors you don't even know about!), and especially when trying to judge someone or a group of people. I'm not sure exactly what point you're trying to make, but I think its that "when the fate of sentient beings hang in the balance, how hard you tried to do it right doesn't matter in my judgement of your ability to conduct your work". Which is completely nonsense. Go tell that you a paramedic, or a doctor right after they had someone die on them.
- contextual 13y ago
  Submitting and publishing dodgy, fraudulent or sloppy studies isn't trying, it undermines all of science. And when animals are subjected to pain and death for fame or career advancement, it's morally corrupt, even criminal.
ori_b 13y ago
http://chem.tufts.edu/answersinscience/relativityofwrong.htm http://chem.tufts.edu/answersinscience/relativityofwrong.htm Science is the art of improving successive approximations. If you think that a result is useless unless it is absolutely perfect, you are simply wrong.

icegreentea 13y ago

Still doesn't make sense. There are countless examples of shit gone wrong, but until you can prove that it is systemic and/or that the responsibility of the fraud, complacency, etc lie in the majority (or hell, say significant minority) of researchers and scientist, it's really not fair to paint them all with the same brush. Certainly there are countless examples of fraud, complacency and bias in all human endeavors, but that hardly indites all of humanity to "not trying to get it right". Furthermore, "do or do not" is childish when applied out of its proper context. The intention of "do or do not" is to remind you that in terms of your effect on the world, the effort you put into an unsuccessful act doesn't get you any closer to the actual act. What "do or do not" does not make -any- sense in is in situations with many factors out of your control (especially factors you don't even know about!), and especially when trying to judge someone or a group of people. I'm not sure exactly what point you're trying to make, but I think its that "when the fate of sentient beings hang in the balance, how hard you tried to do it right doesn't matter in my judgement of your ability to conduct your work". Which is completely nonsense. Go tell that you a paramedic, or a doctor right after they had someone die on them.

contextual 13y ago
Submitting and publishing dodgy, fraudulent or sloppy studies isn't trying, it undermines all of science. And when animals are subjected to pain and death for fame or career advancement, it's morally corrupt, even criminal.

ori_b 13y ago

http://chem.tufts.edu/answersinscience/relativityofwrong.htm http://chem.tufts.edu/answersinscience/relativityofwrong.htm Science is the art of improving successive approximations. If you think that a result is useless unless it is absolutely perfect, you are simply wrong.