Return to CreateDebate.comjaded • Join this debate community

Joe_Cavalry All Day Every Day


Debate Info

3
2
True. Wait..., what? No!!!!
Debate Score:5
Arguments:5
Total Votes:5
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 True. (3)
 
 Wait..., what? No!!!! (2)

Debate Creator

jolie(9804) pic



The biggest problem with science is money.

http://www.vox.com/2016/7/14/12016710/science-challeges-research-funding-peer-review-process

The way money is handed out puts pressure on labs to publish a lot of papers, breeds conflicts of interest, and encourages scientists to overhype their work.

This leads to bad science which then leads to the public not putting their trust in science.

Evolution teaches that the strongest survive in a given environment.  The environment is thus the driving force behind bad science.  Change the environment and you can change the science.  If you want good science, create an environment where good science can thrive.

True.

Side Score: 3
VS.

Wait..., what? No!!!!

Side Score: 2
1 point

The economy is the driving force behind a lot of shit on this planet. Why do we have so much waste? Because we have planned obsolescence. Why do we have planned obsolescence? Because it creates jobs, thus improving the economy.

Side: True.

Yeah this was covered in a Last Week Tonight segment. Its not that science doesnt work, it obviously does. But money and media can corrupt it. They will take an entry-level study on, say, coffee beans and the study might conclude that coffee beans contain a chemical which MAY be able to lower body fat. But theres no other studies cross confirming this. But the media will take it and youll see blown up news stories like: THE NEW HOT WEIGHT LOSS CURE! 2 CUPS OF COFFEE A DAY AND WATCH THE WEIGHT FALL RIGHT OFF!!

But of course they dont tell you that the study isnt conclusive by any means. Also they completely leave out the fact that you need a healthy diet and regular exercise in addition to the coffee consumption.

Side: True.
1 point

There are some bad things about a profit motive. If you have lots of money, then that makes more research and then more progress.

Side: True.
1 point

The way money is handed out puts pressure on labs to publish a lot of papers, breeds conflicts of interest, and encourages scientists to overhype their work.

This leads to bad science which then leads to the public not putting their trust in science.

Actually this lead to BOTH good and bad science. And scientists actually can only do so much to hype their work. Becasue through the process of Peer Review, the GOOD science will almost always win-out via utilization of the Empirical Method. That is to say: at the end of the day, the true facts will more often than not trump the spurious science, or the pseudo-science.

And the general public usually DOES put their trust in science. Since through good and proven and tested science we now have superior medical care; technology; and standards of living than we have ever had before. The few people who do NOT listen to science are usually the religious zealots, who distrust it because it often disproves or casts as highly-unlikely the doctrines they want to believe in.

News flash: you trust science every day! Every time you take a medication; drive your car; use your computer; flip a light switch; ride in a airplane; or climb a ladder you are trusting the science which developed and invented those products.

This is the reason that the Theists and especially the Young Earthers always make me laugh. They trust science and use it every day but when it comes to the hundreds of radiometric dating methods and all those anthropologists and Biologists and geologists who tell them the Earth is Billions and not thousands of years old...they all of a sudden claim science is ignorant.

Hypocrite much? LOL

Change the environment and you can change the science. If you want good science, create an environment where good science can thrive.

No thanks, the environment is just fine. I work in it every day. It is through competition and free exchange of our thoughts and ideas that the winnowing process that will eventually discern the TRUTH is driven and augmented.

The alternative to government NOT providing funding to science would actually hurt the scientific process. It would be throwing out the baby with the bathwater, so to speak. It would be severely curtailing a very productive and useful and necessary industry just because it is infested with a few bad apples.

History and especially economics have shown us that competition is a good thing. It improves quality. It is when their is NO competition, but rather a monopoly that the consumer--or YOU, the general public--are usually the ones hurt the most.

Hope this helps!

SS

Side: Wait..., what? No!!!!
1 point

The article says that the media also adds to the hype and that peer review is broken.

You should also have a disclaimer that you are in the field and thus a vested interest in keeping the system as is ;)

Side: Wait..., what? No!!!!