Trust me, I'm a scientist (and not an advertising exec or journalist)

Don Haines

Beware of cats with laser eyes!
Jun 4, 2012
8,142
1,673
Canada
Personally, I am appalled ! I worked in a government lab to develop Sar beacons that were going to be given away for the public good..... and nobody tried to bribe me!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Aussie shooter

Aussie shooter

@brett.guy.photography
Dec 6, 2016
459
459
Our police and armed forces are on the whole a good bunch too. But, you might not think so on a wider international scale if you lived in Hong Kong, various Arab countries etc.
Well true. But I was talking from personal experience. Dodgy as in a lot of places
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
990
484
You have just written about doctors, who are trusted by about 56%, and statins, which apparently benefit about 40-50%! Perhaps, those fortunate 50% are the ones who are doing the trusting? All medications from aspirin to antibiotics to chemotherapy carry the risk of side effects. And it’s those plus sanitation that are responsible for the huge increase in life expectancy and the large number of aged photographers in CR.
Read the details again. Statins benefit about 50% of those to whom they were currently prescribed as of the time of that report.

More recently, over a decade later than these articles, the National Institutes of Health has agreed with most of the tennents presented in them.

Inflammation, not Cholesterol, Is a Cause of Chronic Disease
 
Last edited:

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
990
484
As Alan F pointed out, scientific practice is self-correcting. What counts as true is the consensus opinion which can emerge only after qualified scientists hash out the relevant evidence and conjectures. Thus, we know that a super-majority of climate scientists affirm the climate change thesis. This established fact does not mean the deniers lack integrity or are incompetent. What it does mean to the deneying lay-person is that they ought to examine the source of their disbelief because most of those qualified to judge the matter believe otherwise. It is rational for the lay-person to confidently choose to believe the consensus opinion of the scientists.
At the same time, the layperson should actually read what the actual scientists write about it rather than take politician's and journalist's word for what those scientists are saying. The latter tend to exaggerate the worst case scenario on the fringe of the models and present it as accepted, unavoidable fact, rather than a fringe prediction. We also need to pay attention to where each scientist is getting their funding. If researchers hired by big oil are not trustworthy to report unbiased facts, why are researchers hired by politicians (who always have an agenda - and will cut funding in a New York second if they don't get the result they are paying for) not to be questioned?

In the case of cholesterol and statins, it took over forty years to turn the tide once the ball got rolling. Please see this 2017 report from the U.S. National Institutes of Health.
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
990
484
The primary aim of most scientists is to pursue science for its own sake whereas the primary goal in some, but by no means all, other activities is to make money, and make money by any means or exercise power. Some scientists may be corrupted and even dishonest, and some are incompetent but the goal is the pursuit of truth and those who let the side down are not the mainstream. And similar worthy goals apply to people who work in many other activities as well.
The need for funding to do any appreciable amount of scientific research is a powerful influence on scientists, whether they admit it or not. Just as what happens in pretty much every other profession is also driven by the self-preservation instinct with which we are all evolutionarily wired.
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
990
484
I think that the number of actual scientists who twist things is relatively small, perhaps a few hundred out of a huge number. There are, in fact, a group of people who make a very good living as expert witnesses. They are basically people who have a talent to seem truthful, and to present information in a clear, simple, and beliveable fashion. Having impeccable credentials is mandatory, but they have to simplify the facts for the public and know how to work with attorneys to omit facts that may conflict with what they present. The best ones have a long waiting list of clients. I know one retired police officer who made a fair living by testifying in court about the mundane facts involving auto accidents, calculating likely speed based on skid marks, weather, type of pavement, etc. If you wanted to show that the party was or was not speeding, you hired him to testify. If his facts did not support your case, you paid him and sent him on his way, he never testified.

Most Scientists work in the trenches and do not appear on TV Commercials or in trials where they get paid for their story telling expertise. I worked for a large company which had a very large number of engineers and scientists. I was not aware of any of them appearing in TV Commercials, but some may have been forced to testify in court.

One who worked for me did get interviewed for a Newspaper article investigating a whistle blower claim. His approach was to bring the reporter into the lab and show him everything about the product, including the failures induced in the lab and how they were done. (The whistle blower was a lab tech who did not understand that testing parts to destruction in a lab meant they were unsafe). The reporter was impressed by his openness and willingness to cooperate and show how the failure in the lab led to a modified product. What was going to be a critical article became a positive one because no information was held back by the Scientist.

"Scientists" working for private enterprises developing products are more engineers than scientists, regardless of what their degree is. They are also motivated by the knowledge that what they do must produce a viable product in order for their company to continue funding their endeavors.

Research scientists working in grant-financed environments are motivated by giving the grantor what they want, whether that is the unbiased truth or a preconceived conclusion, in order to continue the flow of dollars to their research institution.
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
990
484
Personally, I am appalled ! I worked in a government lab to develop Sar beacons that were going to be given away for the public good..... and nobody tried to bribe me!
That's not really scientific research, that's engineering.

Besides, neither Big Pharma, Big Oil, nor Big tobacco, etc. have a vested interest in how SAR beacons are designed and implemented.
 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
Jul 21, 2010
24,610
2,071
More recently, the National Institute of Health has agreed with most of the tennents presented in these articles over a decade earlier.

Inflammation, not Cholesterol, Is a Cause of Chronic Disease
Sorry, but your ability to interpret the scientific literature is sorely lacking. The journal article you link (twice) is not authored by, reviewed by, or approved by the NIH, i.e. NIH said nothing of the sort. Your link is to an article indexed by PubMed. While that literature database is maintained by the NIH, the NIH makes no comment and passes no judgement on the content of those articles. In the link you cite, the review article was written by scientists at the University of Limerick in Ireland, who have no affiliation with the NIH. Also, the article was published in the journal Nutrients, which has a low impact factor (4.196) and is certainly not the publication of choice for articles related to cardiovascular medicine (which would be one like Circulation, with an impact factor of 23.054; above 15 is often considered ‘high impact’).

The internet is a dangerous place full of copious information, and if you parrot that information without the ability to understand it you merely end up looking foolish to those who do.
 

AlanF

Canon 5DSR II
Aug 16, 2012
5,744
3,071
"Scientists" working for private enterprises developing products are more engineers than scientists, regardless of what their degree is. They are also motivated by the knowledge that what they do must produce a viable product in order for their company to continue funding their endeavors.

Research scientists working in grant-financed environments are motivated by giving the grantor what they want, whether that is the unbiased truth or a preconceived conclusion, in order to continue the flow of dollars to their research institution.
Delivering viable products on the one hand and successfully obtaining grants on the other are all part of the process of surveillance of science. The award of a grant depends on stringent review of the originality and feasibility of the proposal and the reputation of the applicant in delivering the goods and being honest. Any hint of previous malpractice will lead to the grant not being funded. The better the reputation of a scientist, the better the chance of funding. It pays to be trustworthy in science.
 

AlanF

Canon 5DSR II
Aug 16, 2012
5,744
3,071
Why is this in the EOS bodies rumor thread? :ROFLMAO:
See the opening post:"It's true after all, scientists are the most trusted group, and advertising executives are down there with Government ministers and politicians. Average members of the public don't do too badly either, well above journalists. Pity Youtubers weren't ranked. So when it comes to considering the merits of cameras and lenses, you know whom to trust more!"

It's telling you not to trust advertising execs and journalists comments about EOS bodies and to put your trust into more reliable people. As usual, the content has gone off at a tangent.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: CanonFanBoy

Kit.

EOS 6D MK II
Apr 25, 2011
1,347
740
The need for funding to do any appreciable amount of scientific research is a powerful influence on scientists, whether they admit it or not.
In the case of tobacco industry, the company-sponsored research itself was generally honest, but the results were privately owned by the companies whose execs and lawyers were deciding what to publish and what to hide, so only the outliers favorable to the tobacco industry were published.

Just as what happens in pretty much every other profession is also driven by the self-preservation instinct with which we are all evolutionarily wired.
I think you misunderstand what "evolutionarily wired instinct" is.
 

AlanF

Canon 5DSR II
Aug 16, 2012
5,744
3,071
.... In the link you cite, the review article was written by scientists at the University of Limerick ....
Don't mention Limerick as it is bound to set me off writing really bad ones that don't scan and I will regret like:

That wily old tog Michael Clark
Took potshots at science for a lark
But as CR well knows
It will over expose
His pixels to neuro’s sharp spark
 

stevelee

FT-QL
Jul 6, 2017
1,250
281
Davidson, NC
When most people quit smoking, they gain weight. Too much weight is bad for your health.

I think it was Camels that advertised that some large percent of doctors smoked their brand. And then there was the advertising slogan, "Reach for a Lucky instead of a sweet."
 

Kit.

EOS 6D MK II
Apr 25, 2011
1,347
740
When most people quit smoking, they gain weight. Too much weight is bad for your health.

I think it was Camels that advertised that some large percent of doctors smoked their brand. And then there was the advertising slogan, "Reach for a Lucky instead of a sweet."
Oh, that reminds me of...

https://www.radio.cz/en/section/curraffrs/smoking-helps-czech-budget-philip-morris-funded-study-reveals
According to the study, commissioned by a major American tobacco company and released in Prague last week, the negative economic effects of smoking in the Czech Republic are generously outweighed by financial benefits to government coffers. The study said smoking-related taxes pump more than 20 billion CZK (or 500 million USD) into the public treasury annually. In addition, the report says, on a purely economic point of view, the early deaths of smokers reduce government expenses for pensions and old-age housing by more than one billion crowns a year. And that outweighs the country's estimated annual loss of 15 and a half billion crowns linked to smoking-related health-care, worker absenteeism, income taxes lost due to death, and the costs of smoking-sparked fires.
 

Mt Spokane Photography

I post too Much on Here!!
Mar 25, 2011
15,519
748
When most people quit smoking, they gain weight. Too much weight is bad for your health.

I think it was Camels that advertised that some large percent of doctors smoked their brand. And then there was the advertising slogan, "Reach for a Lucky instead of a sweet."
Lots of people used to smoke, and Doctors were among them. Most doctors are not scientists, there was little research available during the period when Doctors and many others including scientists were hooked. I grew up watching mom and dad smoke in the 1940's and 1950's. That made me decide to avoid smoking. It was responsible for moms early death.
 
  • Sad
Reactions: Michael Clark

IglooEater

EOS 6D MK II
Nov 15, 2014
904
0
The only surprise to me on the list was the massive trust for teachers. Anyone care to enlighten me on this one? Maybe it’s my anti-authoritarian streak.
I suppose it’s because we’re taught to trust the teachers;)
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
990
484
Delivering viable products on the one hand and successfully obtaining grants on the other are all part of the process of surveillance of science. The award of a grant depends on stringent review of the originality and feasibility of the proposal and the reputation of the applicant in delivering the goods and being honest. Any hint of previous malpractice will lead to the grant not being funded. The better the reputation of a scientist, the better the chance of funding. It pays to be trustworthy in science.
That all depends on where the money for the grant is coming from. I'm sure which scientists Exxon/Mobil consider "trustworthy" to deliver the goods and which scientists Greenpeace consider "trustworthy" to deliver the goods are not the same lists.
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
990
484
Don't mention Limerick as it is bound to set me off writing really bad ones that don't scan and I will regret like:

That wily old tog Michael Clark
Took potshots at science for a lark
But as CR well knows
It will over expose
His pixels to neuro’s sharp spark
1569467990843.png