media can't accept the scientific evidence on BPA

Speaking of physics:

Schön scandal
Jan Hendrik Schön is a German physicist who briefly rose to prominence after a series of apparent breakthroughs that were later discovered to be fraudulent. Before he was exposed, Schön had received the Otto-Klung-Weberbank Prize for Physics in 2001, the Braunschweig Prize in 2001 and the Outstanding Young Investigator Award of the Materials Research Society in 2002, which was later rescinded.

The Schön scandal provoked discussion in the scientific community about the degree of responsibility of coauthors and reviewers of scientific papers. The debate centered on whether peer review, traditionally designed to find errors and determine relevance and originality of papers, should also be required to detect deliberate fraud.

pineinthegrass wrote: Anyone who thinks science is false is a hypocrite to even be using a computer.

Computers rely an many fields of science including mathematics, chemistry, physics, material science, computer science and others. Everything must work seemlessly together for the computer to function. Any errors or falsehoods in the science involved would make the whole system fail.

While any field has its black sheep, science is too often criticised for political or religious reasons. If the science doesn't match your political beliefs, some just deny the science even though they have little facts to support their beliefs.

If you still think the world is flat, and the sun and planets rotate around us, then fine. Just keep it to yourself and live by your beliefs without wasing the time of the rest of us. And why beleive the even more incredible things that happen to make a computer work, including quantum physics where electrons can pass through "inpenetrable" barriers as happens all the time in flash memory?

So bottom line, get off the effing computer!

Science serves the human race well. I do not say that science cannot be used. What I say is that those who worship before the alter of "Science" and bow before its every proclamation are fools.
Today's science is tomorrow's joke. Science should be taken with great amounts of skepticism.

Scientific truths do not exist. Scientific evidences are just todays expedient tools which can be used to cope.

Science is not just bent to the influences of the political, money moguls, etc.
There are those who believe that science is pure of heart.
I do believe that the illustrations that I have posted show that science is rotten from within.

major bean wrote: Science should be taken with great amounts of skepticism.

As should posts by anonymous people on a message board, IMO.

I love your source reference there kresspin. This is the first introduction of namecalling for this thread. It is no longer a virgin thread thanks to you.

Here is some food for thought. It is most probably best that I am anonymous, for I am much more abrasive in person, with many rough edges.

Have you volumteered your name here, Ms. Anonymous?

major bean wrote: Science is not just bent to the influences of the political, money moguls, etc.
There are those who believe that science is pure of heart.
I do believe that the illustrations that I have posted show that science is rotten from within.

I'm trying to understand where you come from, but am having a hard time with it. The only thing I can think of is that scientific thought evolves and because ideas and interpretations on certain subjects change it is an indication of science being bent and rotten? Am I even close? What voluminous data have you posted that corroborates such sweeping generalizations? If you want to forward a few examples where scientist have become the Darth Vadors, it does not condemn all of science as you would have us believe. In fact I take personal offense to that as you insinuate I lack integrity, something that is exceptionally dear to my heart when it comes to science and personal dealings.

kresspin wrote:

major bean wrote: Science should be taken with great amounts of skepticism.

As should posts by anonymous people on a message board, IMO.

I'd have to agree that scientific theories need to be questioned. The whole idea of science is to keep asking questions until you ask a good one, meaning one that points to a problem with an interpretation or one which you can not answer. It is certainly my sincerest hope that a future scientist who reviews my data will value the data but laugh at the naivety of my interpretations. As scientists we do the best we can with limited data. As more data becomes available, interpretations often evolve or change entirely. As in science, dogmatic thinking in all aspects of life needs to be challenged.

major bean wrote: I love your source reference there kresspin. This is the first introduction of namecalling for this thread. It is no longer a virgin thread thanks to you.

Here is some food for thought. It is most probably best that I am anonymous, for I am much more abrasive in person, with many rough edges.

Have you volumteered your name here, Ms. Anonymous?

Ahem. I see no evidence of name calling, only a pointed statement that not all posters warrant trust much less adulation.

At least kresspin is consistent in her not adding anything meaningful to a discussion.

As for the actual topic, I think too many of us confuse knowledge with belief when we hear about new scientific findings. One day we are told something causes cancer, ten years later we get "oops, our bad, go ahead and eat that". Scientists are flawed, biased, and can also be incompetent like the rest of us.

I can understand that the main goal for any scientist is to discovery some sort of "truth" that will somehow help humanity or the planet. I see it like an artist who wants to stand out in the world of art by creating a masterpiece, when in reality, 99% of artists will only be average at best and their work will never get world wide praise. If a scientist or group of scientists never discover something that fundamentally changes our way of life, or explains the weather, or shows us how we really got here, what will they ever be known for? I think it would be a thankless occupation for the most part with a sprinkling of great successes (not to say that's a bad thing, because it would be a very interesting and challenging occupation).

Trial and error, bias, incompetence, and fraud are universal truths for all of humanity, and scientists are not exempt.

major bean wrote: I love your source reference there kresspin. This is the first introduction of namecalling for this thread. It is no longer a virgin thread thanks to you.

You really consider this name calling???

As should posts by anonymous people on a message board, IMO.