Bias in Papers

[RussT]

Originally Posted by Cougar

Tentative conclusions.

I do worry that L-C&G seem to be more invested in proving Arpian ideas as opposed to reporting on any negative findings. If their research doesn't find the correlation they want, it seems they will tweak a parameter here, extend a parameter there, until they eke out some indication of support.

I don't mean for this to be particularly controversial, but would like to address
this.

I have seen this particular concern expressed several times in differing cirumtances, and would suggest that it happens on both sides, and doesn't necessarily have to due with lack of integrity.

Every paper is written because someone has an interst in that particular phenomena, and generally has a point of view, based in their interest, so it is more or less to be expected that there is some kind of agenda there. I think it would be very naive to think any differently.

Here is an example of the same kind of concern.

Hubbles Sees Galaxies Under Construction:

The latest image released from the Hubble Space Telescope shows a beautiful view of a large galaxy being assembled from a collection of small galaxies. The large galaxy, officially known as MRC 1138-262, but nicknamed the Spider Galaxy, contains dozens of smaller star-forming galaxies. It's incredibly far away, 10.6 billion years, so we see it as it looked only 3 billion years after the Big Bang. These observations match commonly held theories about how small irregular galaxies merge together to form the larger structures we see today.

http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=845100&postcount=1

This looks very Stephens Quintetish to me.

[galacsi]

Yes very often these announces are not convincing , but it would be boring to repeat it at each time. I prefer my sarcastic indifference. The farther away from planet Earth the more bunk is astronomy. Cosmology is complete BS.

[RussT]

Yes very often these announces are not convincing , but it would be boring to repeat it at each time. I prefer my sarcastic indifference. The farther away from planet Earth the more bunk is astronomy. Cosmology is complete BS.

[I prefer my sarcastic indifference.]

This is your choice, of course.

[The farther away from planet Earth the more bunk is astronomy.]

This isn't always true, but it obviously gets more difficult to determine detail the farther away we see.

[Cosmology is complete BS.]

This is, IMHO, BS!

All of the Astronomy sciences have done an awesome job of gathering clues over the last 100 + years, and the last 20 years have been exponentially better. The next 20 (which I won't see) will even be better!!!

[Cougar]

I have seen this particular concern expressed several times in differing cirumtances, and would suggest that it happens on both sides, and doesn't necessarily have to due with lack of integrity.
Right. I don't think I said that. It is a particular mindset, though. Science is not football.

Every paper is written because someone has an interst in that particular phenomena, and generally has a point of view, based in their interest, so it is more or less to be expected that there is some kind of agenda there. I think it would be very naive to think any differently.
Right, but even the most energetic Research In Progress searches, at the accelerator labs around the world, for example, are trying to verify the existence of the Higgs boson or the LightestSuperPartner or whatever. It would be extremely remarkable to find them. It may not be as joyous, but one shouldn't forget that the non-finding of these things in the energy ranges they're expected may be just as important a finding.

I prefer my sarcastic indifference.
That's fine, but it should be knowledgeable sarcastic indifference.

The farther away from planet Earth the more bunk is astronomy. Cosmology is complete BS.
Y'see there. That's not knowledgeable. :o

[RussT]

Right. I don't think I said that. It is a particular mindset, though. Science is not football.

http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=845100&postcount=1

And this isn't a particular mindset?

So as long as the mindset is status quo, it's okay? Is that the way we are doing 'good science' now?


[Originally Posted by galacsi
I prefer my sarcastic indifference]

This is not bad for science.

[Orginally Posted by Cougar
That's fine, but it should be knowledgeable sarcastic indifference.]

This on the other hand is extremely dangerous for science!

Like choosing to explore how General Relativity can work in our universe ONLY one way...In a Closed System!

[galacsi]

That's fine, but it should be knowledgeable sarcastic indifference.


Y'see there. That's not knowledgeable. :o

IMO We have much too much scientific announcements which are of very low added value to the public , more like commercial hype and PC declarations.

Solar system astronomy is more and more based on observational evidence . So nobody pretend anymore that Venus has swamps and dinosaurs and that the deserts of planet Mars are crossed by irrigation chanels.It is becomming more and more interresting and relevant.

But with galaxies and quasars "theorists" can play at will and construct any extravagant theory they want.They have just to invoque the great spirits of Einstein and CO , sing the mantra of GR and so on.

[dgavin]

galacsi,

Some years ago an artist did a graphic of what the early forming galaxies might look like. Before any images of them were available from hubble.

What I found striking about that galaxy image of hubble was how closely it resembled that artists, work.

I think it's a save bet to say that if an artist can render an image based off of theroies of how early galaxies formed, then later on you get a true image that matches it... It's a peice of evidence the theroy is correct?

Don't see how that is a biased point of view in that case, or BS

[dgavin]

Found the artists image, take a look for yourself:)

Hubbles Image 2006:
http://www.universetoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/10/2006-1013galaxies.jpg

Artists Image 2002:
http://imgsrc.hubblesite.org/hu/db/2002/02/images/a/formats/large_web.jpg

[Tensor]

http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=845100&postcount=1

And this isn't a particular mindset?

So as long as the mindset is status quo, it's okay? Is that the way we are doing 'good science' now?

Exactly how are observations that match theoretical predictions a mindset?

[galacsi]

Found the artists image, take a look for yourself:)

Hubbles Image 2006:
http://www.universetoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/10/2006-1013galaxies.jpg

Artists Image 2002:
http://imgsrc.hubblesite.org/hu/db/2002/02/images/a/formats/large_web.jpg

The Artist image is nice that i agree . As for how i relate to the Hubble shot it is all a matter of appreciation.

[RussT]

Quote:
Originally Posted by RussT
http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.ph...00&postcount=1

And this isn't a particular mindset?

So as long as the mindset is status quo, it's okay? Is that the way we are doing 'good science' now?

Exactly how are observations that match theoretical predictions a mindset?

Do you think that the link here is a 'good case' for galaxies merging to form as they are touting?



And then this, of which the last statement is incredulous!
http://www.aas.org/publications/baas...aas201/736.htm
[The surface density remains under Kennicutt's star formation threshold for a gaseous disk and no stars are expected to form, as required by observations.

And are you talking about these kind of "Observations"???

[RussT]

Quote:
Originally Posted by RussT
http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.ph...00&postcount=1

And this isn't a particular mindset?

So as long as the mindset is status quo, it's okay? Is that the way we are doing 'good science' now?

Exactly how are observations that match theoretical predictions a mindset?

Do you think that the link here is a 'good case' for galaxies merging to form as they are touting?



And then this, of which the last statement is incredulous!
http://www.aas.org/publications/baas...aas201/736.htm
[The surface density remains under Kennicutt's star formation threshold for a gaseous disk and no stars are expected to form, as required by observations.

And are you talking about these kinds of "Observations"???

[Michael Noonan]

If an artist can have a go, is there any any rule that says
others can't have a shot?

Given that this latest set of pictures will take some time to analyse,
does anyone want to make a guess at what will be observed?

Well here goes:-
The rings of dust travelling at 50 km/s are spirals and not rings.
The composition is not only light material but contains a
very high percentage of heavy metals.
There are billions of new heavy stars being spat out as well as starter
stars.
It may appear that the obvious culprit for the collision was not in the
right position as viewed from photos taken in the past of Andromeda.
Some time in the future we will observe an event horizon near the point
of 'collision'.
Given the time frame of spread there would be a few years of time lapse
here.
At the calculated time of light from first impact to reach us there would
have been a gamma ray burst from that direction, a big one.

Cheers:shifty:

[Thanatos]

Nature has many secrets she does not easily yield to human sensibilities, yet frequently manifests herself in naked glory - her cleverest deception.