.

[senbonzakura]

.

[1715558849]

1715558849

[1715558849]

1715558849

[goodlord666]

Amazing!

[cbeast]

I am waiting for Islamic Evolutionary Biologists to revolutionize genetic engineering in stem-cell research.

[dree12]

I am waiting for Islamic Evolutionary Biologists to revolutionize genetic engineering in stem-cell research.

Why not petition your own government to legalize this? Banning scientific research for purposes of religion is absurd.

[cbeast]

I am waiting for Islamic Evolutionary Biologists to revolutionize genetic engineering in stem-cell research.

Why not petition your own government to legalize this? Banning scientific research for purposes of religion is absurd.

Stem cell research is legal in the US. These are exciting times.

[vite]

In the future everyone will study everywhere and knowledge will be shared and expanded.

[bb113]

We need less government involvement in research and more crowdfunding. It looks like they are repeating our mistakes.

[Luno]

Did'nt Bill Clinton ban cloning and genetic experiments with human DNA?

[bb113]

We need less government involvement in research and more crowdfunding. It looks like they are repeating our mistakes.

Fanelli, D (January 2012). "Negative results are disappearing from most disciplines and countries". Scientometrics 90 (3): 891–904. doi:10.1007/s11192-011-0494-7
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007%2Fs11192-011-0494-7

Is it plausible that researchers correctly predicted the result of their research 80-90% of the time? I hope that the islamic scientists can be more realistic and lead us into a new golden age.

Did'nt Bill Clinton ban cloning and genetic experiments with human DNA?

I don't know if it was clinton but that was only a ban on government funding of research using stem cells derived from aborted fetuses. It was still legal to do the research, the government just wouldn't fund it. You could also get the cells from other tissues (eg placenta)

[dree12]

We need less government involvement in research and more crowdfunding. It looks like they are repeating our mistakes.

Fanelli, D (January 2012). "Negative results are disappearing from most disciplines and countries". Scientometrics 90 (3): 891–904. doi:10.1007/s11192-011-0494-7
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007%2Fs11192-011-0494-7

Is it plausible that researchers correctly predicted the result of their research 80-90% of the time? I hope that the islamic scientists can be more realistic and lead us into a new golden age.

Did'nt Bill Clinton ban cloning and genetic experiments with human DNA?

I don't know if it was clinton but that was only a ban on government funding of research using stem cells derived from aborted fetuses. It was still legal to do the research, the government just wouldn't fund it. You could also get the cells from other tissues (eg placenta)

The problem with government-funded research is that it is too motivated on results. No longer are we investing in the theoretical because all government cares about is the practical. And because practical results are easily modelled, the results are nearly always positive.

One of my favourite institutions is the Perimeter Institute. We need a return towards the sciences that matter for the future: theoretical physics, mathematics, astronomy, earth studies, artificial intelligence, and the like.

But this won't happen because the government is mandating practical engineering tasks and masquerading them as "science". In my books, "Rapid construction of contemporary structures using inexpensive materials" is not, and will never be, physics—applied physics, maybe, but no more.

[Third Way]

I agree, we need less government input when it comes to scientific research.

Every single government penny comes with thousands of strings attached and that is something acacdemia should not be chained to.

[bb113]

The problem with government-funded research is that it is too motivated on results. No longer are we investing in the theoretical because all government cares about is the practical. And because practical results are easily modelled, the results are nearly always positive.

One of my favourite institutions is the Perimeter Institute. We need a return towards the sciences that matter for the future: theoretical physics, mathematics, astronomy, earth studies, artificial intelligence, and the like.

But this won't happen because the government is mandating practical engineering tasks and masquerading them as "science". In my books, "Rapid construction of contemporary structures using inexpensive materials" is not, and will never be, physics—applied physics, maybe, but no more.

I hadn't thought of it that way. Its a good point. Government funded research may work for fields where there can be practical results in the short term, because there is the immediate possibility of negative feedback. For anything with payoffs years into the future or more opportunity for uncertainty about the results, everyone just ends up chasing government-determined metrics to maintain funding. Short term profit (eg drug companies) is probably not a better system for these cases either, since all that is required to succeed is a perception that you got results. I think the best would be crowd/"rich guy" funding by those with an interest in the field. This is more similar to how science worked in the olden days, except now crowd funding is more feasible.

[Herodes]

Science is the way to progress. Mandatory education for everyone in these countries wouldn't be a bad idea either. Education can only do good.

[bb113]

Science is the way to progress. Mandatory education for everyone in these countries wouldn't be a bad idea either. Education can only do good.

That's great but meanwhile more and more people are saying things like Richard Feynman:
http://www.lhup.edu/~DSIMANEK/cargocul.htm

[niko]

I agree, we need less government input when it comes to scientific research.

Every single government penny comes with thousands of strings attached and that is something acacdemia should not be chained to.

My experience in the US and Canada has been exactly the opposite. Academic researchers are pretty much free to do whatever, as long as they file proper forms, make spectacular promises, and bullshit in papers. There is every incentive to selectively report outcomes, knowingly publish irreproducible data, and outright lie and make up data. There are practically no repercusions for doing so, as long as you kiss right asses and not step on wrong guys' toes. The money keeps pouring in. You seem smart in conferences. You sit on commitees. You are respected by the majority who doesn't understand the scope of the scam you run. Self deception helps, too. You ask professors whether they are in  top 50% of their field, 94% of them say "yes".

I have no idea what "islamic science" means. I've met lots of muslim researchers, some of them were alright, most of them were bullshitters, just like non-muslims.

[Lethn]

Mandatory education has to be the biggest joke in human history I have ever seen, it is impossible to teach people who do not want to learn, the only thing they do learn is a quite healthy hatred for the system they were placed in against their will.

[Topazan]

Mandatory education has to be the biggest joke in human history I have ever seen, it is impossible to teach people who do not want to learn, the only thing they do learn is a quite healthy hatred for the system they were placed in against their will.

Not really.  If they learned that, then it would be much less of a waste of time than it is.

[bb113]

This is getting away from the point after I hijacked this thread (but I think it is totally relevant to it if Muslim scientists really do view themselves differently, which I do not know).

If you are on the cutting edge and taking a risk on a project in business what is the chances you will be right?
-I dont know but it is low

If you are on the cutting edge and taking the risk on a project in academia what is the chances you will be right*?
-80-90%


*If right=original hypothesis supported by the statistics run on the results


This is just one way of showing how absurd the current literature is. I would love to get evidence against my interpretation because I have become more and more horrified since I started looking into this.

[cbeast]

Islam denies natural evolution without divine guidance.

[dree12]

This is getting away from the point after I hijacked this thread (but I think it is totally relevant to it if Muslim scientists really do view themselves differently, which I do not know).

If you are on the cutting edge and taking a risk on a project in business what is the chances you will be right?
-I dont know but it is low

If you are on the cutting edge and taking the risk on a project in academia what is the chances you will be right*?
-80-90%


*If right=original hypothesis supported by the statistics run on the results


This is just one way of showing how absurd the current literature is. I would love to get evidence against my interpretation because I have become more and more horrified since I started looking into this.

Business is just as unlikely to give positive results as academia. Neither form of funding is sustainable. We need a return to the classical university system, where funding comes from those who desire to learn and therefore goes to the cutting edge research that those people care about.