Reasons for fake science news: (Introduction)

by David Turell , Saturday, March 02, 2019, 17:19 (1873 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: All agreed. But once again, a gentle reminder: you should not assume that any research which runs contrary to your fixed beliefs must be the product of hyperbole in order to gain grants.

DAVID: Don't you realize I can recognize hyperbole when I see it?

dhw: I agree with you completely, and am grateful for whatever examples you give us. This is an important subject. However, when you introduced it, we were discussing various articles which explicitly supported the case for cellular intelligence, with cells creating instructions on the hoof, “de novo”, directly contradicting your own belief that they are preprogrammed. You responded: “You are quoting Darwinian scientists who wrote the article. I carefully watch the obvious background thinking of those who write whatever. It always has great influence on interpretation of results.” You then moved on to Hunter’s demolition of the case for random mutations and the whole subject of hyperbole in science, as if in some magic way this would demolish the case for cellular intelligence and instructions made "de novo". I even rebuked you for implying that these findings were only the result of people trying to get grants, which is why I have given you the gentle reminder above.

DAVID: I accept your gentle rebuke.

It was a gentle reminder. The not-so-gentle rebuke concerned your attempt to bracket hyperbole and grant-hunting with the various articles supporting the concept of cellular intelligence.

DAVID: I've described 'de novo' B cells in immunity manufacture of antibodies. I know what works de novo. Be sure you recognize the hyperbole in much of what is published by science writers. Hunter demolished Darwinish writers reviewing Darwinish suppositions with no basis.

dhw; Nobody knows the extent to which intelligent cells can produce instructions “de novo”, but the very fact that they CAN do so lends credence to my hypothesis and to Shapiro’s theory of “natural genetic engineering”. I have already accepted your warning about much of what is published by science writers, and have thanked you above for drawing our attention to examples. It is an important subject, but should be kept separate from the issue of cellular intelligence.

I never meant for it to seem tied together.