How reliable is science? (The limitations of science)

by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Saturday, April 14, 2012, 14:48 (4607 days ago) @ David Turell

It is the unscrupulous who get us into trouble. And peer review fascilitates by using group think pressure. Matt take note.
> > 
> > It's as simple as this: I don't see it happening that way. My interface with all those things is in the computer architectures designed to run their simulations and compute their calculations. In my field, even cherished ideas such as the Turing Machine get regularly challenged. I don't buy that this doesn't happen everywhere. Only time will tell who's right David.
> 
> Too much money is affecting basic cancer research:
> 
> http://news.yahoo.com/cancer-science-many-discoveries-dont-hold-174216262.html
... -That article simply demonstrates (to the skeptically paranoid) that you can't trust science from *any* source--without replication of the results. The dishonesty will be uncovered in time. The key thing to remember is that dishonesty in science *will always be uncovered.* That is why I always say that the system isn't "broken." The system does what it was designed to do, you just don't like its speed, David! That article also informs me that while many people try to rush papers out the door to support the "publish or perish" culture, that the process of replication finds errors and discards theories, exactly as the system is supposed to work. -> Matt, you know the world is a dirty competitive place. Competition is fine, dishonesty, never. I'll bet it is in the computer world also. Turing is the computer god. What are the doubts?-In just the most recent "communications of the ACM," there are several debates highlighted that directly challenge the "Turing Machine," which for the uninitiated, is the basic theory underpinning how all computers work. Notions from biology and physics that view those systems as "computational machines" are chipping away at the Turing Machine, and while "displacement of the Turing Machine is likely a long way off," there is already an acceptance in the community that the theory probably has a shelf life. There are 3 paradigms outlined that can generate this challenge. The first is more or less "where we are now." -(The are enumerated as:
1. reductionists
2. impressionists
3. remodelers
4. incomputability theorists
)-Of course, our community is intimately connected with engineering, and in general, engineers don't have that much difficulty with throwing away something when a more practical solution is available. -Again, the mere existence of these (often overlapping) areas that are predicted to challenge Turing's Universal Machine is a stark demonstration that scientific debate is alive and well, and is appears unhindered by most of what you seem to claim as "the drive for money."

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"