The Right to Keep and Bear Arms: The Gun Thread

[Rocker]

Halloween? Well, here's a ghost story for y'all:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S6uR1rZjKkM

[Micha]

One more thing about gun regulation and the right to defend yourself: Someone should research and count occasions where civilians managed to save their lives because they were carrying guns in the US and see if it outnumbers the occasions where people were killed because guns are freely accessible, like when children find their parents' gun and shoot them because they didn't know better. If it turns out that guns save more lives than they cost, no regulations should be installed. If it turns out that the number of lives saved is relatively marginal, regulations should be brought to effect.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

One more thing about gun regulation and the right to defend yourself: Someone should research and count occasions where civilians managed to save their lives because they were carrying guns in the US and see if it outnumbers the occasions where people were killed because guns are freely accessible, like when children find their parents' gun and shoot them because they didn't know better. If it turns out that guns save more lives than they cost, no regulations should be installed. If it turns out that the number of lives saved is relatively marginal, regulations should be brought to effect.

This has been researched and quite extensively. The research shows that the claims of self-defense are typically untrue.

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/gun-threats-and-self-defense-gun-use-2/

Other research shows that "for every age group, where there are more guns there are more accidental deaths" and "the mortality rate was 7 times higher in the four states with the most guns compared to the four states with the fewest guns."

[filledeplage]

One more thing about gun regulation and the right to defend yourself: Someone should research and count occasions where civilians managed to save their lives because they were carrying guns in the US and see if it outnumbers the occasions where people were killed because guns are freely accessible, like when children find their parents' gun and shoot them because they didn't know better. If it turns out that guns save more lives than they cost, no regulations should be installed. If it turns out that the number of lives saved is relatively marginal, regulations should be brought to effect.

This has been researched and quite extensively. The research shows that the claims of self-defense are typically untrue.

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/gun-threats-and-self-defense-gun-use-2/

Other research shows that "for every age group, where there are more guns there are more accidental deaths" and "the mortality rate was 7 times higher in the four states with the most guns compared to the four states with the fewest guns."

Interesting that it is a Harvard article and one nearly 20 years old.  And Harvard closed the other day for an attack threat. 

We aren't talking about a person who legitimately takes training at a police academy or similar training to learn how to handle a gun properly, as well as store it.

This is the lawless use of guns. There is a difference between "in the street" training and bona fide firearms training. 

[Chocolate Shake Man]

Interesting that it is a Harvard article and one nearly 20 years old.

That's true. Please feel free to link to a more up to date research study.

We aren't talking about a person who legitimately takes training at a police academy or similar training to learn how to handle a gun properly, as well as store it.

This is the lawless use of guns.

The page that I linked to explicitly talks about lawless use of gun but the person I was responding to was asking a question about self-defence and this is what the research expressly focuses on.

[filledeplage]

Interesting that it is a Harvard article and one nearly 20 years old.

That's true. Please feel free to link to a more up to date research study.

We aren't talking about a person who legitimately takes training at a police academy or similar training to learn how to handle a gun properly, as well as store it.

This is the lawless use of guns.

The page that I linked to explicitly talks about lawless use of gun but the person I was responding to was asking a question about self-defence and this is what the research expressly focuses on.

That is all conjecture and studies which are university based are often funded to procure an "outcome."

From your spelling of the word "defense" - it is reasonable to infer that you are not an American.  That is a core part of our Bill of Rights.  There is a movement afoot in this country whereby the citizenry should be "disarmed" just when we are dealing with a "clear and present danger."  It is a leftist agenda.

So all this pontificating about guns, does not address what our immediate needs are.  And I realize the risk, but it seems that guns are in the hands of outlaws rather than law-abiding citizens who, if properly trained can at least defend themselves and perhaps others. NYC has already been put on alert.

Exchanging ideas and information is great but all this hairsplitting is vexatious and it has a chilling effect on those with whom you don't agree.

You're interested in research.Great. Much research is not credible because it is "funded research with a outcome that is paid for, so it is skewed for the purchaser." Harvard is one of the worse offenders.

Fine, that you support your position, but some of us are interested in survival in a dangerous climate. And so long as we have that constitutional right, it is in place exactly at the right time to defend ourselves agains the clear and present danger that is Daesh whom we are now learning are into major drug dealing.  Armed with AK-47's and high and borderline psychotic. 

You gonna bring in a "negotiator" for a lunatic with a Kalashnikov?   You gonna talk nice to them and give them a job?

[Chocolate Shake Man]

That is all conjecture and studies which are university based are often funded to procure an "outcome."

Often? Do you have a source to back up your claim that this often happens? And do you have any evidence to suggest that is the case here? If so, please demonstrate it.

From your spelling of the word "defense" - it is reasonable to infer that you are not an American.  That is a core part of our Bill of Rights. 

The core part of your Bill of Rights is about the right of the country the form a militia who could carry arms, because there was no official military force. The second amendment is quite literally about militarized self-defence. And while I'm an American, I'm not from the United States.

There is a movement afoot in this country whereby the citizenry should be "disarmed" just when we are dealing with a "clear and present danger."  It is a leftist agenda.

It could not be a leftist agenda since leftism refers to an economic point of view and the issue of arms has nothing to do with who controls the means of production. Furthermore, I have said nothing about whether or not the citizenry should be disarmed. I have simply given the facts that illustrate that the claims that gun ownership provides self-defence is false. And apart from some unsubstantiated smoke being blown about the fact that this research could have been funded to procure an outcome, you have yet to demonstrate how what I have shown is untrue.

You're interested in research.Great. Much research is not credible because it is "funded research with a outcome that is paid for, so it is skewed for the purchaser." Harvard is one of the worse offenders.

Quite honestly, you have offered this argument before in conversations with others on vaccination and you were unable to point to any credible source that proved your point. Obviously I'm not going to convince you on this matter but forgive me if I refuse to take these sorts of claims as anything other than groundless attempts to de-legitimize serious scholarship because it disagrees with a faulty premise. I'm afraid I can't waste my time any further on those sorts of diversions.

[filledeplage]

That is all conjecture and studies which are university based are often funded to procure an "outcome."

Often? Do you have a source to back up your claim that this often happens? And do you have any evidence to suggest that is the case here? If so, please demonstrate it.

From your spelling of the word "defense" - it is reasonable to infer that you are not an American.  That is a core part of our Bill of Rights.

The core part of your Bill of Rights is about the right of the country the form a militia who could carry arms, because there was no official military force. The second amendment is quite literally about militarized self-defence. And while I'm an American, I'm not from the United States.

There is a movement afoot in this country whereby the citizenry should be "disarmed" just when we are dealing with a "clear and present danger."  It is a leftist agenda.

It could not be a leftist agenda since leftism refers to an economic point of view and the issue of arms has nothing to do with who controls the means of production. Furthermore, I have said nothing about whether or not the citizenry should be disarmed. I have simply given the facts that illustrate that the claims that gun ownership provides self-defence is false. And apart from some unsubstantiated smoke being blown about the fact that this research could have been funded to procure an outcome, you have yet to demonstrate how what I have shown is untrue.

You're interested in research.Great. Much research is not credible because it is "funded research with a outcome that is paid for, so it is skewed for the purchaser." Harvard is one of the worse offenders.

Quite honestly, you have offered this argument before in conversations with others on vaccination and you were unable to point to any credible source that proved your point. Obviously I'm not going to convince you on this matter but forgive me if I refuse to take these sorts of claims as anything other than groundless attempts to de-legitimize serious scholarship because it disagrees with a faulty premise. I'm afraid I can't waste my time any further on those sorts of diversions.

Credible to you?  I don't post to agree with you.  Posters post their own opinions.

Serious scholarship?

Pseudo scholarship is what a great deal of it is.

And much of it is business-driven and not the least bit scholarly, honest or transparent.  

The Second Amendment is to extend the militia to civilians, because the militia can't be everywhere. 

We have "citizens arrest" here.

Historically, it comes from Anglo Saxon law in medieval England.  Citizen arrest were a part of law enforcement support.

And it also goes to the Ninth Amendment under self preservation and the defense of others.

[Bean Bag]

The far left's "arguments" are a mirage.  People have to buy into them, in order for them to exist.  When they look away, it just vanishes.  What DOES exist is the US Constitution.  Our Rights.  The truth.  We have the right to defend ourselves.

They can't get over that.

There are plenty of nations where they have it there way.  They demand that WE be like them.

[Emily]

Interesting that it is a Harvard article and one nearly 20 years old.

That's true. Please feel free to link to a more up to date research study.

We aren't talking about a person who legitimately takes training at a police academy or similar training to learn how to handle a gun properly, as well as store it.

This is the lawless use of guns.

The page that I linked to explicitly talks about lawless use of gun but the person I was responding to was asking a question about self-defence and this is what the research expressly focuses on.

That is all conjecture and studies which are university based are often funded to procure an "outcome."

This is insulting. I have personally known a great many university professors and researchers; I have been one; I've worked with many; I've got many among my family and friends. I've never known one to manipulate their research in order to derive a pre-determined outcome. Of course, there are hacks and frauds in every field, but to make a general statement, or to imply that this is usually the case or is the case often enough to be statistically significant at accredited universities should be backed up by evidence because I'm certain it's not the case. Respectable academic institutions and respectable academics take great care to maintain their research independence and integrity.

[Emily]

There is a movement afoot in this country whereby the citizenry should be "disarmed" just when we are dealing with a "clear and present danger."  It is a leftist agenda.

Ensuring that we always feel ourselves to have a "clear and present danger" is a rightist agenda. As soon as the cold war ended, the right started splashing about trying to awake a new danger, because it's a good distraction, and allows taxpayer funds to keep flowing to their industries.

More research (yay!) - conservatives have a more intense reaction to icky scary things than liberals. I think this is where much of the divide on things like the Paris thread, this thread, discussions about police violence, etc. is founded.

[filledeplage]

Interesting that it is a Harvard article and one nearly 20 years old.

That's true. Please feel free to link to a more up to date research study.

We aren't talking about a person who legitimately takes training at a police academy or similar training to learn how to handle a gun properly, as well as store it.

This is the lawless use of guns.

The page that I linked to explicitly talks about lawless use of gun but the person I was responding to was asking a question about self-defence and this is what the research expressly focuses on.

That is all conjecture and studies which are university based are often funded to procure an "outcome."

This is insulting. I have personally known a great many university professors and researchers; I have been one; I've worked with many; I've got many among my family and friends. I've never known one to manipulate their research in order to derive a pre-determined outcome. Of course, there are hacks and frauds in every field, but to make a general statement, or to imply that this is usually the case or is the case often enough to be statistically significant at accredited universities should be backed up by evidence because I'm certain it's not the case. Respectable academic institutions and respectable academics take great care to maintain their research independence and integrity.

http://www.brietbart.com/big-government/2015/06/04/harvard-syracuse-researchers-caught-lying-to-boost-obama-climate-rules/

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/22/us/ties-to-corporate-cas-for-climate-change-researcher-Wei-Hock-Soon.html?_r=0

Believing any study before knowing who commissioned it and whether money or other inducement was exchanged is not prudent these days, I don't think.

It used to be that science was uninfluenced by money.  That is no longer true. And, maybe your family researchers are honest.  They are not all honest and their faked results damage us all as well as intellectual honesty.

[Emily]

Interesting that it is a Harvard article and one nearly 20 years old.

That's true. Please feel free to link to a more up to date research study.

We aren't talking about a person who legitimately takes training at a police academy or similar training to learn how to handle a gun properly, as well as store it.

This is the lawless use of guns.

The page that I linked to explicitly talks about lawless use of gun but the person I was responding to was asking a question about self-defence and this is what the research expressly focuses on.

That is all conjecture and studies which are university based are often funded to procure an "outcome."

This is insulting. I have personally known a great many university professors and researchers; I have been one; I've worked with many; I've got many among my family and friends. I've never known one to manipulate their research in order to derive a pre-determined outcome. Of course, there are hacks and frauds in every field, but to make a general statement, or to imply that this is usually the case or is the case often enough to be statistically significant at accredited universities should be backed up by evidence because I'm certain it's not the case. Respectable academic institutions and respectable academics take great care to maintain their research independence and integrity.

http://www.brietbart.com/big-government/2015/06/04/harvard-syracuse-researchers-caught-lying-to-boost-obama-climate-rules/

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/22/us/ties-to-corporate-cas-for-climate-change-researcher-Wei-Hock-Soon.html?_r=0

Believing any study before knowing who commissioned it and whether money or other inducement was exchanged is not prudent these days, I don't think.

It used to be that science was uninfluenced by money.  That is no longer true. And, maybe your family researchers are honest.  They are not all honest and their faked results damage us all as well as intellectual honesty.

Re: the Breitbart thing - the website seems to be down right now.
Re: the NYT, your link is dead, but I found the article anyway.
a) The article is about one individual
b) that individual is neither an academic, nor does he work for a university.

So, one guy who does not work at a university has done fraudulent work. This supports the idea that academia is corrupt? It has nothing to do with academia.

[Emily]

Seriously, you've got family in the military. Do you think it's right when one person in the military is reported to have raped or tortured someone so everyone in the military is smeared? Is that OK?

You are saying that the life's work of thousands of people, people who devote everything to their field, people who have given up lucrative jobs in private industry (and anyone with a Ph.D in STEM, finance or economics can get a very well-paying private position) to devote their lives to the furtherance of their field, is to be dismissed because of a few charlatans. It's not right.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

Re: the Breitbart thing - the website seems to be down right now.

I'll look further into it but I highly suspect it's misinformation. The whole story was generated by Steven Milloy who, if you want to talk about being funded to procure an income, you should look at the laundry list of people and corporate institutions who have been funding this man's disinformation schemes (including shilling for Big Tobacco and Big Oil) for decades:

http://scholarsandrogues.com/2007/11/28/we-berate-you-deride-a-look-at-steven-j-milloys-current-affiliates-and-backers/

[Emily]

Believing any study before knowing who commissioned it and whether money or other inducement was exchanged is not prudent these days, I don't think.

Knowing who commissioned it is unimportant.
What is important is to look at the study itself, see how it was set up and whether variables are properly controlled for and a statistically significant sample was used, etc. If these things are off, the study is off, if not, it's not. Simple as that. Regardless of where the funding was derived.

[filledeplage]

Seriously, you've got family in the military. Do you think it's right when one person in the military is reported to have raped or tortured someone so everyone in the military is smeared? Is that OK?

You are saying that the life's work of thousands of people, people who devote everything to their field, people who have given up lucrative jobs in private industry (and anyone with a Ph.D in STEM, finance economics can get a very well-paying private position) to devote their lives to the furtherance of their field, is to be dismissed because of a few charlatans. It's not right.

Yes, I do, and I question everything. As should everyone.  Our food studies have been tainted by special interest groups.  Medications have had skewed testing.

There is a lot of academic dishonesty that has gone unchecked in academia since it has become incentivized with books, software, and other high tech products.  I've seen psychologists who wanted their testing accepted in a school district "suck up" to the "powers that be" to have their testing manuals accepted and implemented only to be discredited later as junk.    

As far as the military, they have fewer rights than an ordinary citizens. That is atrocious. That is why they need excellent private attorneys to counter those allegations.  Transparency and sunlight are key.  Otherwise some poor low ranked military person can get thrown under the bus. You must have seen that.  

http://news.sciencemag.org/2012/09/harvard-psychology-researcher-committed-fraud-u.s.-investigation-concludes

If you dig, to find fraud you will find it.  It is shocking.  So once the shock wears off, you have new skills that help you be a better consumer of products or of education.  

[Emily]

Seriously, you've got family in the military. Do you think it's right when one person in the military is reported to have raped or tortured someone so everyone in the military is smeared? Is that OK?

You are saying that the life's work of thousands of people, people who devote everything to their field, people who have given up lucrative jobs in private industry (and anyone with a Ph.D in STEM, finance economics can get a very well-paying private position) to devote their lives to the furtherance of their field, is to be dismissed because of a few charlatans. It's not right.

Yes, I do, and I question everything. As should everyone.  Our food studies have been tainted by special interest groups.  Medications have had skewed testing.

There is a lot of academic dishonesty that has gone unchecked in academia since it has become incentivized with books, software, and other high tech products.  I've seen psychologists who wanted their testing accepted in a school district "suck up" to the "powers that be" to have their testing manuals accepted and implemented only to be discredited later as junk.    

As far as the military, they have fewer rights than an ordinary citizens. That is atrocious. That is why they need excellent private attorneys to counter those allegations.  Transparency and sunlight are key.  Otherwise some poor low ranked military person can get thrown under the bus. You must have seen that.  

http://news.sciencemag.org/2012/09/harvard-psychology-researcher-committed-fraud-u.s.-investigation-concludes

If you dig, to find fraud you will find it.  It is shocking.  So once the shock wears off, you have new skills that help you be a better consumer of products or of education.  

If you dig to find fraud in any field you will find it. To dismiss the work of thousands of people, tens of thousands, because you've found instances of charlatanism is not only thoughtless, insulting and unfair, it doesn't make sense.

[filledeplage]

Seriously, you've got family in the military. Do you think it's right when one person in the military is reported to have raped or tortured someone so everyone in the military is smeared? Is that OK?

You are saying that the life's work of thousands of people, people who devote everything to their field, people who have given up lucrative jobs in private industry (and anyone with a Ph.D in STEM, finance economics can get a very well-paying private position) to devote their lives to the furtherance of their field, is to be dismissed because of a few charlatans. It's not right.

Yes, I do, and I question everything. As should everyone.  Our food studies have been tainted by special interest groups.  Medications have had skewed testing.

There is a lot of academic dishonesty that has gone unchecked in academia since it has become incentivized with books, software, and other high tech products.  I've seen psychologists who wanted their testing accepted in a school district "suck up" to the "powers that be" to have their testing manuals accepted and implemented only to be discredited later as junk.    

As far as the military, they have fewer rights than an ordinary citizens. That is atrocious. That is why they need excellent private attorneys to counter those allegations.  Transparency and sunlight are key.  Otherwise some poor low ranked military person can get thrown under the bus. You must have seen that.  

http://news.sciencemag.org/2012/09/harvard-psychology-researcher-committed-fraud-u.s.-investigation-concludes

If you dig, to find fraud you will find it.  It is shocking.  So once the shock wears off, you have new skills that help you be a better consumer of products or of education.  

If you dig to find fraud in any field you will find it. To dismiss the work of thousands of people, tens of thousands, because you've found instances of charlatanism is not only thoughtless, insulting and unfair, it doesn't make sense.

Emily - that is why the new standard is "trust, but verify." 

And, it is too bad that a few greedy and dishonest individuals have tainted their profession, and made it difficult for their peers, but that is the reality of the situation, so now, we have no recourse but to verify everything. 

[Emily]

Seriously, you've got family in the military. Do you think it's right when one person in the military is reported to have raped or tortured someone so everyone in the military is smeared? Is that OK?

You are saying that the life's work of thousands of people, people who devote everything to their field, people who have given up lucrative jobs in private industry (and anyone with a Ph.D in STEM, finance economics can get a very well-paying private position) to devote their lives to the furtherance of their field, is to be dismissed because of a few charlatans. It's not right.

Yes, I do, and I question everything. As should everyone.  Our food studies have been tainted by special interest groups.  Medications have had skewed testing.

There is a lot of academic dishonesty that has gone unchecked in academia since it has become incentivized with books, software, and other high tech products.  I've seen psychologists who wanted their testing accepted in a school district "suck up" to the "powers that be" to have their testing manuals accepted and implemented only to be discredited later as junk.    

As far as the military, they have fewer rights than an ordinary citizens. That is atrocious. That is why they need excellent private attorneys to counter those allegations.  Transparency and sunlight are key.  Otherwise some poor low ranked military person can get thrown under the bus. You must have seen that.  

http://news.sciencemag.org/2012/09/harvard-psychology-researcher-committed-fraud-u.s.-investigation-concludes

If you dig, to find fraud you will find it.  It is shocking.  So once the shock wears off, you have new skills that help you be a better consumer of products or of education.  

If you dig to find fraud in any field you will find it. To dismiss the work of thousands of people, tens of thousands, because you've found instances of charlatanism is not only thoughtless, insulting and unfair, it doesn't make sense.

Emily - that is why the new standard is "trust, but verify." 

And, it is too bad that a few greedy and dishonest individuals have tainted their profession, and made it difficult for their peers, but that is the reality of the situation, so now, we have no recourse but to verify everything. 

I have no qualm with people verifying. One should.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

Seriously, you've got family in the military. Do you think it's right when one person in the military is reported to have raped or tortured someone so everyone in the military is smeared? Is that OK?

You are saying that the life's work of thousands of people, people who devote everything to their field, people who have given up lucrative jobs in private industry (and anyone with a Ph.D in STEM, finance economics can get a very well-paying private position) to devote their lives to the furtherance of their field, is to be dismissed because of a few charlatans. It's not right.

Yes, I do, and I question everything. As should everyone.  Our food studies have been tainted by special interest groups.  Medications have had skewed testing.

There is a lot of academic dishonesty that has gone unchecked in academia since it has become incentivized with books, software, and other high tech products.  I've seen psychologists who wanted their testing accepted in a school district "suck up" to the "powers that be" to have their testing manuals accepted and implemented only to be discredited later as junk.    

As far as the military, they have fewer rights than an ordinary citizens. That is atrocious. That is why they need excellent private attorneys to counter those allegations.  Transparency and sunlight are key.  Otherwise some poor low ranked military person can get thrown under the bus. You must have seen that.  

http://news.sciencemag.org/2012/09/harvard-psychology-researcher-committed-fraud-u.s.-investigation-concludes

If you dig, to find fraud you will find it.  It is shocking.  So once the shock wears off, you have new skills that help you be a better consumer of products or of education.  

If you dig to find fraud in any field you will find it. To dismiss the work of thousands of people, tens of thousands, because you've found instances of charlatanism is not only thoughtless, insulting and unfair, it doesn't make sense.

Emily - that is why the new standard is "trust, but verify."  

Is that what you were doing when you posted as evidence the website of a man who believes that The Beatles were part of an illuminati conspiracy?

http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,22609.msg539317.html#msg539317

And, it is too bad that a few greedy and dishonest individuals have tainted their profession, and made it difficult for their peers, but that is the reality of the situation, so now, we have no recourse but to verify everything.  

You have yet to provide a credible example that has reaffirmed what you have claimed.

[Emily]

Believing any study before knowing who commissioned it and whether money or other inducement was exchanged is not prudent these days, I don't think.

Knowing who commissioned it is unimportant.
What is important is to look at the study itself, see how it was set up and whether variables are properly controlled for and a statistically significant sample was used, etc. If these things are off, the study is off, if not, it's not. Simple as that. Regardless of where the funding was derived.

An example here. Imagine that I truly believe my product is beneficial in X ways. I think qualified research showing that my product is beneficial will be useful for marketing. I fund a research project, believing that the outcome will benefit me, because I believe in my product. The research does show that my product is beneficial. Yay! I was right!
I make sure the research gets reported where people will see it because it will benefit my sales. Someone sees that I funded the research. They conclude and write a smeary article somewhere that the research was manipulated to suit my ends. Was it? In my example, no.

Sometimes funding does come from someone who will benefit from the research. If it does, that does not mean that the research is corrupt.

But this is why the process of verifying the integrity of research should be to look at the research itself and how it was managed and carried out and written up. The source of the funds should not affect an evaluation of the value of research.

Ideally, research would be more often funded from a government-established fund so that researchers don't need to kowtow to industry for funding. But kowtow does not mean manipulate the ends. Usually it means, "I can't research exactly what I want because no one will pay for it. People in my field can see its long-term importance but there's no company that will profit from it right now so instead I will do this research on the safety of X breast implant material because a corporation wants this study done and the material is the same material I wanted to study, so I'll learn more about it, though not really what I feel is important to learn."
The kowtowing of respectable researchers at respectable universities very rarely takes the form of manipulating results. If someone openly did this at any of the universities I've had affiliations with, it would be considered grounds for loss of tenure, at least.

[filledeplage]

Seriously, you've got family in the military. Do you think it's right when one person in the military is reported to have raped or tortured someone so everyone in the military is smeared? Is that OK?

You are saying that the life's work of thousands of people, people who devote everything to their field, people who have given up lucrative jobs in private industry (and anyone with a Ph.D in STEM, finance economics can get a very well-paying private position) to devote their lives to the furtherance of their field, is to be dismissed because of a few charlatans. It's not right.

Yes, I do, and I question everything. As should everyone.  Our food studies have been tainted by special interest groups.  Medications have had skewed testing.

There is a lot of academic dishonesty that has gone unchecked in academia since it has become incentivized with books, software, and other high tech products.  I've seen psychologists who wanted their testing accepted in a school district "suck up" to the "powers that be" to have their testing manuals accepted and implemented only to be discredited later as junk.    

As far as the military, they have fewer rights than an ordinary citizens. That is atrocious. That is why they need excellent private attorneys to counter those allegations.  Transparency and sunlight are key.  Otherwise some poor low ranked military person can get thrown under the bus. You must have seen that.  

http://news.sciencemag.org/2012/09/harvard-psychology-researcher-committed-fraud-u.s.-investigation-concludes

If you dig, to find fraud you will find it.  It is shocking.  So once the shock wears off, you have new skills that help you be a better consumer of products or of education.  

If you dig to find fraud in any field you will find it. To dismiss the work of thousands of people, tens of thousands, because you've found instances of charlatanism is not only thoughtless, insulting and unfair, it doesn't make sense.

Emily - that is why the new standard is "trust, but verify."  

Is that what you were doing when you posted as evidence the website of a man who believes that The Beatles were part of an illuminati conspiracy?

http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,22609.msg539317.html#msg539317

And, it is too bad that a few greedy and dishonest individuals have tainted their profession, and made it difficult for their peers, but that is the reality of the situation, so now, we have no recourse but to verify everything.  

You have yet to provide a credible example that has reaffirmed what you have claimed.

CSM - that is "your" extrapolation. 

The vaccine issues are independent of any Beatles issues. I drew no link as between the.  And there has been much vax research. That comes after a person is injured, usually. They want to find out why.

It may have been the first link that I hit.  I said nothing about the illuminati.  That is just conjecture on your part. 

[Chocolate Shake Man]

CSM - that is "your" extrapolation.  

What is?

The vaccine issues are independent of any Beatles issues. I drew no link as between the.

You are the one on this very thread who is discrediting research not based on the research itself but where it comes from. How do you account for your double standard?

And there has been much vax research.

This, I think, was the only thing you linked to in that thread as evidence for your point after Loaf repeatedly asked for you to reinforce your claims.

I said nothing about the illuminati.  That is just conjecture on your part.  

There was no conjecture. What I wrote was exactly true.

[Emily]

http://news.sciencemag.org/2012/09/harvard-psychology-researcher-committed-fraud-u.s.-investigation-concludes

If you dig, to find fraud you will find it.  It is shocking.  So once the shock wears off, you have new skills that help you be a better consumer of products or of education.  

Wait, so in this article, this was reported:

"Hauser's work in humans and monkeys probed the biological roots of cognition and morality. He was an especially popular professor among undergraduates, and his provocative ideas attracted many collaborators as well as frequent media attention. He was a prolific scientist, in recent years averaging about one peer-reviewed article per month. But his work fell under a cloud in 2007, when members of his laboratory brought concerns about his research conduct to Harvard officials, instigating a 3-year internal investigation.

In August 2010, The Boston Globe broke the news that Harvard had found Hauser solely responsible for eight instances of scientific misconduct. University officials confirmed the reports but did not provide further details. Harvard's silence left researchers studying animal cognition wondering which of Hauser's hundreds of published studies might be tainted. In the wake of the investigation, in 2010 Hauser announced he was taking a year's academic leave. In July 2011, he resigned his position at Harvard."

The university itself handled this exactly as it should... his colleagues reported him to university officials who investigated, outed him, and pushed him out. The university is losing one of its best-funded researchers because the integrity of research is more important to the university than the funding.
This is evidence of the integrity of university research, not the reverse.