Sorry folks, but confusing the uses corporations and/or special
interest groups put to research and research itself is a logical
fallacy.

The quality of the science is at issue, not how it was funded. If the
science is bad, attack it. That's how it works. If we shut off the
funding pipeline, there would be no more research. Someone has got to
pay for it.

In the case of the walnut study, no one would have done so. It was
clearly in the interests of the walnut growers to test experimentally
what was a reasonable scientific hypothesis. The result support the
hypothesis. The fact that the funding agency may benefit does not, in
any way, invalidate the results.

Would the reseach have been done if they had not supported it.
Probably not. There are too many researchable questions in nutrition.
It is unlikely a senior scientist would have proposed this research to
a funding agency like NSF or NIH. It is unlikely that such an agency
would have seen it as a high enough priority to support. But, the
walnut group was able to get the work done because they were willing
to support it.

Frankly, if you look at the facts of the hypothesis, it was pretty
much a slam dunk to predict that if you eat enough of your lipid
calories as walnuts, there will be a beneficial effect on serum
cholesterol. But, you can't say that without data. All they did was go
out and get the data. Why do you find that so offensive?

Your examples are illegitimate uses of research data taken out of
context. This is not the same thing.

And, I never said to not be skeptical. Reread what I wrote and you
will see I encourage it. What I'm saying is don't trash good science
simply because it was done with an agenda.

gg


On Fri, 25 Apr 2003 08:19:28 -0400, "Paul E. Lehmann"
wrote:

|gregpresley wrote:
|
| gustavo, it ALWAYS makes a difference who is funding the research. Good
| science starts with a genuine question - bad science starts with a
| premise that someone "wants' the data to prove - hence the danger that
| somewhere
| within that process, data will be altered or non-supportive data deleted.
| It's not that these studies will come up with wrong answers - much of the
| time, they will probably be on the right track. But a skeptical person
| will always want to double check the data that comes from a study paid for
| by a group looking for a particular result.
| Just this week, the Sugar Council of American tried to put pressure
| on
| the US to withdraw funding from the World Health Organization because one
| of WHO's most recent studies was atrributing the rapid increase in obesity
| around the globe to the fact that peoples' diets now include a very large
| percentage of sugar calories. The study found that 10% of calories from
| sugar is ok, but more than that starts to increase the danger of obesity.
| The sugar council says, "oh no, OUR research proves that a diet with
| 30%-40% from sugar calories is perfectly healthy". Well, I know which of
| those two studies I'm likely to trust......even without looking at the
| methodology.....
| wrote in message
| news | Sorry Dr. Solo, but that's a cheap shot. I wouldn't comment except you
| say you are actually responsible for teaching students. Sorry state of
| affairs when someone at your level of ignorance is entrusted with that
| responsibility.
|
| Can you take issue with the methodology, the data, the results? If
| not, what difference does it make who's funding the research.
|
| Every working scientist knows that research that doesn't get funded
| doesn't get done. There is a clear health benefit to omega 3 oils. We
| know that from reams of scientific data. Walnuts are fairly high in
| omega 3 oils. One can logically conclude that there is a health
| benefit to eating walnuts. So, should we leave it there OR should we
| do the experiment and demonstrate it scientifically.
|
| Doing the experiment is how science works. Can we agree on that? If
| there is a benefit to, for example, the walnut growers of California,
| then why not fund the research that is based on valid scientific
| hypothesis. It's not like a bunch of walnut farmers did the research,
| as your assinine comments imply. Reputable scientists in the US and
| abroad conducted multiple studies all leading to the same conclusion.
|
| Attack the study, the methodology, the data, the results or the
| interpretation of those results. If you have legitimate cause to doubt
| any of those, put it out there. That's how science works. But some
| cheap shot about who may or may not have funded the research is an
| absurd comment. That's not science; it's stupidity.
|
| I hope your students have a chance to study with real scientists who
| can undo whatever damage your nonsense has done. With teachers like
| you on the loose it's no wonder we have a president who doesn't accept
| evolution.
|
|
|
|
| On Thu, 24 Apr 2003 14:18:43 GMT, wrote:
|
| |LOL.. this is the example I use for my students when talking about how
| who is paying
| |creates a bias in science.
| |this is the example cause the "study" was funded by the walnut growers
| |of california".
| |http://www.homepage.montana.edu/~bchem280/omega.html
| |Ingrid
| |
| |
| wrote:
| |I should add that we'd all be better off if we ate more walnuts. The
| |omega-3 oil they contain (same as oil from cold-water fishes) is one
| |protection against heart disease. Well and truly documented by solid
| |scientific studies here and abroad. Eat a handful a day; live until
| |something else kills you. Of course, drinking that Lake county wine is
| |proving to be beneficial too.
| |
| |
| |~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
| |List Manager: Puregold Goldfish List
| |http://puregold.aquaria.net/
| |www.drsolo.com
| |Solve the problem, dont waste energy finding who's to blame
| |~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
| |Unfortunately, I receive no money, gifts, discounts or other
| |compensation for all the damn work I do, nor for any of the
| |endorsements or recommendations I make.
|
|
|A case in point is the famous Framingham study which studied cholesterol and
|heart disease. The study indicated there is no correlation and yet
|pharmacutical companies have taken bits and pieces out of the study and
|ignored other data and concluded there was a link. Of course, they are
|making tons of money convincing the public there is a link and making
|cholesterol lowering drugs.

Problem with that is, meth is now more prevalent in various other counties.
We still have the labs around here, but that's rapidly a dying issue as more
and more people migrate here from the Bay Area. After all, you can still
buy an acre around here for less than $20,000. In fact there's a package
out right now that's roughly $800 an acre for parcels around 200 acres in
size.

Philip

"FOW" wrote in message
...
What do they call someone from Lake County, with a full set of teeth?
A tourist ! Speed freak central !
"Philip" wrote in message
news:7aHpa.590885$L1.170016@sccrnsc02...
LOL! I'm in N. Cal as well, up in the Lake County area. Right now we
have
vineyards bulldozing orchards of walnut trees and burning them. Can't
get
them to sell it.

Philip
"FOW" wrote in message
...
Thanks for the info Phil I was wrong. I'm a WW also. Around here in N.
Cal.
they go out to the walnut groves and backhoe up the old walnut trees
at
night aka -Steal them- . For the wood and sell it to the gunstock
makes
here.
"Philip" wrote in message
news:Beopa.574620$L1.167943@sccrnsc02...
You know, not to disagree too much, but as a woodworker I'll tell
you
right
now that there are those of us who will buy such trees, whether or
not
they're in a yard. Additionally, the burl isn't what's underneath
the
ground, a burl grows off the trunk, not at the juncture of the
roots.
The
roots do form unusual patterns, but that's not the burl.

Philip

"FOW" wrote in message
...
Only the bottom 2 ft and the burl below ground would be worth
anything.
It
would have to have wild figure in the burl.
"Marley1372" wrote in message
...
His tree is probably an American Walnut but if it's a Black
Walnut
what
might
a
Tree like that be worth these days?


Nothing. Other than its asthetic value or value that can be
placed
on
it
for
insurance purposes, black walnuts in the landscape arent used
for
thier
wood.
The main reason is that outside of thier natural environment,
trees
are
subject
to homeowners who like to put nails and all sorts of wierd stuff
into
thier
trees, and prune them improperly(increasing wound sites that
lead
to
decay).
They also do not acheive the necessary size in the landscape to
produce
the
veneer quality wood that is used for furniture and such.

Toad

Dear Dr. Solo (Mommy, he's doing it again, Mommy, he used my name,
make him stop, Mommy. Whinnnnneeee).

Sorry dear heart, but what you're defending is not what you said. You
took issue with the science without having a clue about what was
there. Just because you teach some second rate course on "SCIENCE"
doen't qualify you as an expert. In fact, if that web site is any
indication of what you're teaching, we are in trouble.

Remember, you're the one who criticized a set of results that has
nothing to do with the methods used, data collected or interpretations
inferred from those data. All I did was point out the ignorance of
that statement. You can't come back now and give me this crapola about
objectivity. You are the one who rejected an objective analysis in the
first place. You are doing exactly what your second rate class is
telling your student to not do.

Also, I did not defend the study. I don't give a good flying ratsass
about the study. What I did was attack your ignorance (Mommy, he's
doing it again, make him stop).

Sorry if you find that a personal attack but I take ignorance
personally when it's coming from someone who is charged with teaching
our children about science. You're a disgrace to your profession
(MOMMY!!!) if what you teach bears any resemblence to what you're
telling us you teach.

My guess is that you have nothing to do with teaching that class. My
guess is you took the class in some second rate junior college back in
some hollow in the woods behind the trailer park, and you've lifted
the web pages wholesale to try to make some dumb point about how you
know all about SCIENCE. Even the stuff you posted here reads like it's
been cribbed from Rhetoric and Communications 1A. But that's probably
because I'd rather believe that your ignorant ravings are those of
some C- student at TTCC than someone who actually is paid to teach the
tripe you claim you teach.

gg

On Fri, 25 Apr 2003 14:28:49 GMT, wrote:

|I teach my students to look for various kinds of bias including in funding and to
|rank just how prestigious and WELL refereed the journal is that the study is
|published in. Then it is up to my students to decide for themselves just how much
|they want to believe the results of the study.
|http://users.megapathdsl.net/~solo/w..._fall2002.html see the first
|section on bias
|
|What you write is a personal attack on me as defense of the study.
|http://users.megapathdsl.net/~solo/w...l_attacks.html
|Feelings. Nobody can argue about how one "feels". Beliefs. What a person "believes"
|cannot be debated since they are not facts, but beliefs. Debating with people who are
|not willing to discuss anything but how they FEEL is pointless.
|- However, people can discuss and debate facts. - Facts can be true or false, can be
|misinterpreted, misquoted, misunderstood or incomplete. That is the point of
|discussion and debates, to clarify and understand what the facts are.
|The discussion and debate of facts can become derailed. One or both persons may feel
|their beliefs are being assaulted. Then the discussion degenerates into a personal
|attack.
|
|HOW TO DETERMINE THAT A PERSONAL ATTACK IS OCCURRING
|1. A personal attack or assault is not a discussion of facts. It begins with
|the attacker clearly identifying the person being attacked either by name or by the
|use of "you" repeatedly
|2. The attack is full of emotional words, feelings, beliefs and opinions, but few
|facts.
|3. The attacker typically proposes or insinuates elaborate motives (often
|conspiracies) for behavior that has no basis in fact. Ascribing motives to another
|person is, of course, unknowable. Motives are negative for the most part.
|4. Name calling and character assassination is typical.
|5. The attacker will often refer to "unidentified others" who share their beliefs and
|"know what they know".
|6. The attack is most often public to be effective.
|
wrote:
|Sorry Dr. Solo,
|.... #1
|cheap shot.
|Sorry state of affairs
|ignorance
|assinine comments
|it's stupidity.
|your nonsense
|.... #2, #4
|
|Every working scientist knows
|We know
|should we leave
|.... #5
|
|
|
|~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|List Manager: Puregold Goldfish List
|http://puregold.aquaria.net/
|www.drsolo.com
|Solve the problem, dont waste energy finding who's to blame
|~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|Unfortunately, I receive no money, gifts, discounts or other
|compensation for all the damn work I do, nor for any of the
|endorsements or recommendations I make.