I'm sure you can think of circumstances under which that doesn't occur.

I expected this response because you are too uneducated to predict that I knew you would qualify your statement and fail to interpret my purpose in saying that. Now go look up who has ever said that the process of science has proved something. If you come back with more nonsense thats the end of my attempt to help you understand science, but hopefully the seed has been planted.

And why isn't that already normally part of a science curriculum. The discrepancies and unexplained are the most interesting and important part if you want to train a new generation of scientists. Its sad that such a movement is coming from the most superstitious of society.

If you think our current theories of the origin of life are factual you are misled. How the hell should people know for sure what happened billions of years ago or even that it was billions of years ago? There are just more and less plausible theories that get selected from based on when a few compete and one turns out to be more useful than the other. The people advocating science really need to learn what it is. I don't believe in god btw (thats not to say something like that can't exist).

Lateral thinking shows that if Man is just another process of the Universe, then if you PLACE each die in the SIX position, it is the same conceptual process as rolling the die, and this being so you can place any number of dice in the SIX position.

Do the experiment. You claim you can place "any number" of dice in the six position. See how many is actually possible to maintain in the six position at once. Its also absurd to consider placing as the same thing as rolling/throwing when you encounter that these two activities are different in some way probably every day of your life... but I would encourage you to do the actual experiment of seeing how many you can place with the six facing up before something disrupts the order you have created.

You are part of the problem AK Marc. You believe that it is fact that by dropping something it always falls when this has been debunked for quite awhile now. Further, you claimed that this is evidence that science can ever prove something. This shows fundamental misunderstanding of the process of science, please stop advocating for us until you spend some time learning the philosophy behind it.

We've already disproved that one by doing it in space, etc.

It depends just how bad a model it is. I don't believe there is evidence to support it for most rodent research, but it is possible that it would be better if those researchers simply had their brainpower and funding put to use in a different field rather than trying to force the issue with mouse biomedical research.

The chosen approach appears to be just do a bunch of mouse research and see how it turns out after decades of this without verifying whether the model is useful or not to begin with. Notably, this strategy sequesters funding from researchers who could make focused attempts at verifying the model and results in people who have built careers on possibly useless research being put in charge of reviewing grants and publications that could undermine their work. So it no doubt will delay the conclusion it is a waste of time (possibly for generations) if that turns out to be true.

As I said I believe there is likely some merit to rodent research, but you have to admit the system is not set up to fail gracefully if this turns out not to be the case.

The benchmark is not "higher". It could be said to be higher if the papers needed to meet proper scientific criteria as well as being truly innovative. The benchmark is different. The perceived "innovation" aspect is used at the expense of other qualities of good scientific reports (ie using statistics properly and reporting all your methods and data).

That joke is there because the "cures" are most often based on faulty statistical inference. A closer look at much of the data will reveal the cure did not exist for mice in the first place, the results were just much more likely to occur by chance than conveyed by the literature. The issue of mice not being completely analogous to humans is an issue faced by researchers but it is being used to hide failure to correctly report and interpret the results of studies (systemic incompetence). All the evidence points towards false positive rates of 70% or higher throughout biomedical literature.

Its very hard to publish there, but the quality of publications is not that high, possibly even lower than elsewhere if you measure by false positive rate. There is a mass failure to understand the importance of the assumptions underlying statistical inference (as you mentioned), as well as the importance of completely reporting your methods and data so that it is possible for others to intelligently draw their own inferences and replicate your work. In short, those journals have a culture that encourages "sexy" and "conclusive" results at the expense of the fundamental basis for successful science that we learn in gradeschool.

Interesting stuff

I hope you aren't a scientist.

I couldn't make sense of this post...

Plot the temperature by month from this paper (not just averages of months). The distribution of temps suddenly jumps upwards about two degrees starting in 1989 corresponding to when a sensor was switch out. They also corrected for some calibration errors and sensor drift, starting that year. But fail to tell us how exactly they corrected for the drift.

Here it is from all their data (including interpolated):
http://oi50.tinypic.com/2qn8x29.jpg

It is more obvious if you plot only the data they actually had.

On 18 January 2011, a new CR1000 datalogger (used to record and disseminate the readings
from the various AWS sensors) was installed on the Byrd AWS in replacement of the AWS-2B
electronic system used since 1989. Upon inspection of the old system at the AMRC, a
calibration error of 1.5 â--¦C (in excess) was identified for the temperature observations recorded
since 2002. In addition, subsequent testing in a newly available cold chamber at the AMRC
provided more accurate measurements of the temperature sensitivity of the AWS-2B system,
which results in a negative temperature drift as the temperature decreases. As a result,
corrections were made to the temperature observations recorded by the Byrd AWS between
1989 and 17 January 2011. The release of the corrected dataset on the AMRCâ(TM)s ftp server in
December 2011 was followed by an update of the monthly mean temperatures from Byrd AWS
available on the READER online archive10 (http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/met/READER/).
The effect of the corrections on the reconstructed temperatures is illustrated in Supplementary
Fig. S10. In the lower temperature range (typically -50 to -30 â--¦C), the temperature drift largely
compensated for the 1.5 â--¦C error in the 2002â"01/2011 observations, whereas no compensation
occurred at higher temperatures (-20 to 0 â--¦C). This explains the differences in the correctionsâ(TM)
impact between summer and winter, and between the 1989-2001 and 2002-2010 periods
(Supplementary Fig. S10). It is noteworthy that the temperature drift problem did not affect
significantly the AWS observations from 1980â"1988, and this for two reasons: (1) Excess
power from the RTG was used to keep the internal temperature of the electronics above -20 â--¦C.
This extra power was no longer available when the AWS started relying on batteries charged
by solar panels. (2) The central processing unit of the AWS was (paradoxically) a newer
version than the one subsequently used from 1989 onward.