Robb_K wrote:Of course, anyone can get ANYTHING printed. That doesn't make it true. For every study on one side of an argument, one can find a "study" proving the opposite (funded by the opposition).
That's why one should be careful judging sources. It's fairly EASY to tell the difference between a reliable study and a 'hobby-study'. RELIABLE studies are not only done by scholars, they're also peer-reviewed before being published. That means their colleagues have read the study and looked if there were no faults in the definition of the subject, the way the main questions were asked, the way the study was carried out, the way in which results were found, the likeability to be able to generalize the outcome etc. etc.
Robb_K wrote:But, as the two studies above also match what I have seen and experienced in my own life, I have little trouble believing they are truly scientific and represent truth in life. A study finding the opposite would seem to me falsified, and paid for by big money with a vested interest in wanting the opposite findings.
NO. That's WRONG. Dead wrong. If you believe that, you're NOT a scientist. Period.
YES, there are knows instances were scientists were bribed to tell things that weren't true. Like when the American Enterprise Institute, a neo-conservative think-tank advising the White House, and ExxonMobile, gave scholars up to $10,000 to declare global warming was not man-made.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/international ... 30,00.htmlBut see, that's a whole DIFFERENT situation, because in this case, you can actually PROOF they're bribed, because you got FACTS to back it up. But saying that anything that doesn't respond with your own personal viewpoint must be falsified and paid for by big money, is no more than a GUT FEELING. (The Dutch word for it would be 'onderbuik' in case some Dutch readers are wondering.) And if you judge scientific work from you're gut, you're no better than the faith-over-facts crowd that doesn't believe in evolution despite scientific evidence, because their believesystem tells them otherwise.
I like you and I respect you, Rob, but if you're really the scientist you say you are, you can't make such statements.