Evidence for God from Science

It's worse than I thought!

https://www.yahoo.com/news/beware-those ... 36076.html

Yeah, this is a problem that has been around for the last 20 years or so.
Nothing new in the science arena, just been kept kind of quiet because of the obvious repercussions.

See, this is how science research works:
Specific conditions and specific protocols illicit specific responses.
Observe, repeat, falsify ( when possible), repeat, draw conclusions.

The problem is that, sometimes, GENERAL conclusions are drawn about SPECIFIC results ( not correct).
This happens by researchers trying to justify their own biases or by trying to please their funding organizations OR, increasingly, by people trying to USE the data in a way that it was NOT meant to be used ( like the silly pay gap-gender thing, or the "heating plastic causes cancer" thing).

The moment that you change ANY part of the protocol or ANY part of the conditions, the research is NO LONGER VALID.

EX:
Drinking 1.5 liters of coffee with a total of 570 MG of caffeine for 60 months can increase your chances of cancer by 20% ( made this up just to illustrate a point).
IF you change the volume or the total caffeine or the time frame this study is NO LONGER VALID under THOSE conditions.

EX:
Plastic, when heated can release toxic chemicals.
True, but:
Heated to what? for how long?
Does that means we shouldn't microwave plastics?
Yes, and no:

Myth: Microwaving plastic containers and wraps releases harmful, cancer-causing substances into food. Fact: Microwave-safe plastic containers and wraps are safe to use in the microwave. But plastic containers not intended for use in the microwave could melt and potentially leak chemicals into your food.
Cancer causes: Popular myths about the causes of cancer - Mayo Clinic
https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-con ... t-20044714

Look, when you combine confirmation bias ( very real with scientists), a desire to please those funding them and people that do NOT understand scientific research and simply want to put out sensationalist information to get views, you get a very dangerous result.

The problem isn't science ( the method) it is what it has always been in everything ( science, politics, ideology, religion, etc): People.

Paul: The problem is that, sometimes, GENERAL conclusions are drawn about SPECIFIC results ( not correct).

Exactly! And then the media spreads their spin that the GENERAL conclusions are the truth, upon a largely science-ignorant populace who likewise don't know the differences. As with other things often asserted to be true - nuances and details matter - and they can change everything asserted to factual that are actually not. Add in that, simultaneously, newspapers and magazines that used to provide diverse views and facts to consider, are going away along with readers who grew up with the patience and inclination to carefully sift information and assertions for truthfulness. So many now only get their news from online soundbyte videos with no context, substantial details, or any stated sources. And all of this makes the public very easy to manipulate - almost as easy as yellow journalism did back in the day when only one or two newspapers were the only source of news in a given market. And the only thing more sinister that THAT is found in dictatorships in which the only news released is vetted by an official state news agency.

Devil is in the details of course, always.

The most important part of any study is the protocol that was followed and, also, WHY the study was done.

People need to remember that science is still only as good as it's weakest link, people.