No one here is questioning science. We are questioning the way science, especially evolutionary theories and origins theories are communicated to the lay public AND the tacit agreement given to these misrepresentations by the scientific community. Stop trying to make it about how we must hate science or how we are disbelieving science because of our spiritual stance, which neither of us has brought into the conversation, but which you seem to be intent on making the focus of the conversation. Why is that?

No not really Iams. If I was to say to you, a lay person, that a proton is composed of an udd quark, how are you supposed to know if I am telling you the truth or not (which I am not by the way). Firstly you need to have knowledge of how fermions form baryons. Secondly, you need to have some understanding of standard model and QFT, to know whether my statements are just off the wall and agenda pushing, or very relevant.

You are a very slippery one and I applaud your ability to dance around questions you do not wish to answer. You would have made a good politician. The question still stands, we can continue with Tyson's statement if you wish or pick someone else's statement. You claim, that we could not possibly know or test the conditions of the earth 4 billion years ago.

So lets use skepticism as a method and break down how these tests are run and why they are just no better than guesses.

Iams, why would science need to police itself? Dawkings is not using evolution incorrectly. All he IS doing is using it for an agenda against the bible.

The only people that would need policing evolution are by religious institutes tpwards creationists, who actually are lying to the public.

Sciences are not obligated to provide public conventions. They have papers to do that for them, for the public to read at their will.

Sciences are not censored, Dawkings has every right to use evolution for his agenda - after all, it IS his scientific area. He uses his own findings as well as others, so he is not misguiding the public based on the evolution he teaches.

Stop being a weasel. If you intend to show the information given to the public is not accurate then you need to question the science. More importantly you need to question which methods in the science are the most susceptible to bias and influences and which conclusions drawn from data are incorrect.

D O -Y O U- U N D E R S T A N D- T H A T?

If you are to question the way they are communicated, then you need to point out which points specifically are problematic in the way they are being communicated. Not only do you need to point out which points are problematic, but you need to state WHY.


I agree with you on some level, we should be skeptical, but you are failing at using skepticism as a method. You are using it as a position for whatever reasons you wish.

That is a great point Chokmah. Because a few people are using science to push their agenda does not give science an agenda.

This is a very interesting statement. How do you think they should communicate? Do you think they should accept the dismissal of logic and data? I honestly don't see how they can.

To me (and I'm pretty spiritually oriented), logic and data are the things that compel us to be honest and fair.

Another great point. I think Cimber said it earlier, everyone has the right to defend their position. When people like Dawkins use science to defend their position that still does not give science or evolutionary biology an agenda.


That is like saying since Michael Behe looks at things under microscopes and 'uses' science to defend his position for ID, science and biochemistry has an ID agenda.

Lets cut through the fat and get straight to the meat. Iams and True, please answer this question, simply yes or no will suffice.

Do you wish to use skepticism as a method?

I agree to a degree. I can always research the field you are speaking about to see if what you say is supported by other experts in the field. Additionally, I can conduct research on how that determination has been made. If I find that this determination is one possible interpretation, maybe even the most probable given what we know today I can then decide to accept it as that, or I can continue to research to see what other interpretations of the data are. However, when someone says, given the data this IS what happened, or this is THE truth, I cannot help but be skeptical and I would assume ANY good scientist would also be skeptical since science is not about KNOWING things:

SOURCE


I'm just not allowing you to dissuade me from the point I am debating.

There's no reason to be insulting. Apparently one of you did not enjoy being called a moron, so you should understand when I ask that you please not compare me to a politician.

Maybe we can discuss this when we are done discussing the point I'm trying to discuss.

OK, nice way to wash your hands of it. Thanks for making my point.


Nice! Weren't you the one who was crying because true called you a moron? And now here you are calling me names simply because I won't allow you to put words in my mouth or change the subject. Please keep showing everyone just how objective scientists are, and how much you guys actually act just like the religious zealots you are. Thanks!

OK, so basically, if you don't agree with what the Westboro Baptists Church, you should not blame all of Christianity for it NOR expect/demand that Christians speak up, or that the Islamic community speak up against the Islamo-fascists. Good to know, I may use this point to shut you up on some other thread some time.

Uh *dribble* *drool* Nuh.... I's too stoopid to unerstan gud inglich.

We have done that ad nauseum. have you been reading what we post or are you just reading enough so that you can post something which sounds like it's addressing the point we are making when it really isn't? Go back and ACTUALLY read the posts.


OK, I may have said science has an agenda, I really don't remember, what I should have said is that because of the way scientific theories and findings are communicated to the lay public, the lay public has an incorrect impression of what we have concrete proof of, and that because there are scientists who for their own zealous purposes not only support but further this incorrect perception AND the rest of the scientific community either doesn't care what the lay public understands or tacitly agrees with these interpretations as truth, or feels like they are incapable of correcting these misunderstandings, the agenda of those scietific zealots is being supported by the scientific community.


I think ANY conversation of evolutionary theory or origins theory or gravitational theory, etc. should state that this is an INTERPRETATION of the data, not "We know..."

SOURCE

If this is too difficult or too much to expect, then y'all should at least not be surprised that those of us who actually think for ourselves and have an understanding of what Science is and what it is NOT are not going to sit idly by and say nothing.

Washing my hands of what Iams?

Of saying Dawkings uses an agenda? Of saying atheism and evolution are different, no matter if you use them together?

What am I washing my hands of?



Uhm... What do you think a theory actually is?

Please answer the question

Please stop trying to change the focus of my discussion.

It's a simple answer Iams.

Also, answer my question a couple posts up Both of them.

What do you think I'm washing my hands of, and what do you even think a theory is?

No, I am not, you want this to be objective and correct then lets do it that way. Answer the question please.

You (scientists) are washing your hands of the responsibility to insure that what others present as what you believe is actually what you believe. After all, you expect the religious to do so, even going as far as holding modern day Christians for what was done in the Dark Ages.

Additionally, I have MANY times answered what a theory is, Chock, use the UM search function and look one of those posts up, I'm done running in circles for you guys. I'm educated, I'm logical, and I'm at least as intelligent as you are, otherwise I would not be so secure in my stance.

Answer the question Iams, its a simple yes or no. Do you wish to use skepticism as a method?

(to the bold: Because you are secure in your beliefs does not make them reality, however you wish to delusion yourself and if you are so secure why can you not answer the question?)

That's cool. I'm not planning to let you derail me either, so, this should be fun.

You seem to be assuming that I need a lecture from you on skepticism and I don't so there is no need for the lecture you are waiting for me to give you an opportunity to launch into.

If you feel the general membership of UM needs it, go ahead and give it, but I am not going to be your patsy for it.

Actually I am going to help you make your case stronger. Well do it one question at a time, answering them will only add credibility to your statements. Of course you can choose not to answer any questions, though I don't think that is going to make your stance and "strong beliefs" look very good to people around here.

I am serious, I am not going to derail your argument, I will help it, But to ensure objectivity and credibility well go 1 question at a time.

To address your edit:

I have no plan on lecturing you. I plan on helping you build your case in a credible obvious fashion.

Here maybe it will help if I provide the second question for you. That way you can see my intentions are not to lecture you, but rather to allow you build your case in a logical fashion.

1. Do you wish to use skepticism as a method?
2. Is evolution/evolutionary theory being presented to the layman in an irresponsible manner?

Science evolves, religion does not. Science now knows what is inside an atom unlike in 1920. Religion will still murder, like in the darkages if it had complete control. Seeing as murder is in their religion.

Sciences are not censored, regardless of that, Dawkins knows evolution, he does not misinterpret the information - unlike creationists.

Religion is a singuler cause. Science has many - astrology, biology, physics, chemistry, cognitive, paleontology, health, engineering ectectect.

Would you hold paleontology responsible for the creation of the atom bomb? no.
Would you hold christianity responsible for acting on what the bible preaches - burning witches for example? Yes. It's in their bible to do so. "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live." - exodus 22:18

Also, your quote;



Theory:

- A well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; "theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses"; "true in fact and theory"
- Hypothesis: a tentative theory about the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena; "a scientific hypothesis that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific theory"; "he proposed a fresh theory of alkalis that later was accepted in chemical practices"
- A belief that can guide behavior; "the architect has a theory that more is less"; "they killed him on the theory that dead men tell no tales"
Source
Don't trust Princton?

- A comprehensive explanation of a given set of data that has been repeatedly confirmed by observation and experimentation and has gained general acceptance within the scientific community but has not yet been decisively proven. See also hypothesis and scientific law.
Source

- A general principle that explains or predicts facts or events
Source

- An extremely well-substantiated explanation of some aspects of the natural world that incorporates facts, laws, predictions, and tested hypotheses. (Eg, Einstein's Theory of Gravitation, 1916)
Source

Take your pick. They all state the same thing. 'Theory' is not fact, it's as close to fact as possible. Do you take electricity as fact? You shouldn't. It's a theory.

IamsSon and True That,

While mathematics is one of the tools of science, it is not science.

Things can only be proven in the field of mathematics because of agreed upon definitions and axioms.

There is no proof (or even evidence) that these definitions and axioms have any real substance outside the field of mathematics itself.

So, this comparison between arithmetic and science is spurious.



There exists no proof of any scientific theory. That's why they call them theories. A theory is only an analytical model meant to be useful in discovering scientific information.

For example, the Bohr model of the atom we all know very well. The cluster of round neutrons and protons, the little round electrons "orbiting" the nucleus, etc.

That's is only a model. Nobody really knows what the atom looks like. It might be a nucleus of Pooh Bear and Eeyore surrounded by a swarm of negatively charged bees protecting the "hunny" for all anyone knows.

It is disingenuous to insist that one must "prove" a theory. Theories cannot be "proven." They can only be "supported" by observed phenomena (facts?) Or sometimes not supported, in the case of theories that must be discarded.

In this light, it should be easier to see the distinction between Evolution and Creationism/I.D. Evolution is supported by the observed phenomena (fossils, DNA, etc.) Creationism/I.D. is only supported by a collection of myths written by human beings during an era when people didn't even understand where the wind comes from, and collected and published by a group (early Catholic Church) with an "agenda" much more nefarious than any agenda (as if) that you choose to perceive among the scientific community, True.


First off, how do you know that this didn't happen?

The scientific community doesn't work like the mass media.

Ask yourself, what was the impetus for the disclaimer on that show that was pointed out to you? Could it have been a barrage of letters, emails and phone calls from scientists that saw the show and recognized the problem? Did you ever even think to look into this possibility before you fired yet another broadside at the scientific community for ruining your pipe dream of Big Juju In The Sky?

Are you saying that paleontologists and geologists are duty-bound to produce another TV "documentary" to expose the fact that a couple of scientists in the Nova show used a couple of wrong terms or at least didn't phrase their comments scientifically?

You do realize, don't you, that the show you watched was made by television producers and entertainment companies, and not by the scientific community.

By your logic, scientists all over the world should drop what they are doing and combine their hard-sought funds to create a TV show that straightens out a few minor kinks in what was obviously a discussion aimed at laypersons.



I suppose you would prefer that shows on your television use only the jargon of the supposed profession being played by the actors. If this were true, hospital shows would be incomprehensible to the viewer (that means you) as would courtroom dramas and several other genres I can think of.


Straw man. No scientist has ever made this claim.


You've got a whole haystack started. No scientist has made this claim either.


Congratulations, it's a three-fer.

Harte

OK, I'll play, but question number 2 is the wrong question.

2. Does the fact that, although we know the public is being presented with an incorrect view of evolution (we all agree that people like Dawkins have an agenda and are using evolutionary theory to push their interpretation of the data as FACT), the general scientific community has pure intentions absolve them from the responsibility of insuring the public is being properly educated?

Its rather hard to pin your ideas on science as whole, So lets keep on with this evolution perspective to stay specific.
To continue to help you build your case lets answer question 3.

3. What aspects of evolutionary theory are being presented incorrectly? Answering this will help us determine whether science as a whole needs to take responsibility for the incorrect presentation of ideas.

Edit:

You could maybe make a nice neat list or something.

Another attack on Christianity cloaked in explanation. But this is an interesting example because Christianity was actually the explosive evolution of Judaism. Christ said that "Love God with all that you are, and love everyone else like you love yourself" were THE rules. These two rules basically trump Exodus 22:18, at least to Christians, so, no those Christians who burned witches at the stake were not practicing Christianity any more than Dawkins in presenting his interpretation of the data as fact is practicing science.

And like I said, I know this, unfortunately, because of how poor our public education system is, the majority of the general public does not, and THAT is my concern.

Focus Iams. Answer number 3.

We all know our publics science education is piss-poor. Read a gallup poll and you'll see this. Look at our students test scores vs. the rest of the world and you'll see this. (Though I don't think you really wish to venture down the road of who is blame for a public that is ignorant of science).

Jesus also stated "Obey the laws of my father". The OT. So those christians were very real christians.

No, it was not an attack. It was an explanation to your "people like you who hold christianity to the dark ages". If that's a hidden agenda, you should really read the bible, so you'll find it isn't.

Dawkings uses evolution as fact due to biological findings of genes that the animal no longer has need for. If evolution was wrong, then animals would not have those gene at all. It's not fact, but the principle of evolution explains/predicts facts and/or events.

The only reason evolution is a theory. Is because we don't have a timemachine and a ffw button.

Iams,

This whole thread is meant to be about what skepticism is. That's why True started it. It IS information and education about the nature of skepticism so, unless you are here to inform everyone what your opinion of what skepticism is or at least engage in the debate over what skepticism is, then why are you here? You (and others) are taking this thread way off topic with the debate of evolution vs creationism (or about whether scientists have an agenda regarding evolution).

The reason I asked True about her opinion that science has an agenda was because I don't see this opinion as skepticism, but as a belief, an inaccurate generalisation, or maybe a position of cynicism. I'll repeat my understanding of what I think skepticism is...

"A method of questioning a claim based on an understanding of both the subject and the evidence provided supporting the claim."

Do you agree with this analysis? If so then please state why an opinion about science having an agenda qualifies as skepticism when science has made no claim to such an agenda. I would like to keep this thread on topic and I would ask if you...and Truethat, Cimber, camlax etc, would please do the same.

If you do not agree with my analysis then please would you say why not and your reasons for doing so?

For reference, here is the opinion I was asking this question about...



...you'll find it in post #158.

Thanks.

If anyone feels I've singled them out unfairly, I apologize. I am simply not trying to focus the derailing of the thread on just one person.

Actually we do not even need a time machine. Evolutionary theory contains facts, laws and other hypotheses. The theory connects all of these together. I am sure Cimber would agree, evolutionary theory is the unifying theory of biology. Really, biology is lucky to have such a good unifying theory, considering most other sciences do not/do not one as complete as evolution.

Must be because you haven't been paying attention, or you have a preconception of me which prevents you from seeing it. I provided a good portion of a page from Indiana University which very succinctly presents the view of science I subscribe to, which I believe is the proper view of science or at least it seems Indiana University agrees with it too.


Go back and read true's posts, but here's my list:

1. Any and every part of the various evolutionary theories which appear in any school curriculum at any grade level which fails to explain that what is being taught is based on our best interpretations of the data we have given our current level of technology and understanding, written so that it is easily understood by the students it's directed at.

2. Any and every part of the various evolutionary theories which appear in any popular media, or media directed at the general public which fails to explain that what is being taught/discussed is based on our best interpretations of the data we have given our current level of technology and understanding, written so that it is easily understood by anyone with a 6th grade level education (it seems to be the current level in our public schools).

I'll keep working on the list but I think those two will keep us busy.

My intent with Iams was to allow him to use an example of skepticism as a method, which I think would be great and only add to the quality of the thread. He however, seems reluctant to do so.

Frankly, I blame parents. I make sure my kids understand science and are getting an actual education.


And so, since we currently do not have the time machine, we should remember what we describe is simply one INTERPRETATION of the information we have given our current level of technology. When and if we ever do get the time machine, then we will know.


Actually, Leo, now that we are actually addressing the point I was expressing skepticism about, I have answered the question. I think it will be an interesting discussion.

Nice way to wash your hands, claiming christians were not christians. Thanks for proving your own point earlier =)

I also don't see how using the BIBLE equates to ATTACKING christianity.

I know I already replied to this post of yours, but I wanted to add this in aswell.

No, I was merely reluctant to be dissuaded from the point I was trying to make.

Pretty poor showing. Thanks for continuing to show your immaturity. I was not washing my hands of anything, but if you wish to state that Dawkins is NOT a scientist, go ahead. I have read the Bible, several times, I also use various resources including interviews with theologists and professors of theology to insure the best understanding of the passages, you may want to try that sometime.

Great, lets get even more methodical in our dissection of an idea.




1. What interpretations are incorrect or shaky enough to warrant a disclaimer? (All science is an interpretation of data, if you merely wish to bow out now and say all science and science books should have a disclaimer that they are an interpretation of data then that is fine. If not then please answer the question. Also I would not disagree with you, as all science is an interpretation of data, I would be fine with putting a disclaimer in geology, biology, chemistry, physics, math, etc books.)

2. Again, which various theories warrant such action because they are based on such shaky data or lose interpretations? (Again, bowing out and saying all scientific things discussed in the media should have a disclaimer is fine.)

3. If we are too put a disclaimer on scientific things, then we should most certainly add a disclaimer to things that aren't scientific and do not even have any observations being made to interpret. For instance, all Newspapers should write a warning that their horoscope section is for entertainment value only and is not science nor based upon science. Religious media should have a disclaimer that the ideas and statements inherent in religion are based upon an unverifiable book and are subject to subjective interpretations and more likely than not, lack any fact or observable truth. We should also add such disclaimers to TV ads, as they are propagandized to attempt to sway us into purchasing their products. We should also slap disclaimers on microwaves, computers, cars and TVs. Stating they are based upon scientific theories which cannot be proven and are the result of interpretation of data.
Wouldn't you agree?

Edit: Thought of another good one, we should add warnings to doctors offices stating much of the methodology and practice is based upon scientific theories and their interpretation of data. Maybe to antibiotic labels too; "These drugs are based on theories and their interpretations, germ theory is only and theory and is not provable!"

Lets not forget DVD players and fluorescence lights. We would not want people thinking these things are facts, because they too are theories. Can you prove light is a particle and wave? Can you observe a photon? Nope, so we should let people know that these things are only the interpretation of theories and could be at any time proven wrong.

Cheers, Iams.

I read the link you posted to the information on what Science is not (that you agree with). How are you certain the information in there is accurate if you dispute general science publications? If the information about what science is not is inaccurate then perhaps you are operating of false principles?

The reason I bring this point up is because, at some point, you have to accept a level of uncertainty in any field of academic endeavour. You rail against the inaccuracy of science then hold up a scientific publication as your truth and evidence. If you are so certain of the accuracy of this information why do you dispute other scientific publications?

So, why are WE going to set ourselves up as arbiters of how accurate things should be when those who matter most (the scientists) are the ones who should determine this? And what level of accuracy is suitable for what form of publication of scientific information?

Obviously dissertations and academic papers would require the highest level of accuracy and unambiguity. I suggest that scholastic texts should be graduated based on the level of learning with the junior levels having more generalised and 'user-friendly' scientific text. Publications and media presentation to the general public do not require such strict controls as a fair portion of their content is designed to grab and hold attention for entertainment purposes rather than specific learning.

So, do you set yourself up as the arbiter of what must be done? Why? Because you think the system is faulty?

Can I ask a very simple question that no-one has thought to ask. Is science broken? Are we able to make new discoveries and learn new things through science?

If so then why the heck are you trying to voice any concern that the system needs changing???

Forgive me if this seems at odds with my plea to keep the thread on track. I'm trying to find out if skepticism is really the driving force of this urge you feel. As the thread title asks (and I didn't write this) "Are you hypocritical when it comes to skepticism?" We all have beliefs about things. We all have 'pet hates' regarding topics and things in life. Do we confuse these opinions with skepticism?

Well thats pretty narrow, considering there are many institutions that exist within our society that disseminate bad science to parents, who then pass it onto their kids. Like the Discovery Institute for instance.

You're washing your hands of christians who you don't agree with by claiming they were not really christians.

I also would not state Dawkings is not a scientist if I didn't agree with him, he has a diploma in his field. Just as the christians of old were taught by preists who were taught by the catholic/protestant institutes.

So yes, washing your hands. I just like irony.

Come on, Calmax. I'm not denying or supporting ANY interpretation in particular. Read what I wrote. Stop trying to misrepresent what I wrote. I very clearly stated:


The concern is with ANY interpretation which is presented as 100% absolute, undeniable fact. As a scientist you should be very clear that science is not about FACT. (Do I need to post the link again?)


Come on Leo, this is kinda silly. That article basically states what the Scientific Process is. If you want to be skeptical about whether that is the scientific process or not, I would suggest you take a basic science course or read an encyclopedia entry on the scientific process. If you want to be skeptical about whether the scientific process is the valid way to practice science, then go ahead, but then all of science is in question.

I don't think it is, but that's my opinion, I hold parents responsible for the majority of the poor performance of students at all levels.

I thought, you did not want to side track the conversation? Can you then please answer the questions, point out which parts are faulty and require such a a disclaimer or concede that all sciences along with non-sciences need such a disclaimer.

If you concede that all sciences and non-sciences do, that is fine, thats your belief but you would have failed to use skepticism as a method. If you wish to be logical and methodical then please continue in the dissection.

So you think an uneducated parent should somehow be responsible for teaching science correctly?

So, let me get this straight. If you believe you are teaching your child science correctly, yet you do not know science because you get/base your understanding on faulty institutions it is no ones fault but your own? There is no blame to shared with the institution?


So, in your opinion, should all parents be responsible for attending colleges to get higher education on what science is?

Iams,

Isn't this the sort of response from others that you have been railing against in this thread?



You said this. Are you of the opinion that there is an agenda in science, as was mooted earlier in this thread, to misrepresent information to the public?

You seem to have taken the 'silence' of scientists regarding the non-scientific opinion of Dawkins etc to indicate such an agenda. Or are you limiting this to just evolutionary science?

If so, how could all the other scientists - following the same scientific process - not then speak out against the evolutionary scientists? They must be part of the conspiracy because their silence on this is also deafening.

Basically, if you believe this agenda in one part of science, you believe it in all because they all follow the same process. If one 'area' of science was to abandon this process then, by your logic of agenda, the other branches of science should speak out or they are also complicit in the conspiracy.

So, if you believe this agenda (and you never answered my question as to whether is was skepticism to believe so) then all of science is complicit and so the scientific process is also subject to skepticism - after all, it was devised by those scientists who have this agenda! I don't happen to think it is (although I do question many things in science as a matter of course), but then I don't believe in this agenda-driven conspiracy of scientists.

Where does this conspiracy stop, Iams? What scientific information should we doubt due to the agenda of the scientists in this conspiracy?

Now, I asked before and would like to ask again...



Please note, this thread is not about how to make science better, how to make scholastic texts more accurate. It is not about whether science is good or bad. It is about skepticism.

I'm not trying to sidetrack anything. I'm also not allowing you to do so. I am not talking about specific parts, I am talking about the way in which any and all evolutionary theories or portions of theories are discussed in popular media and presented to lay audiences by well-spoken scientists such as Dawkins, making it sound like their interpretation of the data is not an interpretation but actual, unquestionable, concrete fact. Truethat presented several examples. Are you having difficulty understanding this? Would it help if I wrote it in ALL-CAPS, like when you asked me if I understood?

I think any good parent can teach their child to learn properly. It takes dedication, and love, and patience, but actually doesn't require for the parent to be well-educated. I have cousins who are doctors, lawyers and successful business owners and whose parents never made it past the 5th grade, but they insured their kids knew how to respect their teachers, and dedicate themselves to learning.

Relax everyone, science is off the hook!!!

A very good point, that I was trying to get at myself. If we are limiting our skepticism to just 1 branch of science then we are taking a position against that branch, rather than using skepticism as a method (hypocritical as the title states).

I am fine with you questioning evolutionary theory and adding your disclamier. I take it you then agree we need to add that disclaimer to every branch of science and to non-sciences as well?

I mean after all, computers are presented as facts, yet they work on a principle that is a theory, have you ever seen an electron Iams? Much less state where one is at any given time?

Edit: Of course if you wish to persist in singling out one science, then I suppose you are presenting a belief. In which case we should add a disclaimer to your statements.
Warning: These are the personal thoughts of Iamson, they are neither based on fact nor supportive evidence. Reading them one must understand they are only beliefs and as such are the personal interpretations of reality by Iamson. They neither constitute nor reflect the beliefs of the rest of humanity. Continue reading, but keep an open mind as these beliefs are unprovable.




This is very interesting, from someone so caught up on personal responsibility, it is surprising that you feel scientist should be accountable for how others use the knowledge they discover.
I am sure you then feel that gun manufactures should be held responsible for murders? And car manufactures for car wrecks? Maybe alcohol manufactures for alcohol abuse?

I thought we were all quite fluent in English. Although Spanish was the first language I spoke, read and wrote in, I have been told that my grasp of the English spoken, and written language is well above average, so I'm certain my writing is proper English and I'm fairly certain I have expressed my thoughts clearly, so frankly I am at a loss as to why you cannot grasp it.