Can evidence be tampered with or changed to prove something else then before it was changed?

[john james]

Can evidence be tampered with or changed to prove something else then before it was changed? Like proving something wrong right or not proving something right that it should have been able to prove?

For example, the evidence of scientific studies. If some write many studies proving something that is not correct and then the scientific community is intimidated in to approving the studies when they shouldn't approve it. Then some one can say that those studies are evidence of something that is actually wrong.

Or evidence from authority..... An organization that decides that things are a certain way like the APA, CDC or WHO. Some intimidate the people who decide the way things are going to be, then that is used as evidence to prove some right that is wrong.

And when these things are done, the people who speak out about it our silenced, censored, discredited, made fun of and called names to make them seem like people no one should listen to. Like racist.

The point is can evidence be changed so that when it can't be used to prove something that it should have been able to prove before being changed or prove something right that is wrong?

Is it possible that some are so smart and have have a lot of resources that they can change the evidence without you knowing it and you think that because you don't have any evidence that they did it that it wasn't done but it was done?

Do you put too much emphasis on evidence where as some people who know that they just have to change your perception of the evidence and/or the evidence and they have successfully controlled you?

Do we need to find ways that make the evidence we go by more universally excepted and not able to be changed, tampered with or corrupted?

Have there been any scandals that we didn't have the evidence for at first then years later we found out the truth? Is it possible that some things or scandals we will may never find out the truth about?

 

[Ficciones]

I think it's cool that you're reinventing Cartesian skepticism because you can't accept that a widely hated idiot lost an election.

 

[Whateverman]

Can evidence be tampered with or changed to prove something else then before it was changed? Like proving something wrong right or not proving something right that it should have been able to prove?

For example, the evidence of scientific studies. If some write many studies proving something that is not correct and then the scientific community is intimidated in to approving the studies when they shouldn't approve it.

JJ, I got my bachelor's degree in the wet sciences (chemistry, microbiology, etc), and then spent 8 years working in research and development. I then changed careers, and worked as a software developer in medical drug/device research for another decade. Neither of these things make me a scientist, but they gave a good view of how "science" often works in the real world.

A study can be fraudulent (or simply wrong/false/misleading), but it can't intimidate anyone. It can make people think a thing is true (when it's really false), but the problem is that everyone in the community wants to know if the study has REALLY discovered anything new, or whether it's REALLY actually correct. Studies are written in such a way that someone who reads it will see how it was performed, which means they should be able to recreate the study themselves. A small number of scientists / researchers will then try to recreate the original study, to see if they can confirm the results.

The bottom line is that a study can't intimidate anyone into believing it, and if the study is actually false/faulty, scientists will find out pretty quickly.

---

So the answer to your question is No.

 

[john james]

JJ, I got my bachelor's degree in the wet sciences (chemistry, microbiology, etc), and then spent 8 years working in research and development. I then changed careers, and worked as a software developer in medical drug/device research for another decade. Neither of these things make me a scientist, but they gave a good view of how "science" often works in the real world.

A study can be fraudulent (or simply wrong/false/misleading), but it can't intimidate anyone. It can make people think a thing is true (when it's really false), but the problem is that everyone in the community wants to know if the study has REALLY discovered anything new, or whether it's REALLY actually correct. Studies are written in such a way that someone who reads it will see how it was performed, which means they should be able to recreate the study themselves. A small number of scientists / researchers will then try to recreate the original study, to see if they can confirm the results.

The bottom line is that a study can't intimidate anyone into believing it, and if the study is actually false/faulty, scientists will find out pretty quickly.

---

So the answer to your question is No.

I meant that the scientists themselves are intimidated into approving a false study. And then other scientists are intimidated into to not trying to replicate the study so it can't be deemed not correct.

Like if a number of scientists were reviewing or trying to replicate a study and were threatened by other people that those people were going to get them fired or terminated from their careers. Those people would make it difficult for their families. Those people said they would disclose information about their children like where they to school at and etc. And the scientists were afraid because they thought this group of people would and could do these things. Threats and intimidation was used to keep the scientists from proving the study or studies wrong.

 

[Whateverman]

I meant that the scientists themselves are intimidated into approving a false study.

No. Scientists don't "approve" studies. They critique them (re. the peer review process). As such, the only possible thing they could be "intimidated" to do (with a faulty study) is not critique it - and the reality is that scientists can't be herded into not critiquing something they know to be faulty.

Maybe a few could be intimidated to keep silent, but when a study is released for peer review, any scientist on the planet can critique it. You can't intimidate all scientists.

---

There are many respected scientific journals (see here for a partial list), and it's theoretically possible to intimidate THEM into printing faulty studies. Once again, though, any scientist could review the data and recognize the faults and then publish his/her findings.

---

The simple answer to your question is No. It'd be almost impossible to do what you're asking.