/sci/ - Science & Math

Take it up, wondering who the fuck is spending that kind of money on a futile pursuit

Show me the moneeeyyyy!!!!
Scientists are all money whores at heart

>>5776144

Take the job. And start drinking really heavy.

>>5776155
Money better spent on genetic engineering research. I want my furry husbando. Plz ;-;

Work there for a few years, quit and then write a book about why everything over there was stupid

What you do with that money, privately isn't their concern ...

take the job and then do fuck all. collect a month or twos salary before they catch on to the fact that i'm just stalling and doing fuck all then they fire me.

i wouldn't betray humanity and truth in order to collect some dosh validating their fucking nonsense fantasy bullshit.

on the day i get fired i declare a press conference where i say "my research finally led me to realize that evolution is clearly real and there is no god"

sounds like the opportunity of a lifetime, you can produce all the "research" you want

>>5776164
>implying said creationist would dare play God

>>5776144
I would do research into intelligent design hypotheses and prove myself wrong

Lets up the ante.

You have to work. And sign an NDA that makes you liable for all your costs (payments, insurance, workplace, etc) and any profits from investing your salary if you ever disagree with ID.

>>5776290
Work a couple years
Fake death

Wow, almost $30 an hour??

Do I actually have to do anything considering there's nothing to research?

>>5776144
Take the job, and over the course of at least 5 years (I gots to retire eventually) I'd conspire to embarrass myself, and by extension the Institute, so badly and so spectacularly that it loses all credibility (snicker) that it had. Also, wear a voice recorder 24/7 so I have the option of doing an embarrassing "tell-all".

>>5776315
Write bogus articles "proving" ID and "disproving" evolution. There would be a quota.

>>5776144
I'd do real scientific work, and prove nothing as expected and verified by other scientists.

>>5776340
Then they'd fire you. And if you tried to expose them afterwards, they'd sue you for slander because it says they can on the contract you originally had to sign.

Congratulations

>>5776332
Nah, I couldn't do that. I'd get up in the morning and couldn't look in the mirror knowing what I've just done.

>>5776343
If all of my research is publicly available, and this research has been duplicated by others, They can sue me, but not win in the face of extraordinary evidence. I might even get money out of a counter-sue.

>>5776353
Especially if you do like I said here>>5776327
and therefore have overwhelming evidence on you side when you go to court.

>>5776327
No matter how much you embarrass them, they will be twice as credible as they were when you began.

>>5776353
Aside the evidence of evolution there would be plenty of you going against the contract. You would lose the lawsuit.

>>5776377
Only if I knowingly lied or used my position to influence a falsehood. With my work being open to all for review, the proof is not reliant on me alone, but on the force of many. Almost every one of these attempts to silence science have either wound up loosing in court, or settling without disclosure.

>>5776375
1. What the fuck are you talking about? You're not making any sense.

2. Twice of nothing is still nothing.

>>5776377
I don't think you quite understand how the legal system works.

>>5776394
Nice captcha.

The difference in this situation is that you signed an agreement. In all those examples I'd be surprised if you can find me one scientist who was on a contract where he couldn't debunk ID in public. It'd be handled similar to situations where you leak restricted information to the public.

>>5776440
If I broke contract, that's something entirely different. Although I'm quite certain the religious fanatics have a backup plan in case reality doesn't suit them.

>>5776440
Like I said, you clearly do not understand how the legal system works. I realize that we are a "lawsuit happy" culture, but that doesn't change the fact that you cannot successfully sue somebody unless they actually committed a crime. If you accuse someone of slander, you are saying that they lied, and the burden of proof lies solely on you to show that he lied. The only way you could possibly stand a chance is if he signed a non-disclosure agreement and revealed information beyond his scientific findings, such as if you spoke publicly about what goes on at the institute itself, and even THEN if this included a crime they are up shit creek, because federal law clearly states that it is an offence to prevent someone from, or retaliate against someone for, reporting a crime.

A contract is a legally binding agreement, not a magical fucking spell. It doesn't override other laws, especially the constitution.

>>5776466
Don't confuse libel and liable. This isn't about slander.

NDAs are usually meant to restrict new information but they work by restricting you from disclosing said information. In this way if can prevent you from disclosing the fact that evolution is true even though we already know so.

>>5776466
Don't confuse libel and liable. This isn't about slander.

NDAs are usually meant to restrict new information but they work by restricting you from disclosing said information. In this way it can prevent you from disclosing the fact that evolution is true even though we already know so.

I would not only take the job, but I would also put forth real effort to give intelligent design/creationism more credibility.

The world runs on bullshit.

Take the job and come up with even more ridiculous bs to support ID.
>a study on clown shoe sizes to refute evolution
>80's television antennas: a sure sign that beetle antennae are also designed