Trust the science! (Ignore the 300 retractions/mo)

techno-ag

8:48p, 5/2/24

https://www.theblaze.com/return/the-explosion-of-phony-science-causing-people-to-distrust-the-experts

Quote:
When Adam Marcus and Ivan Oransky set up Retraction Watch in 2010, the idea of highlighting academic malfeasance was seen as unusual. Researchers didn't peddle disinformation; they were the arbiters of truth and the custodians of society's collective knowledge.

In the fourteen years since, the scales have fallen from our eyes as the breadth of academic falsity has been uncovered - through the work of Marcus, Oransky, and a host of others. When they set up Retraction Watch, they believed there were around three retractions published by journals a month. It was actually 45. Now it's closer to 300.

It's amazing. I think it's a combo of factors. One is intense publish or perish pressure. Two is a desire to publish results you'll get funded for (like saying people are responsible for an always changing climate). Three is a desire to generate results that line up with some other preconceived political bias ("women and minorities hurt most.")

Regardless, the politicization of science has ruined it.

Buy a man eat fish, he day, teach fish man, to a lifetime.

- Joe Biden

I think that, to be very honest with you, I do believe that we should have rightly believed, but we certainly believe that certain issues are just settled.

- Kamala Harris

waitwhat?

8:55p, 5/2/24

Same thing the media does. Say something that's not true, get it to spread, then quietly retract it when it's already assumed to be true by the masses.

Example: RUSSIAN COLLUSION!!!

" 'People that read with pictures think that it's simply about a mask' - Dana Loesch" - Ban Cow Gas

"Truth is treason in the empire of lies." - Dr. Ron Paul

Big Tech IS the empire of lies

TEXIT

Rapier108

9:06p, 5/2/24

I remember one of my professors back in 2001 telling the class about just how bad the "publish or perish" mentality had gotten. In his opinion, half of the papers being published were either simply made up, or grossly embellished to help get tenure and more research $$$.

"If you will not fight for right when you can easily win without blood shed; if you will not fight when your victory is sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves." - Sir Winston Churchill

APHIS AG

9:10p, 5/2/24

In reply to techno-ag

techno-ag said:
https://www.theblaze.com/return/the-explosion-of-phony-science-causing-people-to-distrust-the-experts

Quote:
When Adam Marcus and Ivan Oransky set up Retraction Watch in 2010, the idea of highlighting academic malfeasance was seen as unusual. Researchers didn't peddle disinformation; they were the arbiters of truth and the custodians of society's collective knowledge.

In the fourteen years since, the scales have fallen from our eyes as the breadth of academic falsity has been uncovered - through the work of Marcus, Oransky, and a host of others. When they set up Retraction Watch, they believed there were around three retractions published by journals a month. It was actually 45. Now it's closer to 300.
It's amazing. I think it's a combo of factors. One is intense publish or perish pressure. Two is a desire to publish results you'll get funded for (like saying people are responsible for an always changing climate). Three is a desire to generate results that line up with some other preconceived political bias ("women and minorities hurt most.")

Regardless, the politicization of science has ruined it.

And as long as the government continues to support their research fraud instead of holding them accountable for their fraud, it will continue.

PCC_80

9:24p, 5/2/24

Quote:
And as long as the government continues to support their research fraud instead of holding them accountable for their fraud, it will continue.

All of the research grants are set up to collect support for causes such as Man Made Climate Change. In order to get the grant your research proposal has to be somehow providing proof of that preconceived idea.

There is little of no funding going to actually prove or disprove the concept.

The Govt has to first pass out grants that are seeking real results not the desired results.

DrEvazanPhD

9:26p, 5/2/24

''member when "safe, free and effective" was the phrase of the day?

I 'member

techno-ag

9:31p, 5/2/24

In reply to Rapier108

Rapier108 said:
I remember one of my professors back in 2001 telling the class about just how bad the "publish or perish" mentality had gotten. In his opinion, half of the papers being published were either simply made up, or grossly embellished to help get tenure and more research $$$.

No doubt it's been problematic a while. I suspect many papers say little of interest and are just expressions of calculations for statistical significance, not really showing anything of use to society.

Buy a man eat fish, he day, teach fish man, to a lifetime.

- Joe Biden

I think that, to be very honest with you, I do believe that we should have rightly believed, but we certainly believe that certain issues are just settled.

- Kamala Harris

Emotional Support Cobra

9:35p, 5/2/24

There are also a ton of small, dubious publications out there and you can pay to publish your manuscript in them. Kinda ruins the point of rigorous scientific method.

96AgGrad

9:52p, 5/2/24

Sabine here has a science YouTube channel I watch sometimes. This one is 13 minutes long, and describes how her scientific idealism gave way to disillusionment when she learned how research actually works,

Worth watching, but the the TLDR version is that it's a business that rewards rehashing old topics that bring in the research dollars to pay for the overhead. Young researchers have to chase the money-making topics because that's the only way they get paid.

rocky the dog

10:02p, 5/2/24

Elections are when people find out what politicians stand for, and politicians find out what people will fall for.
- Alfred E. Neuman

shiftyandquick

10:06p, 5/2/24

There's definitely a problem with fraud among scientists. But the counter-problem is the anti-intellectuals (which has deep roots now in MAGA) that are generally against science, discourage STEM, discourage college, discourage funding schools and universities, etc.

EskimoJoe

10:11p, 5/2/24

Tango.Mike

10:15p, 5/2/24

In reply to techno-ag

techno-ag said:
Rapier108 said:
I remember one of my professors back in 2001 telling the class about just how bad the "publish or perish" mentality had gotten. In his opinion, half of the papers being published were either simply made up, or grossly embellished to help get tenure and more research $$$.
No doubt it's been problematic a while. I suspect many papers say little of interest and are just expressions of calculations for statistical significance, not really showing anything of use to society.

Indeed. And if you p-hack enough, you can change the order of variables in any model to eventually get statistical significance. Using p<.05 in a simple linear regression with 300 cases is such a lazy way to do "research".

And I love Retraction Watch. I perused it several times back when I was a student

DrEvazanPhD

10:24p, 5/2/24

In reply to shiftyandquick

shiftyandquick said:
There's definitely a problem with fraud among scientists. But the counter-problem is the anti-intellectuals (which has deep roots now in MAGA) that are generally against science, discourage STEM, discourage college, discourage funding schools and universities, etc.

Anti-intelectual you say?

Not everyone needs to go to college. That was a lie, and there are those of us who encourage going into trades. I don't think anyone is discouraging STEM. Engineering is one of the few real degrees a college offers.

Many universities are heavily funded by endowments. Why do they need tax payer dollars? Public schools should focus on areas of study that can be useful in real life.

techno-ag

6:44a, 5/3/24

In reply to shiftyandquick

shiftyandquick said:
There's definitely a problem with fraud among scientists. But the counter-problem is the anti-intellectuals (which has deep roots now in MAGA) that are generally against science, discourage STEM, discourage college, discourage funding schools and universities, etc.

I don't think it's against science. Science is amorphous. It's against the mischaracterized use of science for political purposes that many of us are against.

Buy a man eat fish, he day, teach fish man, to a lifetime.

- Joe Biden

I think that, to be very honest with you, I do believe that we should have rightly believed, but we certainly believe that certain issues are just settled.

- Kamala Harris

Madagascar

6:50a, 5/3/24

In reply to shiftyandquick

shiftyandquick said:
There's definitely a problem with fraud among scientists. But the counter-problem is the anti-intellectuals (which has deep roots now in MAGA) that are generally against science, discourage STEM, discourage college, discourage funding schools and universities, etc.

Do you even know what "science" is?

Emotional Support Cobra

6:55a, 5/3/24

In reply to shiftyandquick

shiftyandquick said:
There's definitely a problem with fraud among scientists. But the counter-problem is the anti-intellectuals (which has deep roots now in MAGA) that are generally against science, discourage STEM, discourage college, discourage funding schools and universities, etc.

It all comes down to snobbery. Deep roots in MAGA, that is a good one. I know all the "youths" robbing department stores love science.

AgNav93

8:10a, 5/3/24

In reply to shiftyandquick

shiftyandquick said:
There's definitely a problem with fraud among scientists. But the counter-problem is the anti-intellectuals (which has deep roots now in MAGA) that are generally against science, discourage STEM, discourage college, discourage funding schools and universities, etc.

Only 10 comments in and TDS rears it's ugly head. But the Trumper "anti-intellectuals" are the real problem. OK.

CheeseSndwch

8:15a, 5/3/24

In reply to shiftyandquick

shiftyandquick said:
There's definitely a problem with fraud among scientists. But the counter-problem is the anti-intellectuals (which has deep roots now in MAGA) that are generally against science, discourage STEM, discourage college, discourage funding schools and universities, etc.

Could you please define for me what a Woman is?