OT Big Science is broken (1 Viewer)

[jlprk]

The funny thing is they poll scientists:

1) Do you falsify data? 2% say yes.
2) Do your colleagues falsify data? 74% say yes.

Huge disconnect.

74% read articles that say that 2% falsify. I see no disconnect.

I think it's far less than 2%, anyway. If your God of Money wanted 74% of scientists to report that 74% falsify, why did He falsify the 2% stat?

 

[SlyPokerDog]

SCIENCE DAMNIT

Hey sly, why do these losers walk on 2 legs when they have 4 perfectly good legs?

I blame iphones.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

And it's great to have @Minstrel back!

 

[Denny Crane]

74% read articles that say that 2% falsify. I see no disconnect.

I think it's far less than 2%, anyway. If your God of Money wanted 74% of scientists to report that 74% falsify, why did He falsify the 2% stat?

This one is interesting. It has numbers.

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0005738

How Many Scientists Fabricate and Falsify Research? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Survey Data

The frequency with which scientists fabricate and falsify data, or commit other forms of scientific misconduct is a matter of controversy. Many surveys have asked scientists directly whether they have committed or know of a colleague who committed research misconduct, but their results appeared difficult to compare and synthesize. This is the first meta-analysis of these surveys.

...

A pooled weighted average of 1.97% (N = 7, 95%CI: 0.86–4.45) of scientists admitted to have fabricated, falsified or modified data or results at least once –a serious form of misconduct by any standard– and up to 33.7% admitted other questionable research practices. In surveys asking about the behaviour of colleagues, admission rates were 14.12% (N = 12, 95% CI: 9.91–19.72) for falsification, and up to 72% for other questionable research practices.

...

Considering that these surveys ask sensitive questions and have other limitations, it appears likely that this is a conservative estimate of the true prevalence of scientific misconduct.

(Also found at the nih.gov WWW site: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2685008/)

 

[oldfisherman]

 

[Denny Crane]

View attachment 8681

"You are free to make a computer model as long as it comes to these conclusions."

 

[MARIS61]

For several decades scientific "experts" swore hair samples could be proven to come from a specific person, thus easing the conviction of thousands of people accused of rape and hundreds of people accused of murder. Some were executed primarily on the basis of hair sample evidence.

Along came DNA, and suddenly "experts" admitted that comparing hair samples was about as conclusive as comparing skin color. Now, supposedly DNA is indisputable evidence, according to the same lying experts who claimed that about hair samples. We really have no reason to believe these claims, but they are being used to imprison and execute people. Only slightly more credible than drowning someone to prove they are not a witch, which is what scientists did 200 years ago.

The days of Da Vinci, Plato, Darwin and Newton are long gone.

All supposed modern scientific discovery is accomplished by unimaginative people of malleable intelligence who derive their financial existence from either big government, big business or big religion. They were taught by big education, which is sometimes mistakenly considered to be somehow separate from big business. They have no hope of impartiality, nor any incentive to seek it or practice it. They are told the outcome desired and it is their job to assemble facts and structure studies and experiments so they will support the predetermined outcome.

To trust them is to trust oil companies, nuclear power companies, Halliburton, the Catholic church, bomb makers, fascists, racists, genocidists, socialists, communists, capitalists, mysogynists, homophobics...in other words rich narcissists with ulterior motives who would make a lampshade from your baby's skin if it made them a tad richer, and never feel they had done something wrong.

 

[Denny Crane]

 

[SlyPokerDog]

 

[dviss1]

Hey Denny,

My lady who is an ND does research. When they start working on their Lupus study should I advocate against it?

There's a reason why HIV isn't a death sentence anymore. That reason is science.

(Sorry to hit home like that but I think you understand my point. It takes science to find treatments and cures)

 

[dviss1]

Sanders plan would also reduce the amount of money available for scientific research. Reduced research equals reduced progress for our country.

When corporate taxes get raised to the point the incentive is reduced too far, companies will stop spending what little money they have left on R&D. Or they will move to Canada or Mexico where corporate taxes are already much less. You and Bernie just killed the future for our grandkids.

On the bright side, Bernie’s plan will pay for our grandkids to learn how to communicate in Chinese, who will eventually own the USA under Bernie’s plan.

The only way for our country to stay ahead of the rest of the world and China is to increase the incentive to do more scientific research, not reduce the incentive to conduct research.


Yes, the politics involved in funding research can cause corruption; also much of the funding from sources with agendas often results in less than optimum results due to restrictions placed on the researcher to acquire the grants.

The real problem is the politics within the system, not the scientists trying make a positive impact. Reducing the incentive to fund research will only cause more corruption, not less.

This is a load.

 

[dviss1]

Throw them in jail when you catch them.

Sigh... That would require a regulation... If there's bio law to break, how do you jail someone?

 

[Denny Crane]

Hey Denny,

My lady who is an ND does research. When they start working on their Lupus study should I advocate against it?

There's a reason why HIV isn't a death sentence anymore. That reason is science.

(Sorry to hit home like that but I think you understand my point. It takes science to find treatments and cures)

Advocate that they be honest.

http://www.the-scientist.com/?artic...5/title/HIV-Scientist-Pleads-Guilty-to-Fraud/

HIV Scientist Pleads Guilty to Fraud

 

[Denny Crane]

Sigh... That would require a regulation... If there's bio law to break, how do you jail someone?

Already is a regulation.

http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-charges/fraud.html

 

[MARIS61]

What about cancer research?

Psychologists probably aren't your best bet there.

 

[crandc]

Using scare terms like "big science" implies all science is just a lobby. Like "Big Oil". There is no "Big Science".

No one in science ever claimed science is perfect or scientists are perfect. As Further said, errors happen because science is a human enterprise. Humans make mistakes. Some of them cheat.
Compare science to, say, business. Does "science" cheat more than Wall Street? How many people have been convicted due to police/prosecution misconduct. Does "science" cheat more than law enforcement? Would you rather trust a scientist or a used car salesman?

I am not sure what the point of all this copy/paste is except to show that someone knows how to find articles he agrees with and hit copy/paste on a keyboard. If you care so much why can't you write an original post?
Science bashing is very suspect. It generally carries a political agenda.

Science is not perfect.
But I would accept the documentation of 97% of the world's climate scientists based on research over decades as more likely to be correct on climate change than Rush Limbaugh saying it is a hoax.
I would accept 150 years of biological research on evolution and genetics as more likely to be correct than someone from this board copying/pasting an article from a creationist web site and claiming to have thereby disproven all modern biology (yes, that did happen in this forum).
I would accept decades of immunology statistics over the anti-vaxxers claiming vaccines cause autism, when every study has shown this to be false.
I accept microbiology and immunology that HIV is the causative agent of AIDS over one person insisting it is a harmless virus, but showing no desire to inject himself with it.
I would accept all the evidence, including photographs, that the earth is round over the Flat Earth Society (yes, there is such a thing).

Science is not perfect.
It is merely the best tool our species has for understanding the universe.
And until someone proposes something better - which does not mean copying/pasting articles you cherry-pick from Google - I am sticking with science. Imperfect as it is.

 

[dviss1]

Already is a regulation.

http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-charges/fraud.html

So then you agree with some regulations by government. Nice to see you have evolved on that issue.

 

[Denny Crane]

Psychologists probably aren't your best bet there.

They are scientists, nonetheless.

 

[dviss1]

Using scare terms like "big science" implies all science is just a lobby. Like "Big Oil". There is no "Big Science".

No one in science ever claimed science is perfect or scientists are perfect. As Further said, errors happen because science is a human enterprise. Humans make mistakes. Some of them cheat.
Compare science to, say, business. Does "science" cheat more than Wall Street? How many people have been convicted due to police/prosecution misconduct. Does "science" cheat more than law enforcement? Would you rather trust a scientist or a used car salesman?

I am not sure what the point of all this copy/paste is except to show that someone knows how to find articles he agrees with and hit copy/paste on a keyboard. If you care so much why can't you write an original post?
Science bashing is very suspect. It generally carries a political agenda.

Science is not perfect.
But I would accept the documentation of 97% of the world's climate scientists based on research over decades as more likely to be correct on climate change than Rush Limbaugh saying it is a hoax.
I would accept 150 years of biological research on evolution and genetics as more likely to be correct than someone from this board copying/pasting an article from a creationist web site and claiming to have thereby disproven all modern biology (yes, that did happen in this forum).
I would accept decades of immunology statistics over the anti-vaxxers claiming vaccines cause autism, when every study has shown this to be false.
I accept microbiology and immunology that HIV is the causative agent of AIDS over one person insisting it is a harmless virus, but showing no desire to inject himself with it.
I would accept all the evidence, including photographs, that the earth is round over the Flat Earth Society (yes, there is such a thing).

Science is not perfect.
It is merely the best tool our species has for understanding the universe.
And until someone proposes something better - which does not mean copying/pasting articles you cherry-pick from Google - I am sticking with science. Imperfect as it is.

Drops the muthafuckin' mic!

 

[Denny Crane]

Using scare terms like "big science" implies all science is just a lobby. Like "Big Oil". There is no "Big Science".

No one in science ever claimed science is perfect or scientists are perfect. As Further said, errors happen because science is a human enterprise. Humans make mistakes. Some of them cheat.
Compare science to, say, business. Does "science" cheat more than Wall Street? How many people have been convicted due to police/prosecution misconduct. Does "science" cheat more than law enforcement? Would you rather trust a scientist or a used car salesman?

I am not sure what the point of all this copy/paste is except to show that someone knows how to find articles he agrees with and hit copy/paste on a keyboard. If you care so much why can't you write an original post?
Science bashing is very suspect. It generally carries a political agenda.

Science is not perfect.
But I would accept the documentation of 97% of the world's climate scientists based on research over decades as more likely to be correct on climate change than Rush Limbaugh saying it is a hoax.
I would accept 150 years of biological research on evolution and genetics as more likely to be correct than someone from this board copying/pasting an article from a creationist web site and claiming to have thereby disproven all modern biology (yes, that did happen in this forum).
I would accept decades of immunology statistics over the anti-vaxxers claiming vaccines cause autism, when every study has shown this to be false.
I accept microbiology and immunology that HIV is the causative agent of AIDS over one person insisting it is a harmless virus, but showing no desire to inject himself with it.
I would accept all the evidence, including photographs, that the earth is round over the Flat Earth Society (yes, there is such a thing).

Science is not perfect.
It is merely the best tool our species has for understanding the universe.
And until someone proposes something better - which does not mean copying/pasting articles you cherry-pick from Google - I am sticking with science. Imperfect as it is.

Utter nonsense.

The point of copy and paste is to foster discussion. Cross linking and citing others' work is both how the internet works great and how scholarly papers are written. Instead of a footnote, you can provide the link to the source. Awesome how it works.

There is a not so subtle distinction between outright fraud by scientists and "science" and whatever religious whackos think about science. I believe in Science, not scientists. I'm quite sure there is fraud, which has nothing to do with science being perfect or imperfect.

Fools believe the crooks often enough, even the most sophisticated and educated - see Bernie Madoff. And Rachel Maddow fans.

 

[Denny Crane]

So then you agree with some regulations by government. Nice to see you have evolved on that issue.

It's not actually a regulation. It's a criminal law. I'm not an anarchist, I just believe LIBERTY comes before AUTHORITARIANISM.

In fact, most Libertarians would describe Libertarianism as a theory of law.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Libertarianism



drops mic

 

[dviss1]

It's not actually a regulation. It's a criminal law. I'm not an anarchist, I just believe LIBERTY comes before AUTHORITARIANISM.

In fact, most Libertarians would describe Libertarianism as a theory of law.

Not the ones I know and debate with in real life. That's not the narrative that they use. They all say that they want to drown government in a bathtub. Also a regulation and criminal law are one in the same. The punishment is just a bit different depending on which law is broken.

 

[Denny Crane]

Not the ones I know and debate with in real life. That's not the narrative that they use. They all say that they want to drown government in a bathtub. Also a regulation and criminal law are one in the same. The punishment is just a bit different depending on which law is broken.

At the size government is and the individual liberties it squashes, we do need to "drown it in a bathtub." What part of "limited government" means "no government at all" to you?

The gist of Libertarianism is:

You are free to swing your fist as long as it doesn't hit someone else's nose.

Government exists to protect the individual from crime and war.

That's it.

drops mic

 

[oldfisherman]

I am NOT a scientist. But I have read many research papers.

Reason, when a subject interests me, the information that comes the nearest to the truth will be found in research papers. Honest scientific research contains a wealth of information. You might say, the devil is in the details.

The majority of problems begin when someone writes an article or report based on a scientific paper. The author picks the information that fits his agenda. Often it is not what the author writes about that is as important as the information he leaves out. You can usually find the facts contained in most articles in some research paper. However, when you read the entire paper, the parts left out alter, or even sometimes reverse, the results that are being second hand reported.

I am not concerned with the occasional mistake or corrupt scientist; I believe the % is very small. What bothers me is when the work of so many scientists is misused by others to fit an agenda. The misuse of research information happens so often, it is rare to find second hand reports that are totally accurate, and without some agenda.

Why don’t any scientists speak up and challenge the authors that are misusing their research?

My guess is, it is similar to how difficult it is for a whistle blower to find a new job. Calling out people for misusing their research probably will make it more difficult for scientists to continue receiving their paycheck or funding.

 

[dviss1]

At the size government is and the individual liberties it squashes, we do need to "drown it in a bathtub." What part of "limited government" means "no government at all" to you?

The gist of Libertarianism is:

You are free to swing your fist as long as it doesn't hit someone else's nose.

Government exists to protect the individual from crime and war.

That's it.

drops mic

Says the guy whose ideology has never been tried in any country.

 

[dviss1]

It's not actually a regulation. It's a criminal law. I'm not an anarchist, I just believe LIBERTY comes before AUTHORITARIANISM.

In fact, most Libertarians would describe Libertarianism as a theory of law.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Libertarianism

View attachment 8689

drops mic

You and your insignificant party to pick that mic back up because nobody wants to come to run like that except for you all. Ayn Rand was a libertarian. She believed in no government at all.

Libertarian Lassie would say:

"Fuck Timmy he can get himself out of the well!"

 

[Denny Crane]

Says the guy whose ideology has never been tried in any country.

It was tried in the USA from 1789 through 1900. You are misinformed.

 

[Denny Crane]

You and your insignificant party to pick that mic back up because nobody wants to come to run like that except for you all. Ayn Rand was a libertarian. She believed in no government at all.

Libertarian Lassie would say:

"Fuck Timmy he can get himself out of the well!"

Ayn Rand was not an anarchist. It's hard to deal with posts like yours, misinformation.

Same for the well shtick. Libertarians have no issue helping others. Just government FORCing anyone to do something other than not committing crimes is bad policy.

Unfortunately for you, authoritarian government has been tried, and it sucks and in most cases is evil.

 

[jlprk]

Why do you want to decrease the power of elected government and increase the power of unelected rich people?

 

[dviss1]

It was tried in the USA from 1789 through 1900. You are misinformed.

Um No.... You're absolutely incorrect about that.