http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-hi...z2iyoimL3X

But let's be more precise here, it's biology/medicine that is reported to have lost its way. You know, the field where mach claims to be most expert. The field that insists that evolution is the foundational element.

If you claim horseshit as the foundation of a subject, yeah, I'm pretty sure you'll get end results like this.

Shoddy work isn't as prevalent in the physical sciences, even despite the climate science community's claims that it's a physical science.

I'm glad they caught it. Hopefully (doubtful) this kind of information will push the scientists to do more honest research.

We live in a culture that values perception more than reality…
science, like every other aspect of our society has enthusiastically has embraced that concept.

This is what happens when governments throw out free money in the pursuit of science. Results that are sexy but dubious, and carry little consequence if found to be wrong.

(10-29-2013 08:43 AM)Centdukesfan Wrote:  This is what happens when governments throw out free money in the pursuit of science. Results that are sexy but dubious, and carry little consequence if found to be wrong.

There's plenty of snake oil sold by commercial interests too. But, gov't's role is to ensure honesty in commercial endeavors, not do the science itself.

"....carry little consequence if found to be wrong."

I wonder how parents who choose not to have their children vaccinated because of flawed research that incorrectly tied autism to vaccinations, now feel when their kids got measles or other preventable diseases.

(10-29-2013 08:47 AM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  "....carry little consequence if found to be wrong."

I wonder how parents who choose not to have their children vaccinated because of flawed research that incorrectly tied autism to vaccinations, now feel when their kids got measles or other preventable diseases.

Probably not a big deal. Probably less concern that the parents who had their kids vaccinated and they still got measles.

With the dramatic rise of autism, and many harsh criticisms of vaccines coming from a variety of directions, this is not a current area of strength for medicine. Today's vaccines are not the marvel that Salk created.

(10-29-2013 08:23 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-hi...z2iyoimL3X

But let's be more precise here, it's biology/medicine that is reported to have lost its way. You know, the field where mach claims to be most expert. The field that insists that evolution is the foundational element.

If you claim horseshit as the foundation of a subject, yeah, I'm pretty sure you'll get end results like this.

Shoddy work isn't as prevalent in the physical sciences, even despite the climate science community's claims that it's a physical science.

Who's catching other people's shoddy work? Oh right, other biologists. I think it's funny that you insist on bringing evolution into this when it's not even mentioned in the article. This article has to do with medical research, which has very well known issues (at least within the scientific community).

We've also seen an explosion in the "research industry" and academia where researchers will pretty much say anything in order to secure the next grant.

(10-29-2013 12:29 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(10-29-2013 08:23 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-hi...z2iyoimL3X

But let's be more precise here, it's biology/medicine that is reported to have lost its way. You know, the field where mach claims to be most expert. The field that insists that evolution is the foundational element.

If you claim horseshit as the foundation of a subject, yeah, I'm pretty sure you'll get end results like this.

Shoddy work isn't as prevalent in the physical sciences, even despite the climate science community's claims that it's a physical science.

Who's catching other people's shoddy work? Oh right, other biologists.

And that means?

Quote: I think it's funny that you insist on bringing evolution into this when it's not even mentioned in the article.

As opposed to every populist science show and internet article that brings up when it's totally irrelevant? You pseudo-scientists want it both ways.

Quote: This article has to do with medical research, which has very well known issues (at least within the scientific community).

So? You really like to talk alot, as if that means you contribute something. But these issues aren't as pervasive in the broad scientific community.

Would have thought with so much fraud going on that a prestigious review board would review all articles submitted to many of the publications. Would not solve the problem, but could go a long way.

(10-29-2013 12:57 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(10-29-2013 12:29 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(10-29-2013 08:23 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-hi...z2iyoimL3X

But let's be more precise here, it's biology/medicine that is reported to have lost its way. You know, the field where mach claims to be most expert. The field that insists that evolution is the foundational element.

If you claim horseshit as the foundation of a subject, yeah, I'm pretty sure you'll get end results like this.

Shoddy work isn't as prevalent in the physical sciences, even despite the climate science community's claims that it's a physical science.

Who's catching other people's shoddy work? Oh right, other biologists.

And that means?

Quote: I think it's funny that you insist on bringing evolution into this when it's not even mentioned in the article.

As opposed to every populist science show and internet article that brings up when it's totally irrelevant? You pseudo-scientists want it both ways.

Quote: This article has to do with medical research, which has very well known issues (at least within the scientific community).

So? You really like to talk alot, as if that means you contribute something. But these issues aren't as pervasive in the broad scientific community.

What do you think it means? Science corrects itself. When problems are discovered, scientists are bringing them to attention and fixing them.

(10-29-2013 01:14 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  What do you think it means? Science corrects itself. When problems are discovered, scientists are bringing them to attention and fixing them.

Ok Eliza.

But what that also means is that "science" gets it wrong, and so when you insist "scientists know..." they actually don't. And neither do you b/c you're full of ****. Simple semantics fool you, not the kind of mind capable of doing rigorous thought.

(10-29-2013 01:14 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(10-29-2013 12:57 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(10-29-2013 12:29 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(10-29-2013 08:23 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-hi...z2iyoimL3X

But let's be more precise here, it's biology/medicine that is reported to have lost its way. You know, the field where mach claims to be most expert. The field that insists that evolution is the foundational element.

If you claim horseshit as the foundation of a subject, yeah, I'm pretty sure you'll get end results like this.

Shoddy work isn't as prevalent in the physical sciences, even despite the climate science community's claims that it's a physical science.

Who's catching other people's shoddy work? Oh right, other biologists.

And that means?

Quote: I think it's funny that you insist on bringing evolution into this when it's not even mentioned in the article.

As opposed to every populist science show and internet article that brings up when it's totally irrelevant? You pseudo-scientists want it both ways.

Quote: This article has to do with medical research, which has very well known issues (at least within the scientific community).

So? You really like to talk alot, as if that means you contribute something. But these issues aren't as pervasive in the broad scientific community.

What do you think it means? Science corrects itself. When problems are discovered, scientists are bringing them to attention and fixing them.

Would think rather that science doesn't correct itself. It stays the same. People correct other people's poor scientific conclusions.

(10-29-2013 01:20 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(10-29-2013 01:14 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  What do you think it means? Science corrects itself. When problems are discovered, scientists are bringing them to attention and fixing them.

Ok Eliza.

But what that also means is that "science" gets it wrong, and so when you insist "scientists know..." they actually don't. And neither do you b/c you're full of ****. Simple semantics fool you, not the kind of mind capable of doing rigorous thought.

If anyone here has a simple mind, it's you.

Oh yeah, did you know that guilt by association is a fallacy?

(10-29-2013 01:22 PM)GoApps70 Wrote:  

(10-29-2013 01:14 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(10-29-2013 12:57 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(10-29-2013 12:29 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(10-29-2013 08:23 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-hi...z2iyoimL3X

But let's be more precise here, it's biology/medicine that is reported to have lost its way. You know, the field where mach claims to be most expert. The field that insists that evolution is the foundational element.

If you claim horseshit as the foundation of a subject, yeah, I'm pretty sure you'll get end results like this.

Shoddy work isn't as prevalent in the physical sciences, even despite the climate science community's claims that it's a physical science.

Who's catching other people's shoddy work? Oh right, other biologists.

And that means?

Quote: I think it's funny that you insist on bringing evolution into this when it's not even mentioned in the article.

As opposed to every populist science show and internet article that brings up when it's totally irrelevant? You pseudo-scientists want it both ways.

Quote: This article has to do with medical research, which has very well known issues (at least within the scientific community).

So? You really like to talk alot, as if that means you contribute something. But these issues aren't as pervasive in the broad scientific community.

What do you think it means? Science corrects itself. When problems are discovered, scientists are bringing them to attention and fixing them.

Would think rather that science doesn't correct itself. It stays the same. People correct other people's poor scientific conclusions.

When I say science, I'm referring to whatever scientific field/method/theory is in being brought into question. For example, it was discovered that it's really easy to commit a Type I error (false positive) with an fMRI. Neuroscientists discovered this issue and have made a push to compensate for it.

(10-29-2013 01:30 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(10-29-2013 01:20 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(10-29-2013 01:14 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  What do you think it means? Science corrects itself. When problems are discovered, scientists are bringing them to attention and fixing them.

Ok Eliza.

But what that also means is that "science" gets it wrong, and so when you insist "scientists know..." they actually don't. And neither do you b/c you're full of ****. Simple semantics fool you, not the kind of mind capable of doing rigorous thought.

If anyone here has a simple mind, it's you.

Yes, it's been pointed out to me many times. Yet the people who do it

-Don't make a living doing science, w/ job offers from and solid rapport with other scientists, including a few world class

-Consistently and repeatedly make logical fallacies which they don't even recognize.

So, while you have that paper you co-authored while at a "national university", I have a successful career.

And one of the things I like about physical science, is the clear nature of success. I've had experiments be successful. And that's far more telling than Hansen running computer code or Dawkins scratching his head about panda digits.

Quote:Oh yeah, did you know that guilt by association is a fallacy?

Are you auditioning for a Geico commercial?

(10-29-2013 01:41 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(10-29-2013 01:30 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(10-29-2013 01:20 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(10-29-2013 01:14 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  What do you think it means? Science corrects itself. When problems are discovered, scientists are bringing them to attention and fixing them.

Ok Eliza.

But what that also means is that "science" gets it wrong, and so when you insist "scientists know..." they actually don't. And neither do you b/c you're full of ****. Simple semantics fool you, not the kind of mind capable of doing rigorous thought.

If anyone here has a simple mind, it's you.

Yes, it's been pointed out to me many times. Yet the people who do it

-Don't make a living doing science, w/ job offers from and solid rapport with other scientists, including a few world class

-Consistently and repeatedly make logical fallacies which they don't even recognize.

So, while you have that paper you co-authored while at a "national university", I have a successful career.

And one of the things I like about physical science, is the clear nature of success. I've had experiments be successful. And that's far more telling than Hansen running computer code or Dawkins scratching his head about panda digits.

Quote:Oh yeah, did you know that guilt by association is a fallacy?

Are you auditioning for a Geico commercial?

You should really avoid sounding hypocritical. Go read about Illusory superiority.

(10-29-2013 01:45 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  You should really avoid sounding hypocritical. Illusory superiority is cognitive bias you should check out.

Should I?

I'll keep that in mind, since advice coming from you has proven to be of such value.

(10-29-2013 01:47 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(10-29-2013 01:45 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  You should really avoid sounding hypocritical. Illusory superiority is cognitive bias you should check out.

Should I?

I'll keep that in mind, since advice coming from you has proven to be of such value.

A concept within illusory superiority:

"The bias blind spot is the cognitive bias of failing to compensate for one's own cognitive biases. The term was created by Emily Pronin, a social psychologist from Princeton University's Department of Psychology, with colleagues Daniel Lin and Lee Ross. The bias blind spot is named after the visual blind spot."

Unlike you, I'm absolutely aware of how I can and do make bias arguments. I'm aware that I'm an expert in climate science or biology. I have no problem admitting it. Being able to recognize and compensate for your own bias is important if you want to call yourself a good researcher. I have no problem pointing out that other scientists can be/have been wrong, either. From time to time I point out how science can go wrong. Researcher bias and inability to replicate data are real problems. But since you like to think that everyone on "my side" follows science like a religion, you ignore it.

You're the champion of black and white thinking.