March 31, 2012
— Open Blogger Recent typical MSM story on how
Fewer than 35 percent of conservatives say they have a "great deal" of trust in the scientific community now...
The unspoken assumption in the article is that there is something wrong with those who don't have a great deal of trust in the scientific community... Uhhh, might I point out this story from this week?
During a decade as head of global cancer research at Amgen, C. Glenn Begley identified 53 "landmark" publications - papers in top journals, from reputable labs - for his team to reproduce. Begley sought to double-check the findings before trying to build on them for drug development.Result: 47 of the 53 could not be replicated.
I've wondered why we keep hearing of new medical studies that reverse the findings of previous studies. Maybe it's because of the massive level of hackwork that passes itself off for science nowadays! Note that Begley has to earn his money. If his experiments can't be reproduced Amgen can't turn them into life-saving medicine. Which is how Amgen Earns The Big Bucks. The hacks Begley looked into may have only wanted to get their names in a big name journal.
A few more quotes from the article. This stuff truly shocks me.
As we tried to reproduce these papers we became convinced you can't take anything at face value.
...
The failure to win "the war on cancer" has been blamed on many factors, ... But recently a new culprit has emerged: too many basic scientific discoveries... are wrong.
...
Begley's experience echoes a report from scientists at Bayer AG last year. Neither group of researchers alleges fraud, nor would they identify the research they had tried to replicate.Of 47 cancer projects at Bayer during 2011, less than one-quarter could reproduce previously reported findings, despite the efforts of three or four scientists working full time for up to a year.
...
But they and others fear the phenomenon is the product of a skewed system of incentives that has academics cutting corners to further their careers.
"It drives people in industry crazy. Why are we seeing a collapse of the pharma and biotech industries? One possibility is that academia is not providing accurate findings,"
I wonder if the all the govt. money has bad influence. Private money expects high standards. Govt money just wants to be spent.
Dr Ray Stantz (a Ghostbuster): Personally, I liked the university. They gave us money and facilities, we didn't have to produce anything! You've never been out of college! You don't know what it's like out there! I've *worked* in the private sector. They expect *results*.
Some authors required the Amgen scientists sign a confidentiality agreement barring them from disclosing data at odds with the original findings. "The world will never know" which 47 studies - many of them highly cited - are apparently wrong, Begley said.
...
Begley met ... with the lead scientist of one of the problematic studies.
"We went through the paper line by line, figure by figure," said Begley. "I explained that we re-did their experiment 50 times and never got their result. He said they'd done it six times and got this result once, but put it in the paper because it made the best story. It's very disillusioning."
Also, I tweet at @ComradeArthur
Posted by: Open Blogger at
03:12 PM
| Comments (300)
Post contains 573 words, total size 4 kb.
Posted by: BackwardsBoy, feeling all extra curmudgeony today at March 31, 2012 03:15 PM (d0Tfm)
It's a natural skepticism that we who can think for ourselves had always had.
Posted by: BackwardsBoy, feeling all extra curmudgeony today at March 31, 2012 03:17 PM (d0Tfm)
In grantatopia (any study contaminated with an iota of government funds), you get to normalize things with respect to the desired result. "Publish or perish!" aren't just words to live by, they are words that might kill people because of faulty research leading to flawed experimental trials.
Posted by: Hrothgar at March 31, 2012 03:18 PM (i3+c5)
He tasks me, and I shall have him.
Posted by: toby928© at March 31, 2012 03:19 PM (GTbGH)
Posted by: mama winger at March 31, 2012 03:19 PM (P6QsQ)
Posted by: Truck Monkey at March 31, 2012 03:19 PM (jucos)
Posted by: BackwardsBoy, feeling all extra curmudgeony today at March 31, 2012 03:20 PM (d0Tfm)
Posted by: Bill D. Cat at March 31, 2012 03:21 PM (npr0X)
Posted by: Scientists at March 31, 2012 03:22 PM (Sh42X)
So going into the Final Four, the only way I lose my office pool is by
Louisville winning the championship and Ohio State loses today.
Here is how it plays out...Kentucky is the number one seed and wears all white uniforms with blue trim. 4 years ago the best team in the country also wore white uniforms with blue trim. That team was Memphis and was also coached by John Calipari. Kansas beat North Carolina and played Memphis for the national title and beat them in overtime. This year, Kansas beat North Carolina and if they beat Ohio State, they will play a Calipari coached team who wears white uniforms with blue trim in another leap year. In fact, 1952, 1988, 2008, and 2012 are leap years. Three of those 4 years Kansas won it all. Book it, KU wins it all. Rock Chalk motherfuckers.
Posted by: Samuel Adams at March 31, 2012 03:22 PM (r3ITV)
Posted by: Truck Monkey at March 31, 2012 03:23 PM (jucos)
Posted by: Ian S. at March 31, 2012 03:25 PM (wllJH)
Posted by: Yoshi, Aggrieved Victim of the White Man at March 31, 2012 03:25 PM (E7NVC)
Posted by: SantaRosaStan, thinking in pallandromes at March 31, 2012 03:26 PM (Dll6b)
Media: Conservatives are teh stupid!
Posted by: JohnJ at March 31, 2012 03:26 PM (Tt6ky)
Posted by: Yoshi, Aggrieved Victim of the White Man at March 31, 2012 03:26 PM (E7NVC)
"It's not that conservatives don't trust science. It's the scientific "community" we don't trust. Kind of like how I don't trust medical "ethicists" to be ethical. Or how I don't trust social "justice" to be just. Like that."
It's not like we don't have any experience with that trillion-dollar boondoggle called AGW. If that's what passes for "science" these days, it's no wonder we don't trust them. Add to that the idiots that a lot of institues of "higher learning" produce these days, many of whom wouldn't know an original idea if it bit them in their private parts.
Me? Skeptical of pretty much everything these days? Yep.
Posted by: BackwardsBoy, feeling all extra curmudgeony today at March 31, 2012 03:27 PM (d0Tfm)
Posted by: andycanuck at March 31, 2012 03:27 PM (6RnvM)
All I got brother. Just as good as fuckin' Dick Vitale. My approach to picking them is just a little shall we say, off the reservation. He gets paid to fuck up his picks.
Posted by: Samuel Adams at March 31, 2012 03:27 PM (r3ITV)
Posted by: mama winger
This. THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS; A Thousand times this!
Posted by: Ranba Ral at March 31, 2012 03:27 PM (G99e4)
Posted by: StuckOnStupid at March 31, 2012 03:27 PM (R5yLq)
Posted by: Stephen Price Blair at March 31, 2012 03:27 PM (2v+KF)
Posted by: SantaRosaStan, thinking in PALINdromes at March 31, 2012 03:28 PM (Dll6b)
Posted by: Buffalobob at March 31, 2012 03:30 PM (qiFDD)
Posted by: Samuel Adams at March 31, 2012 03:30 PM (r3ITV)
Posted by: bobmark at March 31, 2012 03:30 PM (h2nxU)
Posted by: nevergiveup at March 31, 2012 03:31 PM (eCnLg)
Posted by: Samuel Adams at March 31, 2012 03:31 PM (r3ITV)
Also here:
www.smalldeadanimals.com/archives/019746.html
Posted by: andycanuck at March 31, 2012 03:32 PM (6RnvM)
It is quackery.
Posted by: Vic at March 31, 2012 03:32 PM (YdQQY)
Interesting...
Someone posts some claim (scientific or otherwise), some other person checks it out, and it doesn't hold up.
Nice to see that the norm here on the AoSHQ is finally being held to the science community.
Posted by: HH at March 31, 2012 03:32 PM (KB0hv)
Posted by: toby928© at March 31, 2012 07:19 PM (GTbGH)
The Great White Troll?
Racist!!!1
Posted by: Hydrocarbon Liberation Front at March 31, 2012 03:33 PM (NVu2l)
Posted by: Ghost at March 31, 2012 03:34 PM (q8nT/)
Posted by: Bill D. Cat at March 31, 2012 03:34 PM (npr0X)
The Great White Troll....Moby Troll.
Posted by: Hydrocarbon Liberation Front at March 31, 2012 03:35 PM (NVu2l)
Posted by: logprof at March 31, 2012 03:36 PM (ykSKg)
Posted by: Girl who was beaten by the ugly stick at March 31, 2012 03:36 PM (r3ITV)
Posted by: Joe Bidenmytime at March 31, 2012 03:36 PM (Zhdem)
Posted by: SantaRosaStan, thinking in PALINdromes at March 31, 2012 03:38 PM (Dll6b)
Posted by: nevergiveup at March 31, 2012 03:38 PM (eCnLg)
Posted by: nickless at March 31, 2012 03:38 PM (MMC8r)
http://tinyurl.com/d38u8pj
Posted by: Girl who was beaten by the ugly stick at March 31, 2012 03:38 PM (r3ITV)
Because if so, there's a universe of difference in saying conservatives don't trust science and conservatives don't trust the Scientific Community. Also, if so, the fact that this is being reported as conservatives don't trust science may go a long way in explaining why that trust is plummeting.
Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD 2012 at March 31, 2012 03:38 PM (Gk3SS)
Posted by: Insomniac at March 31, 2012 03:38 PM (GjDnP)
Posted by: PIleHigh&Deep at March 31, 2012 03:38 PM (v5XAG)
you must be a Creationist Flat-Earther!!!!111!!!11!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1!
Ever been in mid-Texas? Talk about flat...
Posted by: HH at March 31, 2012 03:39 PM (KB0hv)
This is not at all surprising to me. Being a "non-traditional student" doing my grad work in some of the "soft" sciences, I had a chance to get close to several of the instructors doing research, some of it for the government. Now, a number of the researchers were very knowledgeable and doign legitimate research, but part of MY work was to review other studies for replication and elucidation via our studies.
I saw a lot of crap research thrown out there, "peer-reviewed" even. So if you see this sort of thing in the "hard" sciences, just imagine what hackery is being touted by those so-called experts in the field of liberal arts. (e.g. - Psychology, Sociology) Kari Mari Norgaard, anybody?
Posted by: wmac at March 31, 2012 03:40 PM (YXUaU)
Posted by: Bill D. Cat at March 31, 2012 03:40 PM (npr0X)
Posted by: nevergiveup at March 31, 2012 03:41 PM (eCnLg)
No, the problem is that we were told 'The Science is settled' so many times, when we KNEW we were being lied to, that we now take everything with a very LARGE grain of salt.
Seems like every 'Scientific' diet ends up being bad for us... and we'd have just been better off eating normaly.
Now it turns out that a no Fat diet is HORRIBLE for Men... because Fat turns into testosterone, which helps everything from lean muscle mass, to your immune system...
And don't even get me started on ManMade Global Warming... because its only Man Made in the idea that its MADE UP! Its all done in computer models which do not work!
Posted by: Romeo13 at March 31, 2012 03:41 PM (lZBBB)
Posted by: Yoshi, Aggrieved Victim of the White Man at March 31, 2012 03:42 PM (E7NVC)
Sadly, that hasn't been true for quite some time. It was bad enough when you had to worry about simple human corruption and bias, seeing what you wanted to see (Nancy Rays, anyone?).
Now, it's ideological corruption on top of everything else, and it infests the highest levels of authority.
That scares me.
Posted by: Dianna at March 31, 2012 03:43 PM (mKMj1)
Posted by: SantaRosaStan, thinking in PALINdromes at March 31, 2012 07:38 PM (Dll6b)
And ya can't go someplace ya already are... which is why I never say Liberals are GOING crazy...
Posted by: Romeo13 at March 31, 2012 03:44 PM (lZBBB)
Posted by: pat at March 31, 2012 03:44 PM (UFxap)
[srsly, strip out the spaces and read this shit. it's chilling]
Posted by: Boulder Toilet Hobo at March 31, 2012 03:44 PM (QTHTd)
Posted by: Max Power at March 31, 2012 03:44 PM (q177U)
Posted by: Yoshi, Aggrieved Victim of the White Man at March 31, 2012 03:45 PM (E7NVC)
Posted by: nevergiveup at March 31, 2012 03:45 PM (eCnLg)
red meat make you so, so horny !!!
Posted by: SantaRosaStan, thinking in PALINdromes at March 31, 2012 03:45 PM (Dll6b)
Posted by: Max Power at March 31, 2012 03:47 PM (q177U)
Marcia turned into a Coke Whore, still in her 20s--- L.A. was cruel in the 70s
very, very cruel
Posted by: SantaRosaStan, thinking in PALINdromes at March 31, 2012 03:48 PM (Dll6b)
Posted by: Da Nang Hooker at March 31, 2012 03:49 PM (eCnLg)
Have a lovely evening, moron horde!
Posted by: Dianna at March 31, 2012 03:49 PM (mKMj1)
Posted by: steevy at March 31, 2012 03:49 PM (7W3wI)
It's really the liberals who are anti-science. Real science, as even us Republican rubes know, has to be "falsifiable." The liberals all behave as if, once something is called "science," no one can ever question it. But if you can't question it -- if, as the libtards suggest, the "science is settled" -- it's not real science, period.
What we're seeing with the global warming pushback is anti-science happening in real time. A theory is proposed. Data is martialed to support it. Other data is gathered that seems to refute it. In order to reconcile the data, the real scientist must revise the theory. If he doesn't, he's no longer doing science.
Posted by: The Regular Guy at March 31, 2012 03:49 PM (nov+8)
Posted by: Samuel Adams at March 31, 2012 03:50 PM (r3ITV)
I tracked back to the original paper (http://www.asanet.org/images/journals/docs/pdf/asr/Apr12ASRFeature.pdf) to see what the exact survey question was.
“The GSS asked respondents the following question: “I am going to name some institutions in this country. As far as the people running these institutions are concerned, would you say you have a great deal of confidence, only some confidence, or hardly any confidence at all in them [the Scientific Community]?”(page 172)
The confidence in “people running these institutions” was being measured, not “Science” itself. Huge difference. HUGE!
Posted by: LifeTrek at March 31, 2012 03:50 PM (BLjub)
"Has anyone read this "article"?"
Well, to be fair, I only skimmed it. I viewed it as someone already writing something with a foregone conclusion, namely that "conservatives are knuckle-draggers."
Skepticism, which is part and parcel of curmudgeonism, is a healthy trait AFAIC. It seems these days, we're bombarded with misinformation, something I've named "The Fallacious Period" over at my blog.
It's like fire. It depends upon how it's used. Information, that is. You've got to have some sort of inner Bullshit Detector to separate the truth from what others want you to believe. The Left seems to lack that.
Posted by: BackwardsBoy, feeling all extra curmudgeony today at March 31, 2012 03:50 PM (d0Tfm)
Posted by: steevy at March 31, 2012 03:50 PM (7W3wI)
Posted by: Ron at March 31, 2012 03:50 PM (uhPd1)
Posted by: yankeefifth at March 31, 2012 03:50 PM (Z9EHQ)
The glad-handing for fame and fortune and publicity is for fucking charlatans.
Posted by: Fritz at March 31, 2012 03:51 PM (KWdVT)
Posted by: Ron at March 31, 2012 03:51 PM (uhPd1)
There is a whole generation programmed to believe we are slack jawed jesus freaks.
That, I don't really care about. What scared me is when I learned that my sisters kids didn't believe that we had landed on the Moon.
They thought it was all made up and faked.
Jesus...
Posted by: HH at March 31, 2012 03:51 PM (KB0hv)
These are sophomoric 'studies' designed to bolster the ego of the adherent and denigrate those in opposition. The fact is the Warmists are far from proving CO2 is a significant forcing factor in climate or even that it is worthwhile to moderate. The models are in complete disarray. So much so we see models citing other models for 'proof' rather that actual data.Seeing such sloppy science, much of it outside the field of training of the 'scientists', would give anyone a bit of skepticism. Unless it was not about science at all...but about politics and the need to control the lives of others. Under any circumstance, Norgaard, is wholly unqualified either as a psychologist or climate scientist. She is an extreme leftist and a bit of a loon.A perfect subject for a study on the current state of education in America, Oregon in particular, as well as why liberals grasp at unproven theories with so much enthusiasm that they threaten assault on those who are reality based.
Posted by: pat at March 31, 2012 03:53 PM (UFxap)
However, this gives us an amazing amount of power as the Lefties found out last week at SCOTUS.
The fact that they are unable to explain our side means they will continually be blindsided. And I intend to make it hurt.
Posted by: weft cut-loop [/i] at March 31, 2012 03:54 PM (JEpGb)
Posted by: steevy at March 31, 2012 03:54 PM (7W3wI)
Posted by: Ron at March 31, 2012 03:55 PM (uhPd1)
I didn't wade through the comments here, but let me link to Instapundit, who wrote about this over the week, and had a nice letter from one of his readers.
Apparently, the study didn't even ask about "science" but rather the confidence people had in the heads of various specific scientific bodies.
link in my sig.
Posted by: Truman North at March 31, 2012 03:55 PM (I2LwF)
Posted by: yankeefifth at March 31, 2012 03:56 PM (Z9EHQ)
Posted by: Da Nang Hooker at March 31, 2012 03:57 PM (eCnLg)
Posted by: eman at March 31, 2012 03:57 PM (zXbQT)
Charging all my electronics to prepare for #earthhour
Posted by: Retread at March 31, 2012 03:57 PM (joSBv)
Posted by: Ron at March 31, 2012 03:58 PM (uhPd1)
"I agree HH...the young generation has bought into the Al Gore science."
It's all they've ever been taught.
Posted by: BackwardsBoy, feeling all extra curmudgeony today at March 31, 2012 03:58 PM (d0Tfm)
Bingo. I keep saying that the luminiferous aether theory was a GOOD THEORY. Sure it was wrong, but it was testable. Testable theories are awesome, even if they're proven wrong later. Maybe especially if they're proven wrong later.
AGW is not testable, not even wrong and therefore a fucking fail.
Posted by: Boulder Toilet Hobo at March 31, 2012 03:59 PM (QTHTd)
they try to convince us there was a race of 'neanderthals'.
they can tell us exactly how a dinosaur hunted, the environment it dwelled in, what it looked like, how it mated etc...but cant tell us how they became extinct....
they try to tell us how the planet formed (allegedly billions of yrs ago)...but STILL cant tell us how the dinosaurs died out...
"THIS IS HOW OUR PLANET FORMED!!!.....wait...how did they build the pyramid again?"
they say the earth began as a huge ball of molten lava...that became a huge water-ball (over 'billions of years' of course...the magical number of years they use when they dont know jack shit.)
these are just small examples of their oddball teachings, many more can be listed but you get the point.
oh just one more for the hell of it...
"life on this planet came about because the conditions for it existed."
---whenever i hear THAT last line i laugh so hard i could hurl my lunch.
Posted by: george lucas's neck-pouch at March 31, 2012 03:59 PM (AJcze)
Posted by: steevy at March 31, 2012 03:59 PM (7W3wI)
Posted by: Boulder Toilet Hobo at March 31, 2012 04:00 PM (QTHTd)
Posted by: steevy at March 31, 2012 04:01 PM (7W3wI)
That whole statement is so fucking stupid that I can't believe Biden didn't say it.
Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD 2012 at March 31, 2012 04:02 PM (Gk3SS)
Posted by: Ron at March 31, 2012 04:02 PM (uhPd1)
Posted by: Dwyle Flonking at March 31, 2012 04:03 PM (PlcqH)
Neanderthals are proven to exist by numerous DNA studies, including studies in our own DNA. How dinosaurs lived has little to do with how they became extinct. How the planet formed has nothing to do with biology and everything to do with astrophysics and meteorite chemistry. And so on and so forth.
Well done giving the Left all the talking points they need to prove that there are dolts on the Right as well.
Posted by: Boulder Toilet Hobo at March 31, 2012 04:03 PM (QTHTd)
Posted by: eman at March 31, 2012 04:03 PM (zXbQT)
Well what's he got to lose. Might as well appeal to his communist base. Fucking cocksucker.
Posted by: Samuel Adams at March 31, 2012 04:03 PM (r3ITV)
There is not blood test or even a physical test for Autism just observation against standard thus the rates keep climbing. Soon it will be at 1 in 10 and still no one knows why or what to do about it. Lets hope the DSM-V has better definition and complete standard tests not just is the kid not like this they have Autism.
Posted by: Tjexcite at March 31, 2012 04:03 PM (fCBMq)
Which decade is the POS talking about? I remember a certain "compassionate conservative" throwing all kinds of money at "social programs" in the Oughties.
Posted by: HeatherRadish at March 31, 2012 04:04 PM (hO8IJ)
Posted by: 1975 at March 31, 2012 04:04 PM (piMMO)
Posted by: Boulder Toilet Hobo at March 31, 2012 04:04 PM (QTHTd)
Posted by: 1975 at March 31, 2012 04:04 PM (piMMO)
The problem is that as more money has found its way into certain scientific disciplines, the scientists involved have not gotten smarter.
Granted that most of these men and women are at the far right end of the bell curve with respect to IQ, more money does not make them smarter. And they are, after all, still quite human and fallible. Genius and great science are not produced on an assembly line, just because you add some high value inputs.
Example:
There has been a great deal of money invested in the big supercollider at CERN in Europe (and the one that was to be built in the US was never built), and there are incredibly high expectations that something tremendous will be discovered as a consequence of this investment. What if there isn't anything momentous discovered? And what if there are disputable discoveries that are not reproducible by anyone else in the world? What if ten years from now, they all shrug their shoulders and say, "nothing happened."
This is just the extreme example. There are plenty of other more subtle examples of how big money and big expectations have outrun the scientists' ability to actually discover something "new". And add to that is the fact that many big name science institutions are really run by people that are "relatively" mediocre, and not brilliant scientists at all. And then you get major journals that are full of irreproducible results.
Posted by: Reader C.J. Burch writes...... at March 31, 2012 04:06 PM (sJTmU)
Posted by: 1980's at March 31, 2012 04:06 PM (piMMO)
Posted by: Ron at March 31, 2012 04:07 PM (uhPd1)
Posted by: Ron at March 31, 2012 04:08 PM (uhPd1)
Posted by: Tjexcite at March 31, 2012 08:03 PM (fCBMq)
Latest study out had the premise that autism itself was not rising, we were just diagnosing more people with it... ie... it was all the screening and record keeping.
Its like ADHD... never heard of it when I was a Kid... and Kids were certainly NOT on meds for it... but now it seems to be very common... so is there suddenly an epidemic? or are undisciplined Boys now going on Meds to calm them down?
Posted by: Romeo13 at March 31, 2012 04:08 PM (lZBBB)
Tjexcite- I think a lot of it is Aspergers being recognised as an autistic spectrum. Based on what I saw in the movie "Wargames" it seems even in the early 1980s, the tech companies were hiring near-autists and putting them under less-autistic "mentors".
Posted by: Boulder Toilet Hobo at March 31, 2012 04:08 PM (QTHTd)
Posted by: 19seventyfive at March 31, 2012 04:09 PM (PlcqH)
Posted by: Boulder Toilet Hobo at March 31, 2012 04:09 PM (QTHTd)
Posted by: steevy at March 31, 2012 04:09 PM (7W3wI)
Posted by: Ron at March 31, 2012 04:10 PM (uhPd1)
---because where we are is the moment, and we are always in the moment ( although we rarely realize this )
Posted by: SantaRosaStan, thinking in PALINdromes at March 31, 2012 04:10 PM (Dll6b)
Posted by: Reality at March 31, 2012 08:10 PM (oGV7k)
Would you like to be a Science Czar in my Cabinet?
Posted by: Baraka Zulu at March 31, 2012 04:11 PM (ykSKg)
Posted by: Ron at March 31, 2012 04:11 PM (uhPd1)
Posted by: Ron at March 31, 2012 04:12 PM (uhPd1)
Posted by: Ron at March 31, 2012 08:11 PM (uhPd1)
Nah, the guy in charge of production just went off his meds, and didn't pay attention..
Posted by: Romeo13 at March 31, 2012 04:12 PM (lZBBB)
Posted by: Ron at March 31, 2012 04:12 PM (uhPd1)
Posted by: Ron at March 31, 2012 04:13 PM (uhPd1)
It may even be that intelligence corrupts. They scored 156 on some IQ test, so they're smart enough to pass exams and to get through to a masters' program. Then they co-write something, or even publish some mild original research which doesn't immediately raise flags. (Like Stephen Glass did in TNR under Sullivan.)
Then, they're on their own working toward a PhD - like Stephen Glass suddenly under Kelly. Now they have to produce something. And . . .
Posted by: Boulder Toilet Hobo at March 31, 2012 04:14 PM (QTHTd)
Posted by: eman at March 31, 2012 04:14 PM (zXbQT)
There is no trust in science: only test and retest.
Posted by: kdny at March 31, 2012 04:14 PM (63qg4)
Posted by: Reality at March 31, 2012 04:16 PM (oGV7k)
Posted by: Samuel Adams at March 31, 2012 04:16 PM (r3ITV)
"they try to tell us how the planet formed (allegedly billions of yrs ago)...but STILL cant tell us how the dinosaurs died out..."
Global warming, doncha know.
Oh wait. Must have been cooling, seeing as how they were cold blooded.
OTOH, maybe they weren't cold blooded. So it could have been an asteroid hit. Or maybe volcanoes...
In other words...who the hell knows.
Question is, what will kill us?
Posted by: HH at March 31, 2012 04:18 PM (KB0hv)
Posted by: Lincolntf at March 31, 2012 04:19 PM (HethX)
Wasn't chemjeff at that meeting too?
Posted by: Tami at March 31, 2012 04:20 PM (X6akg)
Posted by: Space Jockey at March 31, 2012 04:21 PM (I49Jm)
Bee Gees, Disco, The Fonze, Barrie Manilow, Baba Striesand, etc.
At least the mary jane is better today. Thanks.
Posted by: 19seventyfive at March 31, 2012 04:21 PM (PlcqH)
Posted by: Lincolntf at March 31, 2012 04:21 PM (HethX)
As for ADHD, that's just bullshit; feminised classrooms locking down boys for being... boys.
Posted by: Boulder Toilet Hobo at March 31, 2012 08:09 PM (QTHTd)
Been trying wife's feminized modern approach to our (now) 12 y/o son's academic and domestic performance for years with worsening results. Kept telling her that we might have to go the old school route and was met with "Ugh, that's so barbaric, I don't feel like you should have to do that."
School comes out and mentions ADD. I say bullshit, mom says "Well, they deal with this all the time." I still say bullshit and our boy's on pace to have to repeat a grade. I tell his mother "Just tell him, and mean it, that if he doesn't buckle down in school and stop lying about his homework, you're going to spank him". The boy is deathly afraid of a spanking. She reluctantly agrees. Lays out the consequences, never has to lay a hand on him.
Little sucker turns into a model student in less than two weeks and sustains it for going on three months. Has a much better self esteem now, doesn't dread school or homework. Almost a different kid.
Wifey asks "How did you know?" I reply "I was a little boy once too, you know."
No therapy, no meds, no tutoring. No bullshit.
Posted by: Burn the Witch at March 31, 2012 04:22 PM (rX1N2)
Posted by: The20th Century at March 31, 2012 04:22 PM (piMMO)
Posted by: Tami at March 31, 2012 04:22 PM (X6akg)
Posted by: Reality at March 31, 2012 04:23 PM (oGV7k)
Cold fusion only works in old Hellman's mayo jars, not Kraft.
It's those types of niggling details that prevent dummies like Begley from replicating journal studies.
Posted by: I. M. Grantworthy at March 31, 2012 04:24 PM (7+pP9)
Posted by: the 1990's at March 31, 2012 04:25 PM (piMMO)
Posted by: logprof at March 31, 2012 08:21 PM (ykSKg)
Ok, now the game I've been waiting for. Nothing against you, but I'm going for KU.
Posted by: HH at March 31, 2012 04:26 PM (KB0hv)
Posted by: crosspatch at March 31, 2012 04:26 PM (ZbLJZ)
Posted by: the 1990's at March 31, 2012 04:27 PM (piMMO)
Posted by: Dwyle Flonking at March 31, 2012 08:03 PM (PlcqH)
Redding?
Posted by: Ammo Dump at March 31, 2012 04:28 PM (WUWb9)
Posted by: Soap MacTavish at March 31, 2012 08:27 PM (vbh31)
LOL! Do it!
Posted by: Tami at March 31, 2012 04:28 PM (X6akg)
Posted by: eman at March 31, 2012 04:29 PM (zXbQT)
"Women are from Venus, Men are from Mars. The science is settled." - somewhat true; those who conduct their lovelives on the assumption that men and women are the same, may as well send out for that subscription to Cat Fancy magazine now and save time
Posted by: Boulder Toilet Hobo at March 31, 2012 04:32 PM (QTHTd)
Posted by: SantaRosaStan, thinking in PALINdromes at March 31, 2012 04:32 PM (Dll6b)
"Granted that most of these men and women are at the far right end of the bell curve with respect to IQ, more money does not make them smarter."
Perhaps they were approached with a large sum of money precisely because they were so smart: They were already respected, doubtless their writings were read by someone before they approached, and they knew how data works well enough to know how it can be manipulated to arrive at any conclusion that might be alread made by elites.
Anything that happens after that can be attributed to a non-functioning conscience, IMHO.
Posted by: BackwardsBoy, feeling all extra curmudgeony today at March 31, 2012 04:32 PM (d0Tfm)
Posted by: the 16th century at March 31, 2012 04:33 PM (piMMO)
Actually, since we are sort of on the subject...
Cold Fusion. It was "reported" as some sort of great energy breakthrough. But it didn't happen.
I'm guessing that many persons tried to duplicate the findings, and found out it didn't hold up.
Science as it should be...
Posted by: HH at March 31, 2012 04:33 PM (KB0hv)
Posted by: Reality at March 31, 2012 04:34 PM (oGV7k)
Posted by: HeatherRadish at March 31, 2012 04:34 PM (hO8IJ)
Yup . there used to be something called The scientific method .
Posted by: Bill D. Cat at March 31, 2012 07:40 PM (npr0X)
I believe it was Thomas Kuhn back in 1960 who pointed out that the scientific method is inherently subjective. In particular there is a great big leap from observed data and the formulation of a hypothesis, and another between the formulation of the hypothesis and coming up with experiments to prove or disprove the hypothesis. When a scientist has to make one of these leaps he or she ends up relying a set of a priori beliefs, the paradigm, and their own imagination, plus whatever other non-scientific factors may be influencing them. I don't think there is anyone studying philosophy of science today who would claim that science has ever or ever will be about just the facts.
Posted by: Grey Fox at March 31, 2012 04:36 PM (oqYdg)
Well. I'm 41yrs old now, I can still see and I have all my digits to hit the bunk while shitfaced. My doctor has recently told me that I am "the picture of health" my tinnistus is a littlte flared up but I solve that problem by simply turning up the volume on my favorite Slayer album. I eat beef at least twice a week and smoke a 1/2 pack a day. I'm 30lbs overweight and have never felt better. I work 55 hours a week, play golf on the weekends and enjoy friends and family every weekend when possible. I have a beautiful wife and have never been happier...THAT is the difference between a liberal and a conservative. I will will live my life the way I see fit not the way some cheese dick hippy douch bag thinks is best for every one else. I work for my own insurance and I will get my moneys worth come the end of my rope.
Fuck off loser, douch, lefty, assholes.
Posted by: dananjcon at March 31, 2012 04:36 PM (bX0ZS)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rain_follows_the_plow
See? Climate nuts have been around a long, long time.
Posted by: the 19th century at March 31, 2012 04:36 PM (piMMO)
Result: 47 of the 53 could not be replicated.
As a physical scientist, I'm amazed any of them could be replicated. Molecular biology is a joke as a science. Even molecular biologists tacitly agree: they write their results in the past tense (action completed in past time), rather than in the present tense (it was true before, and remains true today), which real scientists conventionally do. That constitutes an admission that what they observed yesterday may or may not be observed tomorrow.
Example: "hitting ourselves in the nuts hurt" vs. "hitting ourselves in the nuts hurts."
Posted by: Jay Guevara at March 31, 2012 04:37 PM (a6+6S)
"someonebefore theyapproached,"
...should read "someone before they were approached."
Either I should just give up and call it a night, or Pixy's hamsters are now eating entire letters in addition to spaces.
Posted by: BackwardsBoy, feeling all extra curmudgeony today at March 31, 2012 04:37 PM (d0Tfm)
Posted by: Comrade Arthur at March 31, 2012 04:38 PM (d9lOz)
*****
They do attack people is far cry from the sheer insanity that occurred following the release of Jaws.
Posted by: the 19th century at March 31, 2012 04:38 PM (piMMO)
Posted by: lincolntf at March 31, 2012 04:39 PM (hiMsy)
Posted by: HH at March 31, 2012 04:40 PM (KB0hv)
Posted by: Grey Fox at March 31, 2012 04:40 PM (oqYdg)
Posted by: Tami at March 31, 2012 04:41 PM (X6akg)
Posted by: Comrade Arthur at March 31, 2012 04:41 PM (d9lOz)
Posted by: StuckOnStupid at March 31, 2012 04:41 PM (R5yLq)
Posted by: Reality at March 31, 2012 04:41 PM (oGV7k)
*****
Two spaces will work.
Posted by: the 19th century at March 31, 2012 04:42 PM (piMMO)
Posted by: Tami at March 31, 2012 08:41 PM (X6akg)
Testing...
Posted by: Grey Fox at March 31, 2012 04:42 PM (oqYdg)
"Fuck off loser, douch, lefty, assholes."
Thread Winner! FTW!
OK, I'm off. And it's time to eat dinner while watching the Nationwide race with B'Gal, so I'm leaving too.
Y'all have fun and try not to trash the place, 'k?
Posted by: BackwardsBoy, feeling all extra curmudgeony today at March 31, 2012 04:42 PM (d0Tfm)
Posted by: eman at March 31, 2012 04:43 PM (zXbQT)
Posted by: dananjcon at March 31, 2012 04:45 PM (bX0ZS)
Dude, what is with this crap?
Posted by: HH at March 31, 2012 08:43 PM (KB0hv)
It's Raykon....he ate all his crayons.
Posted by: Tami at March 31, 2012 04:45 PM (X6akg)
And now I'm imagining some half naked Michael Mann lookalike sucking up powder from a hooker's cleavage. Some things imagined cannot be unimagined :^x
Posted by: Boulder Toilet Hobo at March 31, 2012 04:45 PM (QTHTd)
Despite all the things you mention Science has managed to do a damn fine job explaining the world around us. No other enterprise even comes close.
Until we find or make something better, it will have to do.
Posted by: eman at March 31, 2012 08:43 PM (zXbQT)
Oh, it is a very useful tool, no doubt about that. The problem is that many those facts aren't nearly as cold or hard as you think...
Posted by: Grey Fox at March 31, 2012 04:45 PM (oqYdg)
Posted by: Reality at March 31, 2012 04:45 PM (oGV7k)
The ACS. Hmmmm.
My undergrad adviser (and I worked for him commerically for a year) was a big wheel in the ACS back in the early 80's in the Polymer branch. A smart guy, but not really THAT smart. Even he acknowledged how political the ACS was even back then. There are undoubtedly benefits to being in the ACS if you are a chemist of some kind, but as the years go by, those benefits elude me.
One of the most brilliant chemists I ever knew just had a BS, but he had a brilliant inventive mind, and made a lot of money as a chemist, just because of his insights that many PhD's never had. His ideas and results were extremely reproducible, which is actually a key to success.
Posted by: Reader C.J. Burch writes...... at March 31, 2012 04:47 PM (sJTmU)
Posted by: Samuel Adams at March 31, 2012 07:30 PM (r3ITV)
Biomedical research, generally speaking, isn't worth shit. That's why this happens. Only after something has been replicated many times do I even start believing it.
Posted by: Jay Guevara at March 31, 2012 04:47 PM (a6+6S)
Posted by: Reality at March 31, 2012 04:47 PM (oGV7k)
I believe it was Thomas Kuhn back in 1960 who pointed out that the scientific method is inherently subjective.
Arrgh! I haven't heard that name in at least a decade and now you're taking me back to my hated grad school days. I was trying to evaluate a taxonomic system, which led me into such fields as library science and the philosophy of science. It would've been interesting if I had the time to devote (years), but I had to give it up and pick something else that I could research in a couple of weeks.
I can see how academia can be appealing to the tenured professor, but to the student it's a pressure cooker that really sucks
Posted by: Ed Anger - Certified Kos Kid at March 31, 2012 04:50 PM (7+pP9)
Posted by: lincolntf at March 31, 2012 04:50 PM (hiMsy)
Posted by: eman at March 31, 2012 04:50 PM (zXbQT)
what is with the hate on the right???
I'm trying to tone that down. After I clean up Al Sharpton, Spike Lee, and Barak Obama.
Could be a while...
Posted by: HH at March 31, 2012 04:51 PM (KB0hv)
51So they're like liberals - just make sh*t up when it serves their purposes. Fantastic.
Posted by: Insomniac at March 31, 2012 07:38 PM (GjDnP)
It's not that they make shit up. It's that they fail to sweat their hypotheses and data appropriately. They're more inclined to believe results that confirm their hypotheses, and to reject those that do not.
They mean well, but just are not sufficiently rigorous intellectually. Hard core physics and chemistry research is generally sound; biomedical research, not so much. Climastrology isn't worth any more than Miss Cleo's predictions.
Posted by: Jay Guevara at March 31, 2012 04:52 PM (a6+6S)
Posted by: Reality at March 31, 2012 04:52 PM (oGV7k)
209dude,
what is with the hate on the right???
Posted by: Reality at March 31, 2012 08:45 PM (oGV7k)
Studies have shown that anyone who says "Dude" is an asshole.
The science is settled.
Posted by: Jay Guevara at March 31, 2012 04:54 PM (a6+6S)
Posted by: Jay Guevara at March 31, 2012 04:54 PM (a6+6S)
Biomedical research, generally speaking, isn't worth shit. That's why this happens. Only after something has been replicated many times do I even start believing it.
Posted by: Jay Guevara at March 31, 2012 08:47 PM (a6+6S)
Most of these studies reported by the press are metastudies, which are just a combination of prior studies. Because the metastudies have a much larger population they suggest greater accuracy but often they are a hodge-podge of studies with very different populations, assumptions, methodologies and inherent biases. In other words, they're junk. But they are also powerful tools to deceive the scientifically uninformed.
Posted by: Ed Anger - Certified Kos Kid at March 31, 2012 04:59 PM (7+pP9)
Posted by: eman at March 31, 2012 08:14 PM (zXbQT)
True dat. Reading C&EN pisses me off no end. Those silly girls who write global warming shit in C&EN should be home having babies and baking brownies.
Posted by: Jay Guevara at March 31, 2012 04:59 PM (a6+6S)
Posted by: HoboJerky at March 31, 2012 05:00 PM (dptRY)
****
And as bad as it is, my space bar is effed up. Every comment is a real effort.
Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at March 31, 2012 05:02 PM (piMMO)
Posted by: Reality at March 31, 2012 05:03 PM (oGV7k)
Posted by: middle-america at March 31, 2012 05:03 PM (a0U5y)
who are the right wing fascists to say no?
None of us...
Want to smoke?
Try the other side of the line wanting to ban you...
But yer just having fun, and so am I...
Posted by: HH at March 31, 2012 05:03 PM (KB0hv)
In other words, they're junk. But they are also powerful tools to deceive the scientifically uninformed.
True dat. To bring non cognoscenti up to speed, I tell them about the "study" that said drinking improved longevity (Yay! I'm gonna live forever!).
Turns out that they forgot to take into account the fact that the terminally ill generally don't drink at all. It's amazing how hard it is to get good bar service in intensive care. Duh. They didn't think of that? Seriously?
Posted by: Jay Guevara at March 31, 2012 05:04 PM (a6+6S)
*****
What cracks me up is that this is a business for Ace and, as such, his visitors and click count, I believe, create value for his advertisers so, Reality, continue to post away.
Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at March 31, 2012 05:05 PM (piMMO)
Posted by: HoboJerky at March 31, 2012 05:05 PM (dptRY)
You know nothing of my beliefs, raykon; and they are besides none of your concern. Also, get bent.
Posted by: Boulder Toilet Hobo at March 31, 2012 05:07 PM (QTHTd)
223live with it. adapt
My witch doctor says things will improve if we sacrifice a liberal.
If that fails, we'll try a higher primate.
Posted by: Jay Guevara at March 31, 2012 05:07 PM (a6+6S)
That is what the EPA used for their second hand smoke study. One tobacco company sued. The judge threw the EPA out of court. Yet the EPA still uses that flawed study to regulate second hand smoke.
Posted by: Vic at March 31, 2012 05:07 PM (YdQQY)
Posted by: HH at March 31, 2012 05:07 PM (KB0hv)
Yet the EPA still uses that flawed study to regulate second hand smoke.
You're hitting my hot buttons here. I'm a non-smoker, but if secondhand smoke were a major health hazard - after dilution of the smoke by what, 1000:1?, then smokers would drop dead before finishing their first cigarette.
Posted by: Jay Guevara at March 31, 2012 05:10 PM (a6+6S)
My other favorite bit that gets overlooked is Egon's 'really big explosion coming' gesture when the containment system is shut down.
http://tinyurl.com/3ggwtl9
Posted by: epobirs at March 31, 2012 05:11 PM (kcfmt)
Posted by: Hopped up on Something at March 31, 2012 05:13 PM (WCuHB)
243I wouldn't say ACS is "useless and corrupt".
I would, and I've been a member since Moses was a nipper. It doesn't do squat for its members. Look at subscriptions for journals; now that they're digital, what expense does ACS incur in publishing them? Why don't they provide general access to members?
Why does ACS get all PC about H1-B visas?
You're right, ACS is definitely ossified, and takes its members for granted.
Posted by: Jay Guevara at March 31, 2012 05:15 PM (a6+6S)
Posted by: Reality at March 31, 2012 05:16 PM (oGV7k)
Posted by: Daybrother at March 31, 2012 05:17 PM (WCuHB)
And did you all see one of the recent CEN issues when the Union of Concerned Scientists was quoted - not once but twice - as an "nonpartisan advocacy group" or some such, without ever giving a hint to its incredible leftwing bias?
This is one of the problems with ACS - it, like all other organizations that is not explicitly conservative, has become leftist infested. It's not just the silly girls who write CEN; it's the whole goddamned organization. From Alar to AGW to "green chemistry," the retards have taken over the asylum, and are trying to convince everyone else that they're not geeks. Alas, sadly, they are. Embrace your inner geek!
Posted by: Jay Guevara at March 31, 2012 05:18 PM (a6+6S)
Randi found on several occasions that scientists made excellent targets for con artists because they didn't incorporate the possibility of intentional falsehood in their analytical approach. They could be suckered by techniques that would get a carny run out of town.
Posted by: epobirs at March 31, 2012 05:21 PM (kcfmt)
Posted by: eman at March 31, 2012 05:24 PM (zXbQT)
Posted by: Reality Sucks at March 31, 2012 05:25 PM (oGV7k)
Nevertheless, if professorship status is dependent upon the creating of success then you're really going to work hard to bury your inadequacies in the face of a reviewer. If you goof do you have the temerity to own up to it... when it means you're getting a Kia instead of an Acura in your garage?
Also note that for every person in science there is a person aspiring to be accomplished. The true toiling scientist exists but he/she is not the norm. For most, including myself, the activity is a recitation of talent... for which we believe we should be rewarded. Now, if you believe yourself worthy of reward and you're faced against not receiving that award do you fudge or do you do things honestly?
The problem is, if you do well enough at the game then you are celebrated. There are other gaming situations. I've been told you can often extract 3 papers out of simple adjustments. Come up with something big enough then you can put stronger and stronger versions of the same each time thus increasing your paper count. Totally stupid, absolutely. Within somebody's perrogative. Almost needs to be if you are an assistant professor.
Science likely has a problem... and its a tradition of culture. As it was said, gone are the days of high advancement... not saying its impossible... just more incremental... but you only get the big invites if you come up with something big. You can just imagine then the type of personalities occupy these situations. The UAH shooter should be a good example of this.
Posted by: Former Mass. Resident at March 31, 2012 05:26 PM (BeB0s)
Posted by: Reality Sucks at March 31, 2012 05:27 PM (oGV7k)
Certainly everyone over the age of 40 would long since been dead. When I was a kid about the only place one expected to see a NO SMOKING sign was at a gas pump or similar location where the threat wasn't eventual cancer but immediate flaming death.
Posted by: epobirs at March 31, 2012 05:27 PM (kcfmt)
Posted by: Locarno at March 31, 2012 05:30 PM (VNuHM)
Posted by: epobirs at March 31, 2012 05:30 PM (kcfmt)
Posted by: Reality Sucks at March 31, 2012 05:31 PM (oGV7k)
Good summary with many hyperlinks is here at a health care ethics blog: http://tinyurl.com/837k9vs
Posted by: Anonymoose at March 31, 2012 05:31 PM (vGlQg)
"neanderthals have been proven thru DNA, and our own DNA"
--- as if DNA-science itself isnt filled with hilarious theories too stupid to mention. i guess ghosts are real too because you know...we once shared DNA..
"if that was parody..."
--no its not parody, not in any way.
scientists try their best to explain away stupid incoherent "studies" about everything from neanderthals to how the freakin planet formed, but are plain ass-ignorant about things like...oh...lemme see... supposed extinct fish swimming around the coasts of africa.
and some of you idiots buy into it lol but carry on, it gives me alot to snicker at.
Posted by: george lucas's neck-pouch at March 31, 2012 05:33 PM (AJcze)
You've only served to demonstrate your own wretched illiteracy in scientific matters. And logic. And basic grammar.
Posted by: epobirs at March 31, 2012 05:33 PM (kcfmt)
Posted by: Reality Sucks at March 31, 2012 05:34 PM (oGV7k)
Posted by: Boulder Toilet Hobo at March 31, 2012 05:36 PM (QTHTd)
Posted by: Reality Sucks at March 31, 2012 05:37 PM (oGV7k)
--- oh no, not a grammar-watcher...thats just so....2008 of you, captain.
Posted by: george lucas's neck-pouch at March 31, 2012 05:39 PM (AJcze)
What drives me crazy, and demonstrates the degradation of contemporary science, is the general lack of exploring alternative theories or obvious follow-up questions in experiments. I swear, they've been training them to come up with a hypothesis and then prove it right, rather than try hard to prove it *wrong*, which is what you should be doing.
Strictly speaking, a "theory" is a set of hypotheses that have not been contradicted by experimental results over a considerable period. Laymen use "theory" in place of "hypothesis," i.e., a model proposed to account for earlier observations. And it is not possible to prove a hypothesis to be right, only to determine that it is not contradicted by the experimental results in hand to date.
Posted by: Jay Guevara at March 31, 2012 05:39 PM (a6+6S)
Posted by: Socratease at March 31, 2012 05:41 PM (Q0j9m)
Posted by: DC in Towson at March 31, 2012 05:44 PM (I/cLr)
skulls and remains that dont even match up, laughable 'studies' of how they MIGHT have migrated (oh they can tell us how dino's migrated...from a bazillion yrs ago....but not these cave-men....yeah right)
i could go on and on and on....
have they finished their whacky-doodle crack pot studies on the DNA helix yet?
Posted by: george lucas's neck-pouch at March 31, 2012 05:45 PM (AJcze)
I don't know when you were a kid but ADHD has been discussed in psychology since the 60s to my knowledge. I first heard the phrase in reference to my oldest brother in the early 70s. And Ritalin was being prescribed for hyperactive kids at least as early as 1973 when it was referenced in an issue of the Fabulous Furry Freak Brothers where Fat Freddy poses as an out of control grade schooler in hopes of obtaining free drugs.
It takes a long time for these things to grow into blanket diagnoses slapped on a vast number of patients beyond those who truly fit the profile. But once it hits a critical mass it becomes a household word almost overnight.
Posted by: epobirs at March 31, 2012 05:45 PM (kcfmt)
Posted by: Reality Sucks at March 31, 2012 05:45 PM (oGV7k)
*****
Well, they ARE legal in Florida..
Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at March 31, 2012 05:49 PM (piMMO)
Posted by: Formerly known as Skeptic at March 31, 2012 05:49 PM (5z6T9)
Posted by: Reality Sucks at March 31, 2012 05:50 PM (oGV7k)
*************
Boiled down to its essentials, you seem to be arguing that because science doesn't understand everything, it understands nothing.
Yet here you sit using a computer and the 'net and the world-wide-web, all based on science, applied science.
And I suppose you don't drive, turn on electric lights, fly in airplanes ... or get flu shots...or ever see a doctor. Physics, chemistry, thermodynamics, aerodynamics, metallurgy, genetics, pharmaceuticals....nahhhhh......useless.
.....after all, scientists don't know shit....right?
Posted by: Jim Sonweed at March 31, 2012 05:50 PM (SV4OI)
Posted by: strawman at March 31, 2012 05:52 PM (GTbGH)
Posted by: Waterhouse at March 31, 2012 05:54 PM (zX1/n)
--- look over your head, towards the horizon...see that? thats my point flying by you.
im not saying ALL scientists or even ALL scientific studies
...just the obvious loony ones.
Posted by: george lucas's neck-pouch at March 31, 2012 05:54 PM (AJcze)
I remember the cold fusion thing. A professor yanked me into his office to discuss it and he showed that if the reports were correct about the neutron emission rate, a) the researchers would be dead and b) they had discovered something stronger than the nuclear force to keep everything from blowing up. He did this by doing estimates on a chalkboard.
Posted by: bad cat robot at March 31, 2012 05:55 PM (fwc5w)
Posted by: Reality Sucks at March 31, 2012 05:55 PM (oGV7k)
Posted by: Reality Sucks at March 31, 2012 05:57 PM (oGV7k)
Posted by: Joe Bidenmytime at March 31, 2012 06:07 PM (Zhdem)
I get the same sinking feeling watching certain of the comments here.
American politics is like the ending of Mass Effect 3 - you get your red option and your blue option, or you can throw away your vote with the Green Party: whichever you choose, the ending is going to waste your money and leave you feeling cheated.
Posted by: Boulder Toilet Hobo at March 31, 2012 06:12 PM (QTHTd)
Yes. This is called the "representative sample." I've witnessed this several times. Reasonable labs will try to replicate its results at least once. If it is a core study used as a foundation for subsequent studies, that replication should hit +90% success rate.
I've also seen an occasional "representative sample" so manipulated that I'd define it as fraud. The desire to acquire grant money, a name, and/or prestige is quite real. I'd wager scientists are no more honest than the general population of any other profession save for car salesman, MFM, lawyer, or politician. Research is an industry. It's also subsidized by government to great degree which lends itself to great waste and abuse. Obviously.
Posted by: AnonymousDrivel at March 31, 2012 06:57 PM (eHIJJ)
Posted by: eman at March 31, 2012 07:02 PM (zXbQT)
My husband is a pharma chemist in private industry. He always said that university research was sloppy and shoddy because the researchers aren't accountable to anyone, especially once they get tenure. They get more kudos for the big grant bucks than the actual results of their research. If scientific peer review included actual attempts to replicate results, then there'd be some accountability.
Of course there are plenty of academic scientists who are scrupulous to the max; but we don't hear about them because they're too busy doing things right.
In the pharma industry, a scientist not only has to replicate the experiment--but he must replicate it using safe-to-ingest, low-cost materials and processes which will all hold up under the triple tests of clinical trials, mass production, and FDA scrutiny. If that isn't accountability, I don't know what is.
Posted by: Taxpayer1234 at March 31, 2012 07:05 PM (NpmCe)
Posted by: motionview at March 31, 2012 07:05 PM (i+DU3)
The first thing about satire is that it's got to work. This doesn't. Disclaimers that it's not parody or satire just makes matters worse.
Given that all the comments relate to natural history in one fashion or another, the guy sounds like he's trying to jeer at Bible-thumpers. Or maybe he is one. Who the eff knows.
Time for this thread to die.
Posted by: Tears in Rain at March 31, 2012 07:10 PM (SV4OI)
Posted by: exdem13 at March 31, 2012 08:54 PM (1GunI)
Posted by: Taxpayer1234 at March 31, 2012 08:54 PM (NpmCe)
When they ignore the obvious, that big round thing in the sky, when they reach their conclusions, I charitably assume they aren't so smart. It's good they are arguing nonsense instead of designing buildings, bridges or planes that might kill people when they fail.
When they want to influence my life, or take my money, my apathy vanishes. Not one dime, and whatever they want, I am against.
Posted by: MarkD at April 01, 2012 04:04 AM (iYBP2)
Posted by: Pervy Grin at April 01, 2012 05:14 AM (2W1oR)
Posted by: defendUSA at April 01, 2012 04:14 PM (nAAtF)
Even if we toss out the obviousness of the influence of personal political/sociological opinions on how science is conducted and used - like the global warming issue - what most people fail to consider is that --- the deeper you go into investigating the different avenues within science, you find that at some point they all take "leaps of faith." Places, often approaching the core of each scientific discipline, where theory outpaces provable data or observable facts.
There is much science does not know or cannot explain. To fill in those gaps, and guide future research, theory comes into play. We can also call these guesses.
But whenever this talk about science comes up, the other side pretends science is unquestionable.
Posted by: iggyb at April 01, 2012 07:51 PM (Q85Fh)
About 10 years ago the New England Journal of Medicine had an article that stated "more than 50% of the research touted in our pages will later be proven false"! They then went on to say due to poor statistical analysis etc etc etc for reasons why it was false.
If 50% of a the Science in the Medical Journal of record for the USA will be found later to be false!
Part of the blame is to be found in the "publish or perish" mentality in academia. The more you publish the higher you rank. They must not care if what you publish is sound or not! Just get it out there!
Posted by: Chewman at April 02, 2012 07:06 AM (P9kUH)
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at April 02, 2012 08:01 AM (r4wIV)
Posted by: burt at April 02, 2012 12:27 PM (OzqQM)
Hide Comments | Add Comment | Refresh | Top
64 queries taking 0.3026 seconds, 428 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.








Posted by: toby928© at March 31, 2012 03:14 PM (GTbGH)