February 26, 2014

120 Scientific Papers Withdrawn After Being Proven to be Gibberish.
No, Actual Computer-Generated Gibberish.
— Ace

Multiple layers of painstaking fact-checking editorial oversight.

So, some scientists at MIT had invented a program called "SCIgen" to generate, by computer, random scientific-sounding papers. They did this for amusement.

But people (especially in China, apparently) have been using the program to generate papers and then submit them to actual scientific publishers' subscription services.

“The papers are quite easy to spot,” says Labbé, who has built a website where users can test whether papers have been created using SCIgen. His detection technique, described in a study published in Scientometrics in 2012, involves searching for characteristic vocabulary generated by SCIgen. Shortly before that paper was published, Labbé informed the IEEE of 85 fake papers he had found. Monika Stickel, director of corporate communications at IEEE, says that the publisher “took immediate action to remove the papers” and “refined our processes to prevent papers not meeting our standards from being published in the future”. In December 2013, Labbé informed the IEEE of another batch of apparent SCIgen articles he had found. Last week, those were also taken down, but the web pages for the removed articles give no explanation for their absence.

Ruth Francis, UK head of communications at Springer, says that the company has contacted editors, and is trying to contact authors, about the issues surrounding the articles that are coming down. The relevant conference proceedings were peer reviewed, she confirms — making it more mystifying that the papers were accepted.

It's possible the reviewers chalked up the computerese nonsense to a language barrier, figuring the "scientist" who wrote them spoke Chinese as a first language and was struggling with the English language. But this only goes so far, because, ultimately, these papers didn't make sense in any language. Because they were gibbrerish.

Labbé (the guy who built the tool for finding these fakes) wanted to prove how easy it was to spoof the system so he created a fake scientist named "Antkare."

Labbé is no stranger to fake studies. In April 2010, he used SCIgen to generate 102 fake papers by a fictional author called Ike Antkare. Labbé showed how easy it was to add these fake papers to the Google Scholar database, boosting Ike Antkare’s h-index, a measure of published output, to 94 — at the time, making Antkare the world's 21st most highly cited scientist.

Why? Why would 120 fake, gibberish, nonsense papers be submitted to these publishers? And how did they make it onto the system?

Well possibly this is a prank, or an attempt to prove how easy it is to get nonsense published, as Labbé already proved.

Or, possibly:

Apparently, in science, one gross method of ranking your authority is by counting up the number of times you're cited in other scientific papers.

So, what if you could just spam a lot of fictitious, gibberish papers and get them into "the system" (the subscription services) citing you a whole bunch of times? Then your crude bean-counting ranking goes up.


Posted by: Ace at 07:29 AM | Comments (302)
Post contains 522 words, total size 4 kb.

1

The relevant conference proceedings were peer reviewed, she confirms — making it more mystifying that the papers were accepted.

 

Orrrrr the peer review process for those particular proceedings was,   in fact,   total bullshit.

 

Speaking of which,    were any of these     allegedly    AGW-related?   One feels the need to ask.

Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Assault Hobbit [/s][/u][/b][/i] at February 26, 2014 07:32 AM (4df7R)

2 The "scientific consensus" on global warming is starting to make more sense numerically anyway.

Posted by: whyme at February 26, 2014 07:32 AM (l9mF2)

3 And I'll get the others.

Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Assault Hobbit [/s][/u][/b][/i] at February 26, 2014 07:32 AM (4df7R)

4 97% of scientists say AGW is real.

Posted by: --- at February 26, 2014 07:32 AM (MMC8r)

5 Why are you anti-pseudoscience, wingnuts?!?

Posted by: Ike Antkare at February 26, 2014 07:33 AM (MMC8r)

6 Got the others.

Posted by: rickb223 at February 26, 2014 07:33 AM (CRyse)

7 120 Scientific Papers Withdrawn After Being Proven to be Gibberish. No, Actual Computer-Generated Gibberish. No authentic frontier gibberish?

Posted by: rickb223 at February 26, 2014 07:34 AM (CRyse)

8 So "publish or perish" leads to perverse incentives. Got it.

Posted by: joncelli at February 26, 2014 07:34 AM (RD7QR)

9 That 97% stat was created by the Mann Hockey Stick algorithm wasn't it?

Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at February 26, 2014 07:35 AM (dDf+N)

10 Got the others.

Posted by: rickb223 at February 26, 2014 11:33 AM (CRyse)

 

So did I!

 

I claim credit for half of them,  like Freya on the battlefield.  You get the rest.

Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Assault Hobbit [/s][/u][/b][/i] at February 26, 2014 07:35 AM (4df7R)

11 The sad truth is that many of the actual, human-written papers were gibberish too.

Posted by: zombie at February 26, 2014 07:35 AM (+cx5n)

12 Science study and papers at colleges have really turned to shit when the colleges started emphasizing money over integrity.

AGW scam is a prime example.

Posted by: Vic[/i] at February 26, 2014 07:35 AM (T2V/1)

13 These reports you handed in,they make no sense.It's almost as if you have no scientific training at all. Mr.Leyland

Posted by: steevy at February 26, 2014 07:35 AM (zqvg6)

14 Breaking news from 1996.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_affair


Y'all may enjoy the postmodernism generator.
http://www.elsewhere.org/pomo/

Posted by: HR, watching scripts run at February 26, 2014 07:35 AM (ZKzrr)

15 *wonders if my name is on any of them*


Posted by: EC at February 26, 2014 07:35 AM (GQ8sn)

16
Synthetic gibberish? Now computers are doing the job authentic frontiersmen used to do! Obama was right!

Posted by: Waterhouse at February 26, 2014 07:35 AM (t8ySh)

17 Wait...
Things that are presented as scientific fact may in fact not be?

Now why would someone want to do something like that?

Posted by: Village Idiot's Apprentice at February 26, 2014 07:36 AM (NHZpR)

18 Unsettled science.

Posted by: JackStraw at February 26, 2014 07:36 AM (g1DWB)

19 The science is settled.

Posted by: Al Gore at February 26, 2014 07:36 AM (Aif/5)

20

Apparently, in science, one gross method of ranking your authority is by counting up the number of times you're cited in other scientific papers.

 

Who cares about ranking authority anymore?  Science is settled.

Posted by: Michael Mann at February 26, 2014 07:36 AM (A0sHn)

21 And of course I'm beaten to the Blazing Saddles joke.

Posted by: Waterhouse at February 26, 2014 07:36 AM (t8ySh)

22 So Al Gore is a walking, talking spam-bot?

Posted by: Fritz at February 26, 2014 07:37 AM (UzPAd)

23 "Crude bean counting" Sounds like a job @ the Obamacare office of Administration, or a cashier at a porn shop.

Posted by: fairweather bill at February 26, 2014 07:37 AM (98HyW)

24 John Houseman, "Sir what you have submitted makes absolutely no sense.  It is gibberish pounded out on a typewriter by a baboon."

Future climate scientist, "But its important sounding gibberish!"

Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at February 26, 2014 07:37 AM (dDf+N)

25 Apparently, in science, one gross method of ranking your authority is by counting up the number of times you're cited in other scientific papers.


Yes, that's true.


But it also slightly depends on the stature of the journal your paper gets published in.  In every field, there are the "ivy league" journals that have a great deal of prestige, and then there are the "community college" journals where everyone can get a paper on how to eat a bowl of Kaboom published.

Posted by: EC at February 26, 2014 07:37 AM (GQ8sn)

26 97% of computer generated sciency sounding gibberish agree that AGW is really Serious You Guys!

Posted by: mugiwara at February 26, 2014 07:37 AM (W7ffl)

27 So did I! I claim credit for half of them, like Freya on the battlefield. You get the rest 10-4 Captain!

Posted by: rickb223 at February 26, 2014 07:37 AM (CRyse)

28 And how did they make it onto the system?

I'm going with "none of the reviewers wanted to admit they couldn't understand the work submitted by others."

Posted by: HR, watching scripts run at February 26, 2014 07:37 AM (ZKzrr)

29 Chomsky built his entire career in linguistics with a wall of indecipherable BS

Posted by: Beagle at February 26, 2014 07:37 AM (sOtz/)

30

I claim credit for half of them, like Freya on the battlefield.

 

Pics of you slapping your blue painted breast with a sword or it didn't...

Posted by: Frumious Bandersnatch at February 26, 2014 07:37 AM (A0sHn)

31 The science is still settled though right?

Posted by: Boss Moss at February 26, 2014 07:38 AM (6bMeY)

32 This has been going on for a while. One guy produced a bunch of papers and sent them to Elsvier journals just to see what happened. IIRC, the papers weren't even science sounding, he just strung random sentences together. Not to go all Postmodern, but the field of science is broken pretty bad now. One of the things I'm toying with in my dissertation (should I ever write it) is noting that "science" is no longer actually science, which is part of the reason we've ceded animal research rather than fight for it. "Science" now is mostly "grant begging," "bias confirmation" and a bit of engineering (that is practically applying things we know.) And we can do that with shitty mouse models, in fact we can do that better with shitty mouse models, so why bother fighting for real science.

Posted by: tsrblke, PhD(c) (No Really!) at February 26, 2014 07:38 AM (hq5sb)

33 The pseudoscience is settled!

Posted by: Stu-22 at February 26, 2014 07:38 AM (KbrNh)

34

Isn't this a form of faking your resume?  How are you to prove out the psuedo science in your fake paper?  Or is it just that you start pointing fingers and accusing detractors of being anti-science to scare them away?

That seems sort of familiar.

Posted by: Heralder at February 26, 2014 07:38 AM (/Mxso)

35 This is an ingress of an inclination towards a digression of precedence that has apparently been a confluence of facts hereto unknown amongst scientists and publishers causing an ebullition in the technical sphere.

Posted by: See You Next Tuesday at February 26, 2014 07:38 AM (DAevm)

36 97% of scientists say AGW is real. - And also aKOPDKLKL JOPN VBWEF NIPU VW QDIOQR &*)$&*&*)(().

Posted by: WalrusRex at February 26, 2014 07:38 AM (Hx5uv)

37 How many of the papers were written by Machines For Sale?

Posted by: Mr. Dave at February 26, 2014 07:38 AM (7GJd1)

38 Alan Sokal, please call your office.

Posted by: Purple Fury at February 26, 2014 07:38 AM (33KKm)

39
Meh, I'll stick with the 1000 monkeys typing.  The stories are better.

Posted by: Shakespeare at February 26, 2014 07:38 AM (n0DEs)

40 I saw Labbé open for Tool at the Fluke Festival in DC last year.


Deep, man. 


Really deep.

Posted by: Sharkman at February 26, 2014 07:39 AM (TM1p8)

41 Look, this guy Ike Antkare - a scientist! - has published 102 more scientific papers than any of you have, and his work has been cited numerous times in many highly respected foreign places. Why must you nut-job right-wingers continue to argue against what's clearly the consensus opinion among people who know so much more than you??? Who cares if it's fake? It's accurately faked AND it's the consensus!

Posted by: spd rdr at February 26, 2014 07:39 AM (+fXXA)

42 How could they tell the real gibberish from the fake gibberish like Michelle O!'s paper?

Posted by: WalrusRex at February 26, 2014 07:39 AM (Hx5uv)

43 Lace Wigs, is that you behind the Machines for Sale moniker?

Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at February 26, 2014 07:39 AM (dDf+N)

44 Science study and papers at colleges have really turned to shit when the colleges started emphasizing money over integrity.

AGW scam is a prime example.

Posted by: Vic at February 26, 2014 11:35 AM (T2V/1)



I'm pretty fucking old and I can't remember a time when kollidges didn't emphasize money over integrity.

Posted by: Captain Hate at February 26, 2014 07:39 AM (FQEMb)

45 120 Scientific Papers Withdrawn After Being Proven to be Gibberish. In many ways, isn't this also the story of Barack Obama?

Posted by: Citizen X at February 26, 2014 07:40 AM (7ObY1)

46 you mean academics can be lazy frauds this is my shocked face

Posted by: thunderb at February 26, 2014 07:40 AM (zOTsN)

47
I'm going with "none of the reviewers wanted to admit they couldn't understand the work submitted by others."

Posted by: HR, watching scripts run at February 26, 2014 11:37 AM (ZKzrr)



Nailed it.

Posted by: grognard at February 26, 2014 07:40 AM (/29Nl)

48 I showed this post to a climate scientist and he quickly covered his face and ran away.


Weird.

Posted by: LoneStarHeeb at February 26, 2014 07:40 AM (BZAd3)

49 University of East Anglia hardest hit.

Posted by: Golfman in NC at February 26, 2014 07:40 AM (vVOWk)

50 Ike Antkare read aloud please I can't care

Posted by: thunderb at February 26, 2014 07:41 AM (zOTsN)

51 You know, I think we could use this to generate trolls that would be totally indistinguishable from the DailyKooks.

http://dev.null.org/dadaengine/

Posted by: HR, watching scripts run at February 26, 2014 07:41 AM (ZKzrr)

52 So science really isn't settled.

And ObozoCare is the Law of the Land, with no further discussion.

And our current immigration laws are the Law of the Land, with no furt.......

Hey, wait a minute.

I think I'm seeing a pattern here.

Posted by: Village Idiot's Apprentice at February 26, 2014 07:41 AM (NHZpR)

53 teh pathétique proof positive: Obama's revisionism of American Exceptionalism

Posted by: panzernashorn at February 26, 2014 07:41 AM (MhA4j)

54 Suppose you are going for a major in Gibberish?

Posted by: Boss Moss at February 26, 2014 07:41 AM (6bMeY)

55 And these 120 papers were referenced by how many PhD theses in Global Warmingism?

Posted by: t-bird at February 26, 2014 07:41 AM (FcR7P)

56
Why didn't I think of that!

Posted by: Dan Rather at February 26, 2014 07:41 AM (n0DEs)

57 Let me assure you, no one will my work published in the Harvard Law Review 'Gibberish'

Posted by: Barry Soetoro at February 26, 2014 07:42 AM (Q6pxP)

58 and then there are the "community college" journals where everyone can get a paper on how to eat a bowl of Kaboom published.

Posted by: EC at February 26, 2014 11:37 AM (GQ8sn)

 

ABSTRACT:

"Get someone else to eat it."

 

 

Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Assault Hobbit [/s][/u][/b][/i] at February 26, 2014 07:42 AM (4df7R)

59 Scientific Papers Withdrawn After Being Proven to be Gibberish. Just because you can't understand it doesn't make it gibberish! Why does The Right hate Science so?

Posted by: Teh Left at February 26, 2014 07:42 AM (FcR7P)

60 My leftist brother-in-law once sent me a published article by 5 co-authors to reinforce his point in a friendly political argument we were having, noting it was well researched by experts in their field with over 100 footnoted citings. After 3 minutes of reading the citings I replied, asking him if he had bothered to notice that about 85% of the citings were from previous articles by the 5 co-authors, citing themselves. He never replied back.

Posted by: MostlyRight at February 26, 2014 07:42 AM (89KU4)

61 I'm going with "none of the reviewers wanted to admit they couldn't understand the work submitted by others."


Posted by: HR, watching scripts run at February 26, 2014 11:37 AM (ZKzrr)

Nailed it.

Posted by: grognard at February 26, 2014 11:40 AM (/29Nl)

Yes, good call. This happens with a lot of the "art" in modern art museums.  People are afraid to call it a piece of shit (which it invariably is).  Witness the multitudes staring a red square on a canvas pretending to contemplate what the artists was trying to express.

Posted by: Heralder at February 26, 2014 07:43 AM (/Mxso)

62 Pull my 2nd Chakra.

Posted by: Al Gorrhythm , Esq. at February 26, 2014 07:43 AM (UzPAd)

63 I wonder if I should go and search for a movie script generator.  And submit that to Amazon Studios....


Hhhmmmm

Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at February 26, 2014 07:43 AM (dDf+N)

64 ABSTRACT:
"Get someone else to eat it."

Mikey likes it!

And it keeps his fur soft and supple.

Posted by: HR, watching scripts run at February 26, 2014 07:43 AM (ZKzrr)

65 Good heavens, Miss Hashimoto!

Posted by: blaster at February 26, 2014 07:43 AM (4+AaH)

66

http://bit.ly/1ekXjkV 

This is a great story about how an amateur called bullshit on a frequently cited study in psychology and enlisted help to debunk it.  Very satisfying.

Posted by: Frumious Bandersnatch at February 26, 2014 07:43 AM (A0sHn)

67 I think what science calls "peer review" is what we call in the publishing business "log rolling" where authors trade plugs for each other's books to advance each other's careers.

Certainly that's how you settle the science in the AGW community.

Posted by: Richard McEnroe at February 26, 2014 07:43 AM (XO6WW)

68 Apparently, in science, one gross method of ranking your authority is by counting up the number of times you're cited in other scientific papers. So, what if you could just spam a lot of fictitious, gibberish papers and get them into "the system" (the subscription services) citing you a whole bunch of times? Then your crude bean-counting ranking goes up. That is exactly it. Publish or perish and all that anyone on the tenure committee cares about is what is your ranking re: published papers. There was an article awhile back that, if true, was by a guy who claimed that he made his living churning out PhD dissertations on anything. Absolutely anything. Give him x thousands of dollars and he would get you whatever you needed to get by your committee. He admitted that all he did was spend a day reviewing journal articles and then would throw jargon around. Mind you, it could all have been utter bullshit but given some of the things I've seen in academia, I believe it.

Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD. Mmmm. Blondies with whipped cream. at February 26, 2014 07:44 AM (VtjlW)

69 EC, posted retraction on previous thread.

Posted by: Vic[/i] at February 26, 2014 07:44 AM (T2V/1)

70 56 Why didn't I think of that! Posted by: Dan Rather at February 26, 2014 11:41 AM (n0DEs) -- I know, right?

Posted by: Harvard Law Review Editor B. Obama at February 26, 2014 07:44 AM (GSIDW)

71 Apparently, in science, one gross method of ranking your authority is by counting up the number of times you're cited in other scientific papers. In gentlemanly endeavors, this effect is also known as: "having stank on the hang low"

Posted by: wooga at February 26, 2014 07:44 AM (AL3SF)

72 Climate Fluctuation v. Reflux Disease

Posted by: panzernashorn at February 26, 2014 07:44 AM (MhA4j)

73 That's Ms. Sakamoto to you...

You were obviously blinded by science

Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at February 26, 2014 07:44 AM (dDf+N)

74 Suppose you are going for a major in Gibberish? Which discipline? Irish? Olde English? Welsh? Early American? Frontier? Computer generated? In the ghetto?

Posted by: rickb223 at February 26, 2014 07:44 AM (CRyse)

75 That 97% stat was created by the Mann Hockey Stick algorithm wasn't it? - A brief glimmer of hope? I like dinosaurs (sue me!) so I watch a lot of dinosaur shows. I watched one the other day about the extinction of the dinosaurs which, thank God, backed of the impact theory. But then they suggested that climate change was responsible for the death of the dinosaurs and I thought, "Hey, there weren't even any Republican dinosaurs." But then they started talking about how slight changes in the Earth's attitude toward the Sun can cause catastrophic climate change. It was like they never even heard of the internal combustion engine.

Posted by: WalrusRex at February 26, 2014 07:45 AM (Hx5uv)

76 I wonder if the people posting the gibberish got a cut of electronic publishing rights?

There are services that buy up ALL scientific papers for possible distribution rights.

Posted by: Kristophr at February 26, 2014 07:45 AM (c6N69)

77 I claim credit for half of them, like Freya on the battlefield. You get the rest. Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Assault Hobbit at February 26, 2014 11:35 AM (4df7R) You realize I'm picturing you as Freya now, right?

Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD. Mmmm. Blondies with whipped cream. at February 26, 2014 07:46 AM (VtjlW)

78 So the fakes were easy to spot, yet were published anyway? Apparently no one reads anything before it's published?

Posted by: Iean Lean at February 26, 2014 07:46 AM (nE/1A)

79 Garbage In, Garbage Out!

Posted by: rd at February 26, 2014 07:46 AM (D+lxs)

80 slight changes in the Earth's attitude toward the Sun

You don't let me do anything! I hate you!

*door slam*

Posted by: teenaged Earth at February 26, 2014 07:46 AM (t8ySh)

81 alexthechick:

A really short Freya.

Posted by: Kristophr at February 26, 2014 07:46 AM (c6N69)

82 Posted by: EC at February 26, 2014 11:37 AM (GQ8sn) Ahhhh impact factor. What a hilarious thing. Take a certain journal of Bioethics, perhaps published in America (figure it out.) It has been suggested that they are more or less rigging Impact factor by citing their own papers in articles that aren't counted towards the total number of papers published. (Briefly Impact factor, IF, is just a simple ratio, number of citations/number of published papers. But certain papers, editorials, responses, etc, don't count in the denominator. So one can see how easy it is to fuck with that number.) It's odd though the tension between journals (who want high IF) and PIs who want high publication numbers (and high IF if possible, but mostly the former.)

Posted by: tsrblke, PhD(c) (No Really!) at February 26, 2014 07:46 AM (hq5sb)

83 75. gender revisionist gibberish

Posted by: panzernashorn at February 26, 2014 07:46 AM (MhA4j)

84 the first rule of publish or perish club, is there is no publish or perish club

Posted by: thunderb at February 26, 2014 07:47 AM (zOTsN)

85 Dinosaur farts caused their extinction. It's science.

Posted by: Boss Moss at February 26, 2014 07:47 AM (6bMeY)

86 And there are people in New York who haz the sad because there are no dinosaurs to molest.

Oh wait, chickens.

Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at February 26, 2014 07:48 AM (dDf+N)

87 Ha.  Follwing HR's link to pomo, they also had a band name generator.

Your band's name is (pick one):

Peter Cooper and the Liquid Police Red Flag Negative Water The Blind Temple Group Multitude of Treats Buck Stardust and the Native Motor Society The Black Chain Conflagration

I love the Buck Stardust one.

Posted by: Dan Rather at February 26, 2014 07:48 AM (n0DEs)

88 Hmmmm.... Might want to check for papers in the Global Warming category... may be where the mythical consensus came from...

Posted by: Romeo13 at February 26, 2014 07:48 AM (84gbM)

89 There is neither a reward for peer review nor a penalty for poor peer review. It is considered a duty that has no direct remuneration. I would love to know what fields and journals are being effected most.

Posted by: AmishDude at February 26, 2014 07:48 AM (T0NGe)

90 This happens with a lot of the "art" in modern art museums. People are afraid to call it a piece of shit (which it invariably is).

Dismissing something you can't understand as "shit" isn't any better than promoting it without reading it/asking questions.

Posted by: HR, watching scripts run at February 26, 2014 07:48 AM (ZKzrr)

91

Now you know how I was published.

Posted by: Amy Bishop! at February 26, 2014 07:48 AM (D+lxs)

92 Labbé zat Fanch for "labia?"

Posted by: Citizen X at February 26, 2014 07:48 AM (7ObY1)

93 A real Gibberish Generator http://tinyurl.com/4aqn2

Posted by: ExSnipe at February 26, 2014 07:49 AM (LKJt3)

94 Ahhhh impact factor.

What a hilarious thing.

Take a certain journal of Bioethics, perhaps published in America (figure it out.)

It has been suggested that they are more or less rigging Impact factor by citing their own papers in articles that aren't counted towards the total number of papers published.
(Briefly Impact factor, IF, is just a simple ratio, number of citations/number of published papers. But certain papers, editorials, responses, etc, don't count in the denominator. So one can see how easy it is to fuck with that number.)

It's odd though the tension between journals (who want high IF) and PIs who want high publication numbers (and high IF if possible, but mostly the former.)

Posted by: tsrblke, PhD(c) (No Really!) at February 26, 2014 11:46 AM (hq5sb)



I'm low enough on the totem pole where the number and prestige level of papers published doesn't impact me negatively on my performance reviews.  That stuff is more for the PhD's and low level managers out to make a name for themselves.  Someone still has to be back in the lab to make science happen.


*notices Miss Sakamoto's beauty*



Posted by: EC at February 26, 2014 07:49 AM (GQ8sn)

95 Be sure to read my latest scientific paper entitled, "Hidden Heat 10,000 Leagues Under The Sea And The Tao of The Sex Poodle."

Posted by: Al Gorrhythm , Esq. at February 26, 2014 07:49 AM (UzPAd)

96 One of my first deja-vu glitch-in-the-Matrix moments was when, in the midst of my post secondary indoctrination, I noticed that 90% of my textbooks and nearly 100% of the academic papers I read were just bullshit with extraordinary, made-up vocabulary.

It's an entire industry made up of people with an unspoken mutual agreement to let one person's abject bullshit slide as long as the favor is returned.

Posted by: grognard at February 26, 2014 07:49 AM (/29Nl)

97 off sock

Posted by: Guy Mohawk at February 26, 2014 07:49 AM (n0DEs)

98 Get ahold of the program , ace . Since no one reads the posts you could save yourself some time .

Posted by: Bill D. Cat at February 26, 2014 07:49 AM (XWw96)

99 "Science" now is mostly "grant begging," "bias confirmation" and a bit of engineering (that is practically applying things we know.) And we can do that with shitty mouse models, in fact we can do that better with shitty mouse models, so why bother fighting for real science. Posted by: tsrblke, PhD(c) (No Really!) at February 26, 2014 11:38 AM (hq5sb) It's indistinguishable from alchemy. In fact, I'd argue alchemy had more exacting standards.

Posted by: AmishDude at February 26, 2014 07:50 AM (T0NGe)

100 Sixteen appeared in publications by Springer, which is headquartered in Heidelberg, Germany, and more than 100 were published by the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE), based in New York

Posted by: thunderb at February 26, 2014 07:50 AM (zOTsN)

101 Reminds me of this in the field of philosophy: http://tinyurl.com/q6a5zxb

Posted by: RS at February 26, 2014 07:50 AM (YAGV/)

102 Posted by: Heralder at February 26, 2014 11:43 AM (/Mxso) The vast majority of scientists don't understand the complex stats models being used in papers (even if they're using them.) A whole shitload of papers have been retracted after actual stats people go over them and go "WTF?!"

Posted by: tsrblke, PhD(c) (No Really!) at February 26, 2014 07:50 AM (hq5sb)

103 OT but went back and forth between channels last night and caught a bit of Good Will Hunting. The part about the Math professor not knowing who former recognized mathematician Ted Kazinski was is comical . You can tell the script was written by kids.

Posted by: See You Next Tuesday at February 26, 2014 07:50 AM (DAevm)

104 93 I think it's Greek from a Molon Labe T-Shirt. Come and take it.

Posted by: Boss Moss at February 26, 2014 07:50 AM (6bMeY)

105 Science? You keepa using that word... I done think it means what you think it means...

Posted by: Inigo, global wamring sceptic and Dread Pirate at February 26, 2014 07:50 AM (84gbM)

106 You realize I'm picturing you as Freya now, right?

 

Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD. Mmmm. Blondies with whipped cream. at February 26, 2014 11:46 AM (VtjlW)

 

*preens*

Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Assault Hobbit [/s][/u][/b][/i] at February 26, 2014 07:50 AM (4df7R)

107 More proof that "peer review" is not all its cracked up to be.  Nobody wants to review other people's work.  As long as Dr. Smith isn't attacking my work, who cares what he does?  I'll just ask my graduate student to do the peer review for me.  And he's new, inexperienced, and lacking in self confidence in the scientific community.  So he certainly isn't going to contradict an established scientist like Dr. Smith.  So maybe he'll point out a few minor details and that's it.

Meanwhile, I got my paper back from a peer review.  So they want me to do redo experiment X with different parameters?  Screw that!  I don't have time or funding for that crap, so I'll just write a paragraph to the editor justifying why their suggestion is stupid.  The edito doesn't know any better; it's my word against the reviewer.  Or maybe the editor sent it back to the reviewer.  And since there's no way in hell I'm going to request a reviewer who isn't supportive of my work, the reviewer will undoubtedly say it's not worth the time to argue again.  So my work gets published. 

Meanwhile, while all of this is happening, I received two more emails in broken English from Chinese and Indian "scholars" saying how much they admire my work and want to work in my lab.  And there's absolutely no indication that these scholars have any idea what I do.  Oh, and my graduate student received some of these emails too, and he doesn't even have a lab!

So yeah, I'm not surprised these made it through.  And I'm not surprised that Chinese grad students desperate to get to the States would inflate their stats this way.  Welcome to the real world, academia.

Posted by: SkepticalMI at February 26, 2014 07:51 AM (Jc3Ea)

108 In the previous thread, I mentioned Michael Bellesile's notorious book "Arming America".  Liberals swooned.  Then cried.

Posted by: mrp at February 26, 2014 07:51 AM (JBggj)

109 So Boss Moss, you trying to take their labia...  oh my!!!

Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at February 26, 2014 07:51 AM (dDf+N)

110

While in grad school for dentistry, a friend of a friend did a master's thesis on a totally bogus subject just to see if he could get it approved. The subject was "Oral Ulceration and Trauma to the Lingual Frenum Subsuquent to Oral Sexual Intercourse". The student "documented" dozens of cases of apthus ulcers on the lingual frenum (the strap under your tounge to the floor of the mouth). In order to get it past his "peer committee" he chose them carfully so that he could "cite" their prior publications as references. He managed to publish with only 1 re-write and got his Masters. His research "proved" that it was more likely to occur in men.....because women could give head without sticking out their tongue....except in lesbians for whom it occured more often than in men. Ahhhhh! SCIENCE!

 

Posted by: MrObvious at February 26, 2014 07:52 AM (jgcLl)

111 For some inexplicable reason this story tickles my funny bone!! LMAO

Posted by: Jenny2 at February 26, 2014 07:52 AM (2dN+R)

112

You don't let me do anything! I hate you!



*door slam*


 

Posted by: teenaged Earth at February 26, 2014 11:46 AM (t8ySh)

 

 

I laughed.  A LOT.

Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Assault Hobbit [/s][/u][/b][/i] at February 26, 2014 07:52 AM (4df7R)

113 There are scientists (usually University types) who do little but try to replicate results for the purpose of refuting papers published in scientific journals. And there should be, because that's how science is supposed to work.

Posted by: Hollowpoint at February 26, 2014 07:52 AM (SY2Kh)

114 There is a long history of journalists and researchers getting spoof papers accepted in conferences or by journals to reveal weaknesses in academic quality controls — from a fake paper published by physicist Alan Sokal of New York University in the journal Social Text in 1996, to a sting operation by US reporter John Bohannon published in Science in 2013, in which he got more than 150 open-access journals to accept a deliberately flawed study for publication. Labbé emphasizes that the nonsense computer science papers all appeared in subscription offerings. In his view, there is little evidence that open-access publishers — which charge fees to publish manuscripts — necessarily have less stringent peer review than subscription publishers. heh frauds

Posted by: thunderb at February 26, 2014 07:53 AM (zOTsN)

115 Posted by: thunderb at February 26, 2014 11:50 AM (zOTsN) Those are the ones he was able to check for... Who knows what other periodicals this has 'influenced'.

Posted by: Romeo13 at February 26, 2014 07:53 AM (84gbM)

116 When did it become the role of science to hector and excommunicate unbelievers and climate heretics?

Posted by: Boss Moss at February 26, 2014 07:53 AM (6bMeY)

117 MWR, yeah the Earth was going through a difficult time back then.  Had a Moon for a zit.

Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at February 26, 2014 07:53 AM (dDf+N)

118

alexthechick:

A really short Freya.

 

Posted by: Kristophr at February 26, 2014 11:46 AM (c6N69)

 

 

Me?  Or AtC?

 

Admittedly, by    Norse goddess proportions, yes, I would    say I'm really short compared to Freya.

Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Assault Hobbit [/s][/u][/b][/i] at February 26, 2014 07:53 AM (4df7R)

119 Dismissing something you can't understand as "shit" isn't any better than promoting it without reading it/asking questions.

Posted by: HR, watching scripts run at February 26, 2014 11:48 AM (ZKzrr)

I think you're right.  I also think the case I mentioned doesn't necessarily mean dismissal of things one can't understand.  My favorite story recently was a maid at a museum who accidentally threw out an installation piece.  She had good reason to, it was cardboard and cookie crumbs and crumpled newspaper.  Apparently it was meant to draw our attention to environmental issues. 

Did she just not understand it, or was the fact that someone arranged garbage on the floor of a museum and everyone called it art actually people ignoring the fact that it was just a fraud spreading shit around and calling it art?

Posted by: Heralder at February 26, 2014 07:54 AM (/Mxso)

120 120 Scientific Papers Withdrawn After Being Proven to be Gibberish.
No, Actual Computer-Generated Gibberish.

 

 

Actually, ace, shouldn't you edit the title of this post to read "120 ALLEGEDLY Scientific Papers Withdrawn...?"  

Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Assault Hobbit [/s][/u][/b][/i] at February 26, 2014 07:54 AM (4df7R)

121 MWR: I have been given no clues to AtC's stature.

Posted by: Kristophr at February 26, 2014 07:55 AM (c6N69)

122 But science is a concrete immovable edifice that can never be changed.

Posted by: Boss Moss at February 26, 2014 07:55 AM (6bMeY)

123 If I only had this program when I was in College.

Posted by: Content Auto Generated by SCIgen at February 26, 2014 07:55 AM (D+lxs)

124 Recently, the bio research corporation AmGen had an analysis done of their body of work and found that a large percentage was trash:
"A few years ago, scientists at the Thousand Oaks biotech firm Amgen set out to double-check the results of 53 landmark papers in their fields of cancer research and blood biology.
"The idea was to make sure that research on which Amgen was spending millions of development dollars still held up. They figured that a few of the studies would fail the test — that the original results couldn't be reproduced because the findings were especially novel or described fresh therapeutic approaches.
+But what they found was startling: Of the 53 landmark papers, only six could be proved valid.+
http://tinyurl.com/k8hkunm
Here's the thing: I don't think this is a sudden, modern surge of fraud and confusion. I don't think this is new. I just think the transparency and finding OUT about it is new. I think this crap has been going on all along, maybe not to as large a degree, but always there.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at February 26, 2014 07:56 AM (zfY+H)

125 MWR: I have been given no clues to AtC's stature. RACK.

Posted by: rickb223 at February 26, 2014 07:56 AM (CRyse)

126 Kristophr, if you keep this up there will be no statuesque Valkyrie on your doorstep, just a plain cardboard box making strange noises. 

Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at February 26, 2014 07:56 AM (dDf+N)

127 Ptolemy: The Science is settled!

Posted by: Kristophr at February 26, 2014 07:56 AM (c6N69)

128 89  Might want to check for papers in the Global Warming category... may be where the mythical consensus came from...

Posted by: Romeo13 at February 26, 2014 11:48 AM (84gbM)


Several years ago I saw a post on one of those anti-warming blogs from a guy who had been referenced as one of those "many peer reviewers" who supposedly reached that consensus.



He had sent a letter to the UN commision requesting his name be removed from the paper because he had not done a complete review and the comments on the area he looked at were not incorporated.



He posted the letter back from the commission which stated they had never said anything about a "consensus" of all these peer reviewers.  They said the whole thing was made up by the press.


Posted by: Vic[/i] at February 26, 2014 07:56 AM (T2V/1)

129 As part of My new economic stimulus program, I will pay $500/word for high quality scientific papers such as these.

Posted by: Barack Hussein Obama at February 26, 2014 07:56 AM (tv7DV)

130 Cyril Labbe once threw an aluminum can in the regular garbage.

Posted by: HuffPo at February 26, 2014 07:56 AM (sWgE+)

131 Speaking of gibberish, my last sentence was a doozy.  I think I got lost halfway through it.

Posted by: Heralder at February 26, 2014 07:56 AM (/Mxso)

132 >> Apparently, in science, one gross method of ranking your authority is by counting up the number of times you're cited in other scientific papers. Reminds me of this: "Judge Smails: Ty, what did you shoot today? Ty Webb: Oh, Judge, I don't keep score. Judge Smails: Then how do you measure yourself with other golfers? Ty Webb: By height." RIP, Harold Ramis

Posted by: Andy at February 26, 2014 07:57 AM (OcYSE)

133 Texas Gibberish Generator? Sheila Jackson Lee

Posted by: thunderb at February 26, 2014 07:57 AM (zOTsN)

134 Something like what happened here is ridiculous.  Just ridiculous.  And the journals should have quietly taken these studies down without anyone knowing, because this sort of thing could really shake the faith of the public in established science.  Maybe delete all the emails too, before some asshole files a FOIA.  That would help.

Posted by: Michael Mann at February 26, 2014 07:57 AM (B5y+v)

135 Anna Puma:

Probably safer that way. My wife is 5'2", and she gets violent when I mention competition.

Posted by: Kristophr at February 26, 2014 07:57 AM (c6N69)

136 Apparently, in science, one gross method of ranking your authority is by counting up the number of times you're cited in other scientific papers. ... counting those who cite those who cited you, as if any of them tested or researched results. Repeat a lie to make it true. That's been discussed many years, media trick to fabricate their own record out of a lie to erase a REAL record of truth. Advertising propagandists have known this forever. Fascists mastered the art, "Ministry of Truth". And if you don't buy what they sell, you're tot and everything you own is usurped by your ubermench destroyers. WWII propagandists realized that the more unbelievable the lie, the more quickly people fall for it as if truth. movie: Our Man in Havana, based on real "Agent Garbo" WWII fake-spy for Britain from Spain.

Posted by: panzernashorn at February 26, 2014 07:57 AM (MhA4j)

137 "How many of the papers were written by Machines For Sale?"


Damn, I miss those posts.  I've searched for them, but can never find them.

 Also, Freya:  http://tinyurl.com/lwa3rfx

Posted by: Sharkman at February 26, 2014 07:57 AM (TM1p8)

138 The science is out? The science is out?!?

Posted by: CNN News Anchor at February 26, 2014 07:58 AM (Aif/5)

139 Also, Freya: http://tinyurl.com/lwa3rfx

Posted by: Sharkman at February 26, 2014 11:57 AM (TM1p



Doesn't the snow get in there?

Posted by: EC at February 26, 2014 07:59 AM (GQ8sn)

140 There IS a movie script generator...

http://www.bmyers.com/public/807.cfm

Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at February 26, 2014 07:59 AM (dDf+N)

141 If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with science.

Posted by: Boss Moss at February 26, 2014 07:59 AM (6bMeY)

142 OT: Drudge links a story about since legalization there are far more cases of dogs eating marijuana. The accompanying photo is hilarious.

Posted by: WalrusRex at February 26, 2014 07:59 AM (Hx5uv)

143 Here's the thing: I don't think this is a sudden, modern surge of fraud and confusion. I don't think this is new. I just think the transparency and finding OUT about it is new. I think this crap has been going on all along, maybe not to as large a degree, but always there. Posted by: Christopher Taylor this the internet has only made it easier to find the fraud, if you are willing to look for it

Posted by: thunderb at February 26, 2014 08:00 AM (zOTsN)

144 Posted by: EC at February 26, 2014 11:49 AM (GQ8sn) Heh. My first boss (the "towering figure in science" according to a random person at another school I met who wanted to shake my hand for having worked with him*) published everything in PNAS, why? Member of the Academy, track II submission, easy peasy. PNAS was good enough the Post-docs didn't bulk. My second boss (the social scientist) was more concerned with IF, so I suggested several ways to improve it (PLOS, PNAS, etc.) but was shot down because he forgot to put "publishing fees" in his grant. Eh, such is life I suppose. *Said "random person" was an interviewer from my med school applicant days. Funniest part ever was when he said "So do you get to actually meet with [towering figure]." I was so stunned, I actually paused and said "I work in his lab, I have two weekly meetings with him, and random drop ins...how exactly do you run your lab?"

Posted by: tsrblke, PhD(c) (No Really!) at February 26, 2014 08:00 AM (hq5sb)

145 Sheila Jackson Lee Posted by: thunderb at February 26, 2014 11:57 AM (zOTsN) the gall, putting her Town Hall audience on hold as she took a misc. cell phone call. Priority.

Posted by: panzernashorn at February 26, 2014 08:00 AM (MhA4j)

146 My wife recently did a nice rendering of her version of Freya. It was just a totally naked chick with a great body.  Apparently the Danes have an interesting take on her.

Posted by: Heralder at February 26, 2014 08:00 AM (/Mxso)

147 117 When did it become the role of science to hector and excommunicate unbelievers and climate heretics? Posted by: Boss Moss at February 26, 2014 11:53 AM (6bMeY) When science got tied to academia... we were screwed... You see... Schools are there to TEACH... and they must therefore stand behind their body of knowledge... they must KNOW, before they can TEACH... which is their primary job. Science is all about what you DO NOT know... Two very differing outlooks... which are not compatible in a single institution IMO.

Posted by: Romeo13 at February 26, 2014 08:00 AM (84gbM)

148 I work with these people every day.  Well, I work.  All they do is try to get published and look for grant money to support themselves.   God knows they would never make it in the real world.  Academia is incestuous.

Posted by: PagirlinNC at February 26, 2014 08:00 AM (mPKiR)

149 MIT had invented a program called "SCIgen" to generate, by computer, random scientific-sounding papers. They did this for amusement. We also a invented program called "SCOAMFgen" to generate, by computer, random atonal , impressive-sounding presidential speeches. Nobody would be fooled by it though.

Posted by: MIT [/i] [/b] at February 26, 2014 08:00 AM (5ikDv)

150 My second boss (the social scientist) was more concerned with IF, so I suggested several ways to improve it (PLOS, PNAS, etc.) but was shot down because he forgot to put "publishing fees" in his grant.

Ah yes....ye olde "fees".

Posted by: EC at February 26, 2014 08:01 AM (GQ8sn)

151 Follow the money trail. Grants.

Posted by: artisanal 'ette at February 26, 2014 08:02 AM (IXrOn)

152 "My first boss (the "towering figure in science" according to a random person at another school I met who wanted to shake my hand for having worked with him*) published everything in PNAS"
Wait... he published everything with his penis?

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at February 26, 2014 08:02 AM (zfY+H)

153 @147 My wife recently did a nice rendering of her version of Freya. It was just a totally naked chick with a great body. You know the rules.

Posted by: pics or it didn't happen [/i] [/b] at February 26, 2014 08:02 AM (5ikDv)

154 Oh, and look for tenured positions.  They also do that.

Posted by: PagirlinNC at February 26, 2014 08:02 AM (mPKiR)

155 Today's economics 101 lesson People respond to incentives.

Posted by: Flatbush Joe at February 26, 2014 08:03 AM (ZPrif)

156 Did she just not understand it, or was the fact that someone arranged garbage on the floor of a museum and everyone called it art actually people ignoring the fact that it was just a fraud spreading shit around and calling it art?

Posted by: Heralder at February 26, 2014 11:54 AM (/Mxso)

 

That same thing happened    back in 2001   with a Damien Hirst installation.

 

WARNING:  NYT LINK

http://tinyurl.com/m2nkotk


 

 

"LONDON, Oct. 19 (2001)— An installation that the popular and pricey British artist Damien Hirst assembled in the window of a Mayfair gallery on Tuesday was dismantled and discarded the same night by a cleaning man who said he thought it was garbage.

 

The work -- a collection of half-full coffee cups, ashtrays with cigarette butts, empty beer bottles, a paint-smeared palette, an easel, a ladder, paintbrushes, candy wrappers and newspaper pages strewn about the floor -- was the centerpiece of an exhibition of limited-edition art that the Eyestorm Gallery showed off at a V.I.P. preopening party on Tuesday night.

 

Mr. Hirst, 35, the best known member of a generation of conceptual artists known as the Young British Artists, had put it together and signed off on it, and Heidi Reitmaier, head of special projects for the gallery, put its sales value at ''six figures'' or hundreds of thousands of dollars. ''It's an original Damien Hirst,'' she explained...."

 

 

This is what it looks like:   http://bit.ly/1hgtti3

 

 

Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Assault Hobbit [/s][/u][/b][/i] at February 26, 2014 08:03 AM (4df7R)

157 When my friend and I were in high school, we did something like this to generate random modern poetry. He wrote the program for an HP-25 (and later an HP-67) programmable calculator. We did this as therapy to cope with a Modern Poetry class we were both compelled to take. It turned out that the poetry generated by this program was FAR BETTER than the stuff we were reading in class.

Posted by: Otis Criblecoblis at February 26, 2014 08:03 AM (IlZPo)

158 Posted by: Christopher Taylor at February 26, 2014 11:56 AM (zfY+H) Thanks I forgot about that (files it away.) See above with STATS also people repeating experiments (or designing them in a stacked way) to get a preferred outcome. It ain't science anymore baby! Frankly I'd like to engage in a new inquisition of sorts, but I'd need support .

Posted by: tsrblke, PhD(c) (No Really!) at February 26, 2014 08:03 AM (hq5sb)

159 When did it become the role of science to hector and excommunicate unbelievers and climate heretics? Posted by: Boss Moss didn't Galileo get sentenced to death for going against the popular, science is settled, academic and religious thought on the planets?

Posted by: thunderb at February 26, 2014 08:03 AM (zOTsN)

160

Fake of accurate!

 

Posted by: Dan Rather at February 26, 2014 08:04 AM (1+kJ5)

161 The Doper Dog pix was certainly funny.

Posted by: backhoe at February 26, 2014 08:04 AM (ULH4o)

162 149 I work with these people every day. Well, I work. All they do is try to get published and look for grant money to support themselves. God knows they would never make it in the real world. Academia is incestuous.

Posted by: PagirlinNC at February 26, 2014 12:00 PM (mPKiR)



Heaven forbid one of these clowns gets a job in nuclear power and does a safety review on some change in procedures or plant equipment.  If they do it the way they do their current peer reviews and papers they will go to jail.

Posted by: Vic[/i] at February 26, 2014 08:04 AM (T2V/1)

163 I used to work with a guy who had previously work for a school system.
He routinely submitted grant requests and realized after a while that there was a formula to the grant requests.

All grant requests were 20 pages long.
The first page had to describe the purpose of the grant request.
The last page had to show the monetary outlays and where they were going.
In the 18 pages, in between the first and the last, could be virtually anything.
My friend had then created a program, much like SCIgen, to generate 18 pages of semi-intellectual ghibberish.

It worked for years until finally, somebody actually read the 18 pages in the middle and called to ask about it.

Posted by: Islamic Rage Boy at February 26, 2014 08:04 AM (e8kgV)

164 "dismantled and discarded the same night by a cleaning man who said he thought it was garbage"
And he was right.
The truth is, there's so much money in scientific research now that fraud and misuse of funds is inevitable.
Like those NYC cops and firemen defrauding the 9/11 fund. Money isn't the root of all evil but the Bible does say that the LOVE of money is the root of ALL SORTS of evil.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at February 26, 2014 08:05 AM (zfY+H)

165 Ah yes....ye olde "fees". Posted by: EC at February 26, 2014 12:01 PM (GQ8sn) Eh, for PLoS it sorta makes sense. They have to pay for it somehow. For PNAS, I got nothing. Posted by: Christopher Taylor at February 26, 2014 12:02 PM (zfY+H) Dude my field is full of people with thick accents. That joke is not only old to me. It just bounces right off now .

Posted by: tsrblke, PhD(c) (No Really!) at February 26, 2014 08:05 AM (hq5sb)

166 This is what it looks like: http://bit.ly/1hgtti3

Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Assault Hobbit at February 26, 2014 12:03 PM (4df7R)



My oldest stepson is sitting on billions he doesn't know about.



Posted by: EC at February 26, 2014 08:05 AM (GQ8sn)

167 When did it become the role of science to hector and excommunicate unbelievers and climate heretics? Right around the time politicians started using science to gain power instead of making lives easier. Or, as Bill Engvall would say, "There's your sign."

Posted by: BackwardsBoy, who did not vote for this shit[/i][/u][/b][/s] at February 26, 2014 08:06 AM (0HooB)

168 I suppose now that it's legal, people won't be nearly as cautious about where they keep their "stash". I expect lots of CO kids/pets will be finding funny-smelling baggies around the house.

Posted by: Lincolntf at February 26, 2014 08:06 AM (ZshNr)

169 John Schindler ‏@20committee Putin orders massive military exercises in Western Russia starting Friday. Nothing to do with #Ukraine, amirite?

Posted by: Flatbush Joe at February 26, 2014 08:07 AM (ZPrif)

170 The relevant conference proceedings were peer reviewed, she confirms — making it more mystifying that the papers were accepted. You'll have to pass it, to find out what's in it.

Posted by: artisanal 'ette at February 26, 2014 08:07 AM (IXrOn)

171 Posted by: Islamic Rage Boy at February 26, 2014 12:04 PM (e8kgV) No that middle 18 pages is supposed to be how your project will cure every disease and make all the children of the world hold hands and sing. (I stole that last bit from someone whom I'm forgetting right now.) Therein lies one of the problems, from the outset the scientists are told to flat out lie about their impact. And it goes downhill from there.

Posted by: tsrblke, PhD(c) (No Really!) at February 26, 2014 08:08 AM (hq5sb)

172


didn't Galileo get sentenced to death for going against the popular, science is settled, academic and religious thought on the planets?

Posted by: thunderb at February 26, 2014 12:03 PM (zOTsN)

 

 

Don't you know that sometimes facts are   just facts and there's no reason to listen to the opinions of the other side?

Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Assault Hobbit [/s][/u][/b][/i] at February 26, 2014 08:08 AM (4df7R)

173 160  didn't Galileo get sentenced to death for going against the popular, science is settled, academic and religious thought on the planets?

Posted by: thunderb at February 26, 2014 12:03 PM (zOTsN)



He was sentenced to house arrest

Posted by: Vic[/i] at February 26, 2014 08:08 AM (T2V/1)

174 I expect it's all just lace wigs in fancy, dressed up language. Written by Machines for Sale.

Posted by: tcn at February 26, 2014 08:09 AM (3kDQa)

175

164 -

 

No doubt.  Anyone familiar with grant  proposal  writing knows it's a formula.   While I would not recommend putting gibberish into them, it  often matters less what you are requesting funding for than it is that you know the proper way to make your request.

 

No doubt the world is full of wonderful  ideas that never get funded because the  idea people have no idea how to  properly request funding.

 

That's my fantasy belief, anyway. 

Posted by: BurtTC at February 26, 2014 08:09 AM (TOk1P)

176 didn't Galileo get sentenced to death for going
against the popular, science is settled, academic and religious thought
on the planets?

Posted by: thunderb at February 26, 2014 12:03 PM (zOTsN)


He was sentenced to house arrest

Posted by: Vic at February 26, 2014 12:08 PM (T2V/1)


Did you see it happen?




*runs*



Posted by: EC at February 26, 2014 08:09 AM (GQ8sn)

177 Mr. Hirst, 35, the best known member of a generation of conceptual artists known as the Young British Artists, had put it together and signed off on it, and Heidi Reitmaier, head of special projects for the gallery, put its sales value at ''six figures'' or hundreds of thousands of dollars. ''It's an original Damien Hirst,'' she explained...." He maybe should've dialed down that "art imitates life" thingy just a tad.

Posted by: BackwardsBoy, who did not vote for this shit[/i][/u][/b][/s] at February 26, 2014 08:09 AM (0HooB)

178 OT the version of Kashmir on Celebration Day pretty much kicks ass.

Just thought I'd point that out.

Posted by: grognard at February 26, 2014 08:09 AM (/29Nl)

179

Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Assault Hobbit at February 26, 2014 12:03 PM (4df7R)

Amazing isn't it?  Moreso that people go to see this stuff.  They look at it and stroke their chins thoughfully.  The whole situation is a fraud.

Posted by: Heralder at February 26, 2014 08:10 AM (/Mxso)

180 Galileo was threatened with death, but made his case so effectively and had such political connections that they settled with spanking his wrist.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at February 26, 2014 08:10 AM (zfY+H)

181 The Gib people do no appreciate being mocced in this whey, and/are preparing a response.

Posted by: whoever at February 26, 2014 08:11 AM (kGSN0)

182 speaking of fake science, I watched an old 1955 movie last night, Kiss Me Deadly, based on a Mickey Spillane Mike Hammer book. It was a good movie with a Raiders of the Lost Arc type ending. Although Mike doesn't know it, what everybody is chasing is a small box containing radioactive material. At the end an evil vicious bimbo who also doesn't know what's in it kills her partner/lover and opens the box to see what's in it. It releases so much heat it sets the girl and the whole beach house on fire as Mike Hammer and his secretary crawl away into the ocean.

Posted by: WalrusRex at February 26, 2014 08:11 AM (Hx5uv)

183 Even with this revelation, Ike Antkare is still more deserving of the Nobel Peace Prize than Barack Obama.

Posted by: jwest at February 26, 2014 08:11 AM (u2a4R)

184 Amazing isn't it? Moreso that people go to see this stuff. They look at it and stroke their chins thoughfully. The whole situation is a fraud.

Posted by: Heralder at February 26, 2014 12:10 PM (/Mxso)



It is intellectual masturbation.  Instead of touching themselves, they are stroking their own egos.


The emperor has no clothes, but it's apparently damn impressive when you pretend he does.

Posted by: grognard at February 26, 2014 08:11 AM (/29Nl)

185 didn't Galileo get sentenced to death for going against the popular, science is settled, academic and religious thought on the planets?
Posted by: thunderb at February 26, 2014 12:03 PM (zOTsN)

No.

Posted by: Sean Bannion [/i][/s][/u][/b] at February 26, 2014 08:11 AM (6T8Ay)

186 Also, Freya: http://tinyurl.com/lwa3rfx

Posted by: Sharkman at February 26, 2014 11:57 AM (TM1p

Doesn't the snow get in there?

Posted by: EC at February 26, 2014 11:59 AM (GQ8sn)


Yes, and as her Loyal Servant, it is my obligation, nay, DUTY, to lick that area until it warms.  And count myself lucky I'm not beheaded for my trouble.


Hmmmmm, now where were those Dominatrix Ads in The Stranger . . . ?

Posted by: Sharkman at February 26, 2014 08:11 AM (TM1p8)

187 >>I expect lots of CO kids/pets will be finding funny-smelling baggies around the house.

Yep, and eating pot baked goods. There have been recent cases, but the media is not all that interested in connecting the dots (each one is treated as an anomaly).

Posted by: Lizzy at February 26, 2014 08:12 AM (aq/zi)

188 "No doubt the world is full of wonderful ideas that never get funded because the idea people have no idea how to properly request funding."
One of the great injustices of the world is that all the talent and good work in the world matters nothing if you aren't any good at selling yourself. And conversely, if you're great at selling yourself you can get by without talent or good work at all.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at February 26, 2014 08:12 AM (zfY+H)

189 He was sentenced to house arrest Posted by: Vic at February 26, 2014 12:08 PM (T2V/1) Did you see it happen? *runs* Who do you think was the bailiff?

Posted by: rickb223 at February 26, 2014 08:12 AM (CRyse)

190 177  Did you see it happen?


*runs*

Posted by: EC at February 26, 2014 12:09 PM (GQ8sn)


Actually I have read that he was really found guilty and sentenced because he was an obnoxious turd and pissed everybody off.



Kind of like the Piers Morgan of the 1600s.

Posted by: Vic[/i] at February 26, 2014 08:12 AM (T2V/1)

191 WalrusRex:

Repoman ... "Best car in the lot!"

Posted by: Kristophr at February 26, 2014 08:12 AM (c6N69)

192 One of the great injustices of the world is that all the talent and good work in the world matters nothing if you aren't any good at selling yourself. And conversely, if you're great at selling yourself you can get by without talent or good work at all.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at February 26, 2014 12:12 PM (zfY+H)

Absolutely.

Posted by: Heralder at February 26, 2014 08:13 AM (/Mxso)

193

The "peer review process" is nothing of the sort.  People aren't actually reviewing just passing things through.

 

 

My 6th grade book reports got more scrutiny than this.

Yes, elementary school had a more rigorous fact-finding and review system than these scientists are being given - and they wonder why people do not trust scientists?

Posted by: Mikey NTH - The Winter of Discontent will End! The Flowers of Fury will be here for Spring Planting at February 26, 2014 08:13 AM (hLRSq)

194 Modern art is art fraud it seems.

Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at February 26, 2014 08:14 AM (dDf+N)

195 Purple monkey dishwasher. The science is settled.

Posted by: Cato at February 26, 2014 08:14 AM (OdVTN)

196 Power of competition in one pic, also known as why cable monopolies suck: http://cdn3.sbnation.com/assets/4052515/cablevsphone2.jpg

Posted by: Flatbush Joe at February 26, 2014 08:14 AM (ZPrif)

197 Actually I have read that he was really found guilty and sentenced because he was an obnoxious turd and pissed everybody off.

Kind of like the Piers Morgan of the 1600s.

Posted by: Vic at February 26, 2014 12:12 PM (T2V/1)


It was not the scientific part he got wrong--he was okay on that. What he did was tell the Church that because the Sun was the center of the solar system, the Church no longer mattered a damn. Way to piss off the powers that be. So, the science didn't bother anybody. It's when he decided science trumped God that he got in trouble.



Any parallels there with "science" today? Hmmm....

Posted by: tcn at February 26, 2014 08:14 AM (3kDQa)

198 I would like to know how and why some scientist would cite one of these papers.

Posted by: whoever at February 26, 2014 08:14 AM (kGSN0)

199 http://tinyurl.com/k8hkunm

Here's the thing: I don't think this is a sudden, modern surge of fraud and confusion. I don't think this is new. I just think the transparency and finding OUT about it is new. I think this crap has been going on all along, maybe not to as large a degree, but always there.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at February 26, 2014 11:56 AM (zfY+H)


There are billions invested in cancer research.  Everyone wants a piece of the pie and some of them will do anything to get it.  Same thing for AIDS and diabetes, just to name two.

Posted by: Sherry McEvil, Stiletto Corsettes, think mink. at February 26, 2014 08:15 AM (kXoT0)

200 196 Purple monkey dishwasher.



I could use one of those. Where can I pick one up?

Posted by: tcn at February 26, 2014 08:15 AM (3kDQa)

201 Scientific delirium madness!

Posted by: McGuinn at February 26, 2014 08:15 AM (krHnX)

202 195Modern art is art fraud it seems.

Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at February 26, 2014 12:14 PM (dDf+N)

Not all of it, but there is a lot of it out there.

Posted by: Heralder at February 26, 2014 08:15 AM (/Mxso)

203 There are billions invested in cancer research. Everyone wants a piece of the pie and some of them will do anything to get it. Same thing for AIDS and diabetes, just to name two.


And there's not a dime if it gets cured, so what does that tell us?

Posted by: tcn at February 26, 2014 08:15 AM (3kDQa)

204 201 196
>>Purple monkey dishwasher.
>I could use one of those. Where can I pick one up?

By word of mouth.

Posted by: Kristophr at February 26, 2014 08:16 AM (c6N69)

205 Multiple layers of painstaking fact checking editorial oversight. Performed by Top Men!

Posted by: BackwardsBoy, who did not vote for this shit[/i][/u][/b][/s] at February 26, 2014 08:16 AM (0HooB)

206

189 -

 

Amen.  Mediocrity is the way of the world.  Genius is  often  not recognized,  usually  not appreciated, and all too  often not funded. 

Posted by: BurtTC at February 26, 2014 08:17 AM (TOk1P)

207 Posted by: Heralder at February 26, 2014 12:15 PM (/Mxso) I am totally legit and in now way just a cry for attention.

Posted by: Piss Christ at February 26, 2014 08:17 AM (hq5sb)

208 Never socking that shit again.

Posted by: tsrblke, PhD(c) (No Really!) at February 26, 2014 08:17 AM (hq5sb)

209 Kiss Me Deadly, the Lita Ford Version:  http://tinyurl.com/kcfsars

Posted by: Sharkman at February 26, 2014 08:17 AM (TM1p8)

210 The story about Galileo is not as sexy as the movie version.  Just like a certain story about angry Christians killing Hypatia and torching the Library at Alexandria.  Yes Hypatia was killed by Christians but the Library was rebuilt and lasted until Islam conquered Egyp, then the Library was finally destroyed.

Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at February 26, 2014 08:17 AM (dDf+N)

211 Welp, just had my review. Asked for a promotion, so we'll see how that goes.

Posted by: DangerGirl and her Sanity Prod (tm) at February 26, 2014 08:17 AM (4cA6A)

212

199 -

 

Two  words:  Key Words Search.

Posted by: BurtTC at February 26, 2014 08:18 AM (TOk1P)

213 209 Never socking that shit again. lolololol...

Posted by: akula51[/b][/i][/s] at February 26, 2014 08:18 AM (+fNrM)

214 Good luck, DG!


Posted by: EC at February 26, 2014 08:18 AM (GQ8sn)

215 204?

Yeah. A lot of us wonder about that.

Posted by: backhoe at February 26, 2014 08:18 AM (ULH4o)

216 And there's not a dime if it gets cured, so what does that tell us? Posted by: tcn at February 26, 2014 12:15 PM (3kDQa) Given the complexities of cancer it's unlikely to be cured anytime soon. Or frankly anytime in this generation, I doubt modern scientists are worried about who comes after them. Plus if you cure cancer, think of all the tail you could get.

Posted by: tsrblke, PhD(c) (No Really!) at February 26, 2014 08:19 AM (hq5sb)

217 Welp, just had my review. Asked for a promotion, so we'll see how that goes. Good luck DG!

Posted by: rickb223 at February 26, 2014 08:19 AM (CRyse)

218 Now why would someone want to do something like that?

Posted by: Village Idiot's Apprentice at February 26, 2014 11:36 AM (NHZpR)

 

 

*in his seaside compond Al Gore looks up from his throne of gold and giggles, then dives into a swimming pool full of money*

Posted by: Mikey NTH - The Winter of Discontent will End! The Flowers of Fury will be here for Spring Planting at February 26, 2014 08:19 AM (hLRSq)

219 Yeah, there isn't a conspiracy to not cure cancer.

Posted by: Flatbush Joe at February 26, 2014 08:20 AM (ZPrif)

220 "There are billions invested in cancer research. Everyone wants a piece of the pie and some of them will do anything to get it. Same thing for AIDS and diabetes, just to name two."
And given that AIDS gets about ten times the funding Cancer research does...

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at February 26, 2014 08:20 AM (zfY+H)

221 Welp, just had my review. Asked for a promotion, so we'll see how that goes. Is this about one of those "job" thingys I hear so much about? And that mythical "money?"

Posted by: BackwardsBoy, who did not vote for this shit[/i][/u][/b][/s] at February 26, 2014 08:20 AM (0HooB)

222 Were they global warming related? I fell asleep reading ONT on this iPad & it's battery is less than 20%. I don't have time to read comments on this because battery is getting lower with each minute that passes. I usually leave this plugged in during the night & prefer to read ONT on Mac, but that was doing an upgrade for security issues. O/T I put on FNC at 10 am, at 10:10 they teased that 360 million email addresses are on sale on black market. It took at least 45 minutes before they finally said it includes gmail, Yahoo, Microsoft & AOL. Nothing is safe now! My boss told me in early 2000 never to put anything in am email that you don't want anyone to read. I don't think he meant that emails would be stolen or hacked, which seems to be happening all the time now. It was Comcast mail three+ weeks ago. Last week announcement that Apple had security issues slnce April 2012.

Posted by: Carol at February 26, 2014 08:20 AM (z4WKX)

223 Never socking that shit again.


"Socking shit?   Someone get the    Whitney   on the line!    I just had a great idea for my next piece!"


-Andres Serrano

Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Assault Hobbit [/u][/i][/s][/b] at February 26, 2014 08:20 AM (4df7R)

224 Posted by: BackwardsBoy, who did not vote for this shit at February 26, 2014 12:20 PM (0HooB) I've reached that point where I'm applying for work at Aldi's .

Posted by: tsrblke, PhD(c) (No Really!) at February 26, 2014 08:21 AM (hq5sb)

225 Lot of geniuses have tried their best, with lots of funding, to find a cure. They've failed. At the same, with all the money thrown at cancer research, some have tried to chisel out as much as they can without contributing jack shit. But this is true of everything, especially when it involves the government throwing around billions of dollars.

Posted by: Flatbush Joe at February 26, 2014 08:22 AM (ZPrif)

226 Thanks guys. I was pretty straightforward. "I've been in this position for over two years and every review you've checked this box that says 'promotable within two years'. Well?" But with more tact. And waggly eyebrows.

Posted by: DangerGirl and her Sanity Prod (tm) at February 26, 2014 08:22 AM (4cA6A)

227 I've reached that point where I'm applying for work at Aldi's . Posted by: tsrblke, PhD(c) (No Really!) at February 26, 2014 12:21 PM (hq5sb)

You'll always have a job as long as you can utter the most simple of English phrases.

"You want fries with that?"

Posted by: Sean Bannion [/i][/s][/u][/b] at February 26, 2014 08:22 AM (JpC1K)

228

Going off topic to go back to something discussed in previous thread(s), I wonder if the delay on the release of the new Mad Max movie may have somthing to do with a simultaneous release of the upcoming Mad Max PC game that I just found out about?

 

I can only hope and pray that both of these releases will give us products that are much better than previous tie-in releases.

 

Resident Evil being the sole exception. Because Mila. Seriously.

Posted by: Azenogoth (Freedom or Fire) Est. 1836 at February 26, 2014 08:23 AM (v6cwT)

229 But with more tact. And waggly eyebrows.  Posted by: DangerGirl and her Sanity Prod (tm) at February 26, 2014 12:22 PM (4cA6A)

You would have been a given if you worked the bewbs in there somewhere.

Posted by: Sean Bannion [/i][/s][/u][/b] at February 26, 2014 08:23 AM (JpC1K)

230 This type of algorithm also produces tweets for Samantha Power

Posted by: McCool at February 26, 2014 08:23 AM (nCSwS)

231 In 2011 the federal appropriation for AIDS research and care in the 2011 budget was $27.2 billion. The same for cancer was $38.9 billion. AIDS got 70% of what cancer received.

Posted by: Flatbush Joe at February 26, 2014 08:23 AM (ZPrif)

232 You'll always have a job as long as you can utter the most simple of English phrases.

"You want fries with that?"

Posted by: Sean Bannion at February 26, 2014 12:22 PM (JpC1K)


Spanish accepted in California.

Posted by: grognard at February 26, 2014 08:23 AM (/29Nl)

233 I've reached that point where I'm applying for work at Aldi's I'm going to give voiceovers a try, as soon as I get my computer out of the shop, which should be this weekend. There's a studio here in town that does commercials, if I can get my foot in the door, maybe I can start my own business.

Posted by: BackwardsBoy, who did not vote for this shit[/i][/u][/b][/s] at February 26, 2014 08:24 AM (0HooB)

234

Totus has been incorporating this technology in all of JEF's speeches

Posted by: McCool at February 26, 2014 08:24 AM (nCSwS)

235 Posted by: Flatbush Joe at February 26, 2014 12:22 PM There will always be malactors. Having said that "cancer" is actually a ton of diseases with equally as many (or more) causes. I highly doubt we'll see a singular "cure" ever. Having said that for some of the cancers (a few of the lymphomas for example) we're approaching a 90% remission/survival rate. That's pretty damned close to a cure when you think about it. Not perfect, but damned close.

Posted by: tsrblke, PhD(c) (No Really!) at February 26, 2014 08:24 AM (hq5sb)

236 If any of that fucking gibber was associated with Government Grants (sarcasm, snark) then MIT should pay back every fucking cent. I think I'm clear, no?

Posted by: DefendUSA at February 26, 2014 08:25 AM (mtuMz)

237 In the Catholic world prior to Galileo's conflict with the Church, the majority of educated people subscribed to the Aristotelian geocentric view that the earth was the center of the universe and that all heavenly bodies revolved around the Earth,[51] despite the use of Copernican theories to reform the calendar in 1582.[52] Biblical references Psalm 93:1, 96:10, and 1 Chronicles 16:30 include text stating that "the world is firmly established, it cannot be moved." In the same manner, Psalm 104:5 says, "the Lord set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved." Further, Ecclesiastes 1:5 states that "And the sun rises and sets and returns to its place."[53] Galileo defended heliocentrism, and in his Letter to the Grand Duchess Christina argued that it was not contrary to passages in Scripture. He took the Augustinian position that poetry, songs, and instructions or historical statements in Scripture need not always be interpreted literally. Galileo argued that the writers of the Scripture wrote from the perspective of the terrestrial world in which the sun does rise and set. In this way Galileo claimed that Scripture discussed a different kind of "movement" of the earth, and not rotations.[54] By 1615 Galileo's writings on heliocentrism had been submitted to the Roman Inquisition, and his efforts to interpret scripture seen as a violation of the Council of Trent.[55] Attacks on the ideas of Copernicus had reached a head, and Galileo went to Rome to defend himself and Copernican ideas. In 1616, an Inquisitorial commission unanimously declared heliocentrism to be "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture." The Inquisition found that the idea of the Earth's movement "receives the same judgement in philosophy and ... in regard to theological truth it is at least erroneous in faith."[56] it seems they did have a problem with the science and told him to stop believing it, and advocating it

Posted by: thunderb at February 26, 2014 08:26 AM (zOTsN)

238 Ok, off to luch. Back in a bit.

Posted by: DangerGirl and her Sanity Prod (tm) at February 26, 2014 08:26 AM (4cA6A)

239 "In a world where..." That sounds real good in the shower.

Posted by: BackwardsBoy, who did not vote for this shit[/i][/u][/b][/s] at February 26, 2014 08:26 AM (0HooB)

240 Posted by: Sean Bannion at February 26, 2014 12:22 PM (JpC1K) My depression and despair has stages. Having worked 5+ years in fast food (and thus knowing how bad it was for me) it's the lowest stage. Incidentally, should I post here that I'm working in fast food again, y'all might want to stage some sort of intervention.

Posted by: tsrblke, PhD(c) (No Really!) at February 26, 2014 08:26 AM (hq5sb)

241 I'm going to give voiceovers a try, as soon as I get my computer out of the shop, which should be this weekend.

There's a studio here in town that does commercials, if I can get my foot in the door, maybe I can start my own business.

Posted by: BackwardsBoy, who did not vote for this shit at February 26, 2014 12:24 PM (0HooB)



"In a world where we did not vote for this shit...."



Posted by: EC at February 26, 2014 08:26 AM (GQ8sn)

242 Pope Paul V instructed Cardinal Bellarmine to deliver this finding to Galileo, and to order him to abandon the Copernican opinions. On February 26, Galileo was called to Bellarmine's residence and ordered, "to abstain completely from teaching or defending this doctrine and opinion or from discussing it... to abandon completely... the opinion that the sun stands still at the center of the world and the earth moves, and henceforth not to hold, teach, or defend it in any way whatever, either orally or in writing." -The Inquisition's injunction against Galileo, 1616.[57]

Posted by: thunderb at February 26, 2014 08:26 AM (zOTsN)

243 Clearly, the science is settled, yes?

Posted by: Advo at February 26, 2014 08:27 AM (7vbG1)

244 Good luck, DG!

Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Assault Hobbit [/u][/i][/s][/b] at February 26, 2014 08:27 AM (4df7R)

245 "In 2011 the federal appropriation for AIDS research and care in the 2011 budget was $27.2 billion. The same for cancer was $38.9 billion. AIDS got 70% of what cancer received."
That's a major shift, in the 90s it was 3:1 or more in favor of AIDS research. Cancer is enormously more important just in terms of how many people are affected.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at February 26, 2014 08:27 AM (zfY+H)

246 it seems they did have a problem with the science and told him to stop believing it, and advocating it  Posted by: thunderb at February 26, 2014 12:26 PM (zOTsN)

Yes.

And you said he got the death penalty for it.

Which he did not.

Posted by: Sean Bannion [/i][/s][/u][/b] at February 26, 2014 08:27 AM (JpC1K)

247

242: ""In a world where we did not vote for this shit....""

 

You sir owe me one new monitor.

 

Well done.

Posted by: Azenogoth (Freedom or Fire) Est. 1836 at February 26, 2014 08:28 AM (v6cwT)

248 Posted by: Christopher Taylor at February 26, 2014 12:27 PM (zfY+H) Meh, we fund whatever is currently getting the most shouts. It's a shitty ass system.

Posted by: tsrblke, PhD(c) (No Really!) at February 26, 2014 08:28 AM (hq5sb)

249 What he did was tell the Church that because the Sun was the center of the solar system, the Church no longer mattered a damn. ----- ----- ---- --- Huh? Galileo tried to obey every church ruling without giving up on the Copernican system. He was quite religious himself. His closing words, allegedly, were simply "and yet it moves". Nothing exciting and anti-clerical has ever been attributed to him I'm aware of.

Posted by: Beagle at February 26, 2014 08:28 AM (sOtz/)

250 ►“The papers are quite easy to spot,” says Labbé, who has built a website where users can test whether papers have been created using SCIgen. His detection technique, described in a study published in Scientometrics in 2012, involves searching for characteristic vocabulary generated by SCIgen.

You see, they had to figure something out, since the actual gatekeepers don't have the ability to tell the real from the fake by actually reading it. Not for the old stuff, and not for the stuff they will be publishing in the future. But rest assured, anything generated by this particular software will be weeded out.


Posted by: Anon Y. Mous at February 26, 2014 08:28 AM (IN7k+)

251 tsr, right, cancer has proven so difficult because ... it's really difficult. It's not one thing, but many, many things. The problem is the miracle cures last century for many diseases were the low-hanging fruit. And now that miracle cures seems so rare people thing it must be some conspiracy to keep people sick. No, the easy to cure disease were cured first because they were so much easier.

Posted by: Flatbush Joe at February 26, 2014 08:28 AM (ZPrif)

252 "In a world where we did not vote for this shit...." Consider that one stolen. Oh, wait...

Posted by: BackwardsBoy, who did not vote for this shit[/i][/u][/b][/s] at February 26, 2014 08:28 AM (0HooB)

253 Who needs computers? I make up my own gibberish, except for some of Neil Kinnock's gibberish.

Posted by: Joe Biden at February 26, 2014 08:29 AM (yFb77)

254 "This is an ingress of an inclination towards a digression of precedence that has apparently been a confluence of facts hereto unknown amongst scientists and publishers causing an ebullition in the technical sphere." Years ago, when I had long commute by train into NYC, I decided to read "The Closing of the American Mind", a book which was highly acclaimed when it was first published. When I picked up the book I noticed I had a bookmark a few pages into the first chapter. I soon remembered why: The guy cannot make a point. Each paragraph - each sentence - wanders around in a random walk from the starting point. There are so many diversions of thought that by the time you reach the end of a paragraph you forget what the original purpose was. I got a bit more than half-way through before my brain locked up and screamed at me until I put it down. The Introduction is all you really need to read to get his argument.

Posted by: whoever at February 26, 2014 08:29 AM (kGSN0)

255 You'll always have a job as long as you can utter the most simple of English phrases. "You want fries with that?" Posted by: Sean Bannion at February 26, 2014 12:22 PM (JpC1K) Spanish accepted in California. yo quiro, taco bell, ese?

Posted by: rickb223 at February 26, 2014 08:29 AM (CRyse)

256 The Roman Catholic Church had decided by the time Galileo came around that it was the final authority and spoken word of God on all things not just religious. So science was included, and anything that varied from their official dogma was not just mistaken but heretical and evil.
Fast forward to the 21st century, where science has decided its the final authority on all things, not just scientific...

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at February 26, 2014 08:29 AM (zfY+H)

257 these studies were probably used to justify the banning of the light bulbs they were in electrical engineering journals a;; the new bulbs are made in China Chinese scientists used the bogus studies

Posted by: thunderb at February 26, 2014 08:29 AM (zOTsN)

258 Maybe this is where GlobullWarming came from.
Hey

Posted by: RonUSA at February 26, 2014 08:30 AM (EaqMa)

259 In a world where we did not vote for this shit....stands a lone man...in the ghettooooo.

Posted by: Azenogoth (Freedom or Fire) Est. 1836 at February 26, 2014 08:30 AM (LJpVo)

260 Posted by: Flatbush Joe at February 26, 2014 12:28 PM (ZPrif) That and people forget that one way of looking at science is a long slog punctuated by huge advancements. But they forget the long slog part and wonder why we don't have breakthroughs every few years.

Posted by: tsrblke, PhD(c) (No Really!) at February 26, 2014 08:30 AM (hq5sb)

261 OT, but this is one of the headlines on Drudge:


73% of Abortions In Mississippi Are Black Babies...


That is fucking criminal.  

Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Assault Hobbit [/u][/i][/s][/b] at February 26, 2014 08:30 AM (4df7R)

262 "The Introduction is all you really need to read to get his argument."
Its all I ever read. The book makes amazing points, but they're all summarized in the introduction and the rest is irrelevant.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at February 26, 2014 08:31 AM (zfY+H)

263 1. I asked if he got the death penalty for it. I did not declare it 2. He was threatened with the death penalty at one point

Posted by: thunderb at February 26, 2014 08:31 AM (zOTsN)

264 In a world where we did not vote for this shit....stands a lone man...in the ghettooooo.

Posted by: Azenogoth (Freedom or Fire) Est. 1836 at February 26, 2014 12:30 PM (LJpVo)


I laughed.  A LOT.

Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Assault Hobbit [/u][/i][/s][/b] at February 26, 2014 08:32 AM (4df7R)

265 More black abortions than live births in NYC. Its just horrific, its genocide, and Margaret Sanger almost cracked a smile as she screamed in hell while being turked by a barbed molten cactus.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at February 26, 2014 08:32 AM (zfY+H)

266 Apparently, in science, one gross method of ranking your authority is by counting up the number of times you're cited in other scientific papers. ************ The fake computer generated scientist Ike Antkare ended up making it to sixth on the most cited scientists list. #1 S. Freud, psychology #2 P. Bourdieu, sociology #3 E. Witten, physics, particles and fields #4 N. Chomsky, philosophy #5 P. Krugman, economics #6 I. Antkare, computer science, information systems (the fake guy)

Posted by: tasker at February 26, 2014 08:32 AM (RJMhd)

267 I've reached that point where I'm applying for work at Aldi's Not hiring, I've already tried.

Posted by: Professor Irwin Corey at February 26, 2014 08:33 AM (l3vZN)

268 That is fucking criminal. Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Assault Hobbit at February 26, 2014 12:30 PM (4df7R)

It certainly is. But the NAACP seems to like it that way.

Why else would they keep supporting the abortion party?

Posted by: Sean Bannion [/i][/s][/u][/b] at February 26, 2014 08:33 AM (JpC1K)

269 Any list with Noam Chomsky and Freud on it has nothing to do with science. And while I've never heard of Bourdieu, sociology is not science either.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at February 26, 2014 08:34 AM (zfY+H)

270 More black abortions than live births in NYC. Its just horrific, its genocide, and Margaret Sanger almost cracked a smile as she screamed in hell while being turked by a barbed molten cactus.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at February 26, 2014 12:32 PM (zfY+H)




While being forced to deep throat the barbed cock of Satan, I hope?

Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Assault Hobbit [/u][/i][/s][/b] at February 26, 2014 08:34 AM (4df7R)

271 Did she just not understand it, or was the fact that someone arranged garbage on the floor of a museum and everyone called it art actually people ignoring the fact that it was just a fraud spreading shit around and calling it art?

Posted by: Heralder at February 26, 2014 11:54 AM (/Mxso)


In university, a business group I was in had a group work exercise where we had to create something out of tape and straws.


When we were done, I told everyone I was going to do an art experiment. The 'sculpture' was left in the middle of the business building with a handwritten sign on a piece of paper telling its name. I wanted to see how long it lasted as a displayed 'art project.'


It made it through the week. I think I was the one who removed. it.

Posted by: Stateless_Infidel at February 26, 2014 08:34 AM (AC0lD)

272 The patriarchal cis-heteronormative paradigm obfuscates the exegesis of transcendent crypto-fascism.

Posted by: Grampa Jimbo at February 26, 2014 08:35 AM (V70Uh)

273 #1 S. Freud, psychology


#2 P. Bourdieu, sociology



Really?      Really??

Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Assault Hobbit [/u][/i][/s][/b] at February 26, 2014 08:35 AM (4df7R)

274 So science really isn't settled. === Science is never settled. Newton's Law of Gravitation is only an approximation that breaks down under certain extreme conditions. Einstein's General Theory of Relativity took over from Newton, but it, too, breaks down under even more extreme conditions. There is as yet no further theory to replace GR, but rest assured, it will only be an approximation and not some final answer.

Posted by: whoever at February 26, 2014 08:35 AM (kGSN0)

275 A buddy of mine is an Engineer that just did his Master's on dynamical control systems.  In the "review of the current body of work" part he built a sort of quad-copter with PIDs for roll pitch and yaw.  He programmed the PIDs with some different current control systems published in the literature and *SURPRISE* some of them were sh*t.  Some of them were mathematical voodoo that didn't actually work. 

Posted by: bonhomme[/i][/b][/i][/b][/s][/s] at February 26, 2014 08:35 AM (4QSOR)

276 One of the more irritating aspects of the CAGW debate is the warmists' desperate need to cloak them selves in the mantle Science™.

They don lab coats and jab their fingers in the air screeching 'SCIENCE!' as if they are simultaneously saying 'SILENCE!'

The SCIgen affair should be a clear signal to everyone that science and research are not exempt from the weaknesses of humanity. No profession, no industry or arena in life is.

Yet the warmists insist, INSIST that because someone with a uni position is not only to be heeded in matters of fact but in the kind of post-modern, secular morality that oozes around us. It's not just that the earth is in a warm period, my dear lumpenprole, it's that YOU ARE WOUNDING HER VERY SOUL! REPENT! REPENT!

Posted by: weft cut-loop[/i] [/b] at February 26, 2014 08:35 AM (xrX4n)

277 Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Assault Hobbit at February 26, 2014 12:35 PM (4df7R) Eh, at this point citing Freud is a nod to history more than anything else. I've seen him cited in everything from English papers to actual hard science work.

Posted by: tsrblke, PhD(c) (No Really!) at February 26, 2014 08:36 AM (hq5sb)

278 Some of them were mathematical voodoo that didn't actually work.

Posted by: bonhomme at February 26, 2014 12:35 PM (4QSOR)


"Hey, you got your economic theorizing     into my engineering!"

Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Assault Hobbit [/u][/i][/s][/b] at February 26, 2014 08:36 AM (4df7R)

279 I read somewhere, I think it was Jonah Goldberg's "Liberal Fascism", that Margaret Sanger was staunchly anti-abortion.  Pro-sterilization, but anti-abortion.

Posted by: Grampa Jimbo at February 26, 2014 08:36 AM (V70Uh)

280 While being forced to deep throat the barbed cock of Satan, I hope?

Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Assault Hobbit at February 26, 2014 12:34 PM (4df7R)

Ooooh.  Nice touch.

Posted by: Hedley Lamarr [/i][/s][/u][/b] at February 26, 2014 08:37 AM (JpC1K)

281 The guy cannot make a point. Each paragraph - each sentence - wanders around in a random walk from the starting point. There are so many diversions of thought that by the time you reach the end of a paragraph you forget what the original purpose was. ********** Like most Liberals. OMG--just like Obama. Holy snikes-- Obama's Teleprompter Speeches are written by-- SCIgen!!!!

Posted by: tasker at February 26, 2014 08:37 AM (RJMhd)

282 Back when Vic and I were telling them where to put dirt, there was simple scientific formula: 1. Experimentation 2. Observation 3. More experimentation 4. More observation I'm not sure what passes for the Scientific Method these days, but it doesn't sound like this. It's like what happened to Journalism once it got away from the Who, What, When, Where, and Why Methodology. Oh, and Lawn.

Posted by: BackwardsBoy, who did not vote for this shit[/i][/u][/b][/s] at February 26, 2014 08:37 AM (0HooB)

283

Nood up in case you missed it.

Posted by: Azenogoth (Freedom or Fire) Est. 1836 at February 26, 2014 08:38 AM (Kh+vp)

284 I read somewhere, I think it was Jonah Goldberg's "Liberal Fascism", that Margaret Sanger was staunchly anti-abortion. Pro-sterilization, but anti-abortion.  Posted by: Grampa Jimbo at February 26, 2014 12:36 PM (V70Uh)

She advocated contraception for healthy women of generally Caucasian stock and abortion for "inferior races" - meaning mostly blacks.

Posted by: Sean Bannion [/i][/s][/u][/b] at February 26, 2014 08:39 AM (JpC1K)

285 Eh, at this point citing Freud is a nod to history more than anything else.


I've seen him cited in everything from English papers to actual hard science work.

Posted by: tsrblke, PhD(c) (No Really!) at February 26, 2014 12:36 PM (hq5sb)



My disbelief is less who    was cited and more the fact that Psychology and Sociology ranked higher on a list of cited scientists than an actual, you know, PHYSICIST.

Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Assault Hobbit [/u][/i][/s][/b] at February 26, 2014 08:39 AM (4df7R)

286 @Backwards boy Actual theory: http://www.phdcomics.com/comics/archive.php?comicid=761

Posted by: tsrblke, PhD(c) (No Really!) at February 26, 2014 08:39 AM (hq5sb)

287 274 #1 S. Freud, psychology #2 P. Bourdieu, sociology Really? Really?? Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Assault Hobbit at February 26, 2014 12:35 PM (4df7R) ************ Are you not looking at Mr. #4, and #5 Chomsky and Krugman--gawd!! I'm having a Moo Moo.

Posted by: tasker at February 26, 2014 08:39 AM (RJMhd)

288 I'm not sure what passes for the Scientific Method these days, but it doesn't sound like this.

It's like what happened to Journalism once it got away from the Who, What, When, Where, and Why Methodology.

Oh, and Lawn.

Posted by: BackwardsBoy, who did not vote for this shit at February 26, 2014 12:37 PM (0HooB)


It's now more like this:


1.  Conclusion


2.  Create algorithm to fit conclusion


3.  Profit



Posted by: EC at February 26, 2014 08:40 AM (GQ8sn)

289 Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Assault Hobbit at February 26, 2014 12:39 PM (4df7R) Eh, work with a broader base of readers. Most people can't understand physics work, or even chemistry. But they can shoehorn a sociology paper into whatever they're doing.

Posted by: tsrblke, PhD(c) (No Really!) at February 26, 2014 08:41 AM (hq5sb)

290 Heh, thanks, tsrblke, PhD(c). That's about what I expected.

Posted by: BackwardsBoy, who did not vote for this shit[/i][/u][/b][/s] at February 26, 2014 08:50 AM (0HooB)

291 The fact that Krugtron is the most cited economist clearly explains why the entire world's economic system is heading down the crapper.

Posted by: Cato at February 26, 2014 08:51 AM (OdVTN)

292 There was a time when Paul Krugman was a good economist, but his columns seem to have seeped into his mind.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at February 26, 2014 09:14 AM (zfY+H)

293 Conference proceedings are often not peer reviewed. Presumably, once one is accepted to present a paper at a conference, one is guaranteed to have it published in the proceedings (if there are any). And one usually gets accepted into the conference by submitting a short abstract. If the abstract was not nonsensical, or if the conference was desperate enough for papers, they may have just accepted it, and that would be that.

Posted by: Jim S. at February 26, 2014 09:16 AM (GWxwa)

294 Once I realized I could do this with most of my papers in college (extra verbose style), I started getting A's. True story.

I couldn't get out of sh*thole academia fast enough.

Posted by: Mega at February 26, 2014 09:18 AM (hHFOx)

295

Or, possibly:

Apparently, in science, one gross method of ranking your authority is by counting up the number of times you're cited in other scientific papers.

So, what if you could just spam a lot of fictitious, gibberish papers and get them into "the system" (the subscription services) citing you a whole bunch of times? Then your crude bean-counting ranking goes up.


As you're in my wheelhouse, Ace, absolutely yes. Tenure track advancement is wholly and totally a function of the volume of one's publications in well known, refereed journals. There exists a whole secondary culture of "lightly reviewed" and unreviewed journals (think a blog, but science-based) to which one can submit and publish, but which tenure review committees will ignore or consider as having a fraction a value of the former. Many of these solicit based on participation at conferences (see Jim S's note at 294) hoping that you'll be able to make a few typographical changes to the document you submitted to the "Conference on x, maybe the addition of some conclusions you didn't get in time for publishing in the conference proceedings, for entry in the "Journal on y closely aligned with topic x". Google Scholar and its ilk have only serve to exacerbate this.

Posted by: Kevin in ABQ at February 26, 2014 09:29 AM (BvTwT)

296 "Science" now is mostly "grant begging," "bias confirmation" and a bit of engineering (that is practically applying things we know.) And we can do that with shitty mouse models, in fact we can do that better with shitty mouse models, so why bother fighting for real science. Posted by: tsrblke, PhD(c) (No Really!) at February 26, 2014 11:38 AM (hq5sb) I'm really curious what you mean by this. Could you expand?

Posted by: Hal at February 26, 2014 09:47 AM (MftY/)

297 Dear Penthouse While a Physics undergrad at a Midwestern university ... I worked for the chairman of the physics department and one of my crappy jobs was to count the citations of the facility and give him a report each year. Worst Penthouse letter EVER!

Posted by: M1911 at February 26, 2014 09:58 AM (j/KPN)

298 There have been conservatively over a hundred cases of scientific fraud in the last 25 years or so.  Every single one of them was peer-reviewed and published in a serious journal.  None were discovered either in the review process or shortly after publication.

Faith in the scientific process as currently designed is just as much faith as any religion.

Posted by: Adjoran at February 26, 2014 10:20 AM (QIQ6j)

299 Hmm, gives me hope for squeaking through with my dissertation proposal.

Posted by: Iblis at February 26, 2014 10:43 AM (9221z)

300 Stop acting like racists.

Posted by: B.A. Degree, 1968 at February 26, 2014 10:43 AM (pmsMR)

301 I think we finally know what the Lace Wigs Guy has been up to.

Posted by: Stirner at February 26, 2014 12:30 PM (l1p2K)

302 Child's play. The NYT uses the Krugman algorithm to generate economic sounding nonsense all the time. Gotten away with it for years.

Posted by: Mr. FeverHead at February 26, 2014 12:58 PM (6ahup)

Hide Comments | Add Comment | Refresh | Top

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
242kb generated in CPU 0.0772, elapsed 0.2827 seconds.
64 queries taking 0.2428 seconds, 430 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.

Support





Donate to Ace of Spades HQ!


Contact

Change the At to "@" and the DOT to "."




Intermarkets' Privacy Policy
Support


Donate to Ace of Spades HQ!


Search Thingy



Archives

Monthly Traffic

  • Pages: 11014
  • Files: 155
  • Bytes: 235.9M
  • CPU Time: 9:08
  • Queries: 276691

Content

  • Posts: 22824
  • Comments: 5953260

Feeds


RSS 2.0 Atom 1.0