The next time some idiot tells you, "But the real science says....."

[skookerasbil]

The level of fakery is profound........so next time some jerkoff progressive drops the "science" line, pull this out of your pocket and the debate is over.......

We rely on science. Why is it letting us down when we need it most?

Science is suffering from a replication crisis. Too many landmark studies can't be repeated in independent labs, a process crucial to separating flukes and errors from solid results. The consequences are hard to overstate: Public policy, medical treatments and the way we see the world may have...

phys.org

 

[ReinyDays]

There's not much to be done with the peer-review process ... it is what it is ... and it's better than a Church-review process we had before ... Darwin's works were rejected and he had to publish the material himself ...

I think the problem in the OP's article is the shear bulk of scientific papers that need to be published, these are people's graduate degrees on the line and with so many folks in college these days there has to be a place for them to get their research published ... the so-called "paper mills" ... and I don't believe a degree is granted for publishing a duplication of someone else's work ... so figure ten's of thousands of papers being published and no incentive to verify ...

In the "hard" sciences, this isn't usually a problem ... we have a step-by-step approach to advancing the science and if anyone steps in dog poo, well, everybody will know right away and quickly search and find out who ... the "soft" sciences are more in every direction at once and odorous publications tend to not be spotted as these sciences have the prevalence of that aroma ... there's still raging debate over Freud's work, whereas everybody accepts Maxwell's work ... a shit deal if I've ever heard of one ...

Among the lay population, a surprising number of people think it's illegal to publish a scientific paper unless it's true ... and that peer-review is a certification that everything in the paper is accurate and God's own truth ... and that's just not the case ... think cold fusion ... the peer-review process only verified that all the information was given in order to duplicate the experiment ... those that tried failed to duplicate the results ... and that cold fusion paper was officially withdrawn ...

The movie Jurassic Park was based on a scientific paper ... again nobody could duplicate the results and the paper was withdrawn ... didn't stop eight sequels though ...
and for the record, the movie didn't depict Jurassic dinosaurs, they were all Cretaceous species ... yet still half the world's population think we can extract dino-DNA from amber ... because we want to ...

Today, just about anyone can take out a student loan, spend two years splitting hares, and publish in a paper mill ... here's your Master's degree ... and there's absolute no work available cutting rabbits in half ... good thing we can bankrupt out from underneath student loan debt now !!! ...

A tale I read a few months ago, kinda unrelated to the OP but still fun ... a fella got his Master's degree in fluid dynamics and went to work in aerospace, hated it, wound up felling trees in the Pacific Northwest, retired on the timber company's pension plan ... just for kicks he decided to see whatever happened to that paper he published ... it had been cited hundreds of time, the effect was even named after him, a major correction factor with boundary layer friction ... imagine his shock to learn he was famous in the field, just oblivious to this fact working out in the woods ... ha ha ha ... he applied for and received his PhD for his ground-breaking work ... so a happy ending I guess ...

 

[Oddball]

This is what we get when "science" gets into the business of working rearward from the result that they want to get.

 

[ReinyDays]

This is what we get when "science" gets into the business of working rearward from the result that they want to get.

That is scientific method ... state your hypothesis which is what you want to find ... then do an experiment to demonstrate what you want to find ... so in your conclusions you can say what you want is what you found ... I'm not saying this is right or wrong, just that this is how it is ... and it's better than having to get Church approval ...

 

[Oddball]

This is what we get when "science" gets into the business of working rearward from the result that they want to get.

That is scientific method ... state your hypothesis which is what you want to find ... then do an experiment to demonstrate what you want to find ... so in your conclusions you can say what you want is what you found ... I'm not saying this is right or wrong, just that this is how it is ... and it's better than having to get Church approval ...

Not quite...What you do is look at the phenomenon and eliminate what didn't make it happen...What remains are theories that you seek to find evidence for....We know this as "falsification".

You don't look at the result, then account for all the possibilities that could make it happen, while ignoring all that doesn't fit your pre-arrived upon conclusion, and/or the agendas of those funding your research....That's how all too much "science" is being done these days.

 

[alang1216]

This is what we get when "science" gets into the business of working rearward from the result that they want to get.

That is scientific method ... state your hypothesis which is what you want to find ... then do an experiment to demonstrate what you want to find ... so in your conclusions you can say what you want is what you found ... I'm not saying this is right or wrong, just that this is how it is ... and it's better than having to get Church approval ...

Not quite...What you do is look at the phenomenon and eliminate what didn't make it happen...What remains are theories that you seek to find evidence for....We know this as "falsification".

You don't look at the result, then account for all the possibilities that could make it happen, while ignoring all that doesn't fit your pre-arrived upon conclusion, and/or the agendas of those funding your research....That's how all too much "science" is being done these days.

View attachment 384048

The scientific method has not changed. It is hard to experiment on the globe since we only have one subject and no control.

 

[Oddball]

This is what we get when "science" gets into the business of working rearward from the result that they want to get.

That is scientific method ... state your hypothesis which is what you want to find ... then do an experiment to demonstrate what you want to find ... so in your conclusions you can say what you want is what you found ... I'm not saying this is right or wrong, just that this is how it is ... and it's better than having to get Church approval ...

Not quite...What you do is look at the phenomenon and eliminate what didn't make it happen...What remains are theories that you seek to find evidence for....We know this as "falsification".

You don't look at the result, then account for all the possibilities that could make it happen, while ignoring all that doesn't fit your pre-arrived upon conclusion, and/or the agendas of those funding your research....That's how all too much "science" is being done these days.

View attachment 384048

The scientific method has not changed. It is hard to experiment on the globe since we only have one subject and no control.

The honest method has indeed not changed....The methods being used by those seeking approval from their "peers" and/or the funding sources has.

 

[whitehall]

So-called "man made global warming" never rose above a theory no matter how loud they shouted. You almost gotta laugh that the Nobel people awarded the Prize to a failed politician with no science background who tried to make a buck selling fake "carbon credits". Hypocrite pervert Al Gore should have been arrested but he is viewed as the godfather of MMGW.

 

[ReinyDays]

Hang on, let me find my tin-foil hat, these global conspiracies really scare me.

Make sure the ground wire is secure ... this one might be a whopper ...

 

[skookerasbil]

Whats hysterical is there are actually bozo's out there who think that the peer review process is legitimate. Talk about the hopelessly duped........the same idiots think the East Anglia investigation was legitimate.........intellectual cripples.

 

[ReinyDays]

Whats hysterical is there are actually bozo's out there who think that the peer review process is legitimate. Talk about the hopelessly duped........the same idiots think the East Anglia investigation was legitimate.........intellectual cripples.

There's folks who think some hack selling his book on YouTube is legitimate ... people who want to be duped, desperately ...

Peer review serves a purpose ... if we understand this purpose, then we can better judge what passes for "scientific literature" ... and these journals can get more subscriptions the more rigid their peer review is ... it's certainly not apolitical, just less political than before ... people spend money to listen to what they want to hear ...

 

[Oddball]

This is what we get when "science" gets into the business of working rearward from the result that they want to get.

That is scientific method ... state your hypothesis which is what you want to find ... then do an experiment to demonstrate what you want to find ... so in your conclusions you can say what you want is what you found ... I'm not saying this is right or wrong, just that this is how it is ... and it's better than having to get Church approval ...

Not quite...What you do is look at the phenomenon and eliminate what didn't make it happen...What remains are theories that you seek to find evidence for....We know this as "falsification".

You don't look at the result, then account for all the possibilities that could make it happen, while ignoring all that doesn't fit your pre-arrived upon conclusion, and/or the agendas of those funding your research....That's how all too much "science" is being done these days.

View attachment 384048

The scientific method has not changed. It is hard to experiment on the globe since we only have one subject and no control.

The honest method has indeed not changed....The methods being used by those seeking approval from their "peers" and/or the funding sources has.

Hang on, let me find my tin-foil hat, these global conspiracies really scare me.

Go suck a dick.

 

[ReinyDays]

Go suck a dick.

Wow ... it's like we're Middle School again ... ouch ...

 

[Oddball]

Go suck a dick.

Wow ... it's like we're Middle School again ... ouch ...

If I need any shit out of you, I'll squeeze your head.

 

[ReinyDays]

If I need any shit out of you, I'll squeeze your head.

My ... that's clever ... do you have siblings in High School? ...

 

[westwall]

This is what we get when "science" gets into the business of working rearward from the result that they want to get.

That is scientific method ... state your hypothesis which is what you want to find ... then do an experiment to demonstrate what you want to find ... so in your conclusions you can say what you want is what you found ... I'm not saying this is right or wrong, just that this is how it is ... and it's better than having to get Church approval ...

You left out that kind of important part about repeatability. You toss out non sequitur arguments about the Church, which hasn't had an effect on scientific research in well over 100 years, and instead deflect away from the climatologists wholesale violations of the scientific method.

Why do you defend pseudo scientific "studies"?

 

[westwall]

This is what we get when "science" gets into the business of working rearward from the result that they want to get.

That is scientific method ... state your hypothesis which is what you want to find ... then do an experiment to demonstrate what you want to find ... so in your conclusions you can say what you want is what you found ... I'm not saying this is right or wrong, just that this is how it is ... and it's better than having to get Church approval ...

Not quite...What you do is look at the phenomenon and eliminate what didn't make it happen...What remains are theories that you seek to find evidence for....We know this as "falsification".

You don't look at the result, then account for all the possibilities that could make it happen, while ignoring all that doesn't fit your pre-arrived upon conclusion, and/or the agendas of those funding your research....That's how all too much "science" is being done these days.

View attachment 384048

The scientific method has not changed. It is hard to experiment on the globe since we only have one subject and no control.

Correct, the scientific method has not changed. But climatologists ignore it because it interferes with their grant proposals.

 

[alang1216]

This is what we get when "science" gets into the business of working rearward from the result that they want to get.

That is scientific method ... state your hypothesis which is what you want to find ... then do an experiment to demonstrate what you want to find ... so in your conclusions you can say what you want is what you found ... I'm not saying this is right or wrong, just that this is how it is ... and it's better than having to get Church approval ...

Not quite...What you do is look at the phenomenon and eliminate what didn't make it happen...What remains are theories that you seek to find evidence for....We know this as "falsification".

You don't look at the result, then account for all the possibilities that could make it happen, while ignoring all that doesn't fit your pre-arrived upon conclusion, and/or the agendas of those funding your research....That's how all too much "science" is being done these days.

View attachment 384048

The scientific method has not changed. It is hard to experiment on the globe since we only have one subject and no control.

Correct, the scientific method has not changed. But climatologists ignore it because it interferes with their grant proposals.

Should this be in the Conspiracy room or do you have some back up?

 

[westwall]

This is what we get when "science" gets into the business of working rearward from the result that they want to get.

That is scientific method ... state your hypothesis which is what you want to find ... then do an experiment to demonstrate what you want to find ... so in your conclusions you can say what you want is what you found ... I'm not saying this is right or wrong, just that this is how it is ... and it's better than having to get Church approval ...

Not quite...What you do is look at the phenomenon and eliminate what didn't make it happen...What remains are theories that you seek to find evidence for....We know this as "falsification".

You don't look at the result, then account for all the possibilities that could make it happen, while ignoring all that doesn't fit your pre-arrived upon conclusion, and/or the agendas of those funding your research....That's how all too much "science" is being done these days.

View attachment 384048

The scientific method has not changed. It is hard to experiment on the globe since we only have one subject and no control.

Correct, the scientific method has not changed. But climatologists ignore it because it interferes with their grant proposals.

Should this be in the Conspiracy room or do you have some back up?

Sure look up Trenberth declaring repeatability of his experiments isn't necessary.

 

[alang1216]

This is what we get when "science" gets into the business of working rearward from the result that they want to get.

That is scientific method ... state your hypothesis which is what you want to find ... then do an experiment to demonstrate what you want to find ... so in your conclusions you can say what you want is what you found ... I'm not saying this is right or wrong, just that this is how it is ... and it's better than having to get Church approval ...

Not quite...What you do is look at the phenomenon and eliminate what didn't make it happen...What remains are theories that you seek to find evidence for....We know this as "falsification".

You don't look at the result, then account for all the possibilities that could make it happen, while ignoring all that doesn't fit your pre-arrived upon conclusion, and/or the agendas of those funding your research....That's how all too much "science" is being done these days.

View attachment 384048

The scientific method has not changed. It is hard to experiment on the globe since we only have one subject and no control.

Correct, the scientific method has not changed. But climatologists ignore it because it interferes with their grant proposals.

Should this be in the Conspiracy room or do you have some back up?

Sure look up Trenberth declaring repeatability of his experiments isn't necessary.

Climate Scientist Kevin Trenberth, Distinguished Senior Scientist, National Center for Atmospheric Research has insisted that Climate Science does follow the scientific method.