Who fact-checks the fact-checkers???
7.
".... there is outright fraud. In a 2011 survey of 2,000 research psychologists, over half admitted to
selectively reporting those experiments that gave the result they were after. The survey also
concludedthat around 10 percent of research psychologists have engaged in
outright falsification of data, and more than half have engaged in "less brazen but still fraudulent behavior such as reporting that a result was statistically significant when it was not, or deciding between two different data analysis techniques after looking at the results of each and choosing the more favorable.
[This is exactly the same things that happened in the reporting of 'global warming' data....remember the East Anglia email scandals?]
.....rounding out numbers the way that looks better, checking a result less thoroughly when it comes out the way you like, and so forth.
8
. The peer review process doesn't work. Most observers of science guffaw at the so-called "
Sokal affair," where a physicist named Alan Sokal submitted a gibberish paper to an obscure social studies journal, which accepted it.
....
a similar hoodwinking of the very prestigious British Medical Journal, to which a paper with eight major errors was submitted.
Not a single one of the 221 scientists who reviewed the paper caught all the errors in it, and only 30 percent of reviewers recommended that the paper be rejected.
Amazingly, the reviewers who were warned that they were in a study and that the paper might have problems with it found no more flaws than the ones who were in the dark."
Big Science is broken
Peer reviewers?
Fact checkers?
Is that who Shakespeare meant by 'So are they all, all honorable men,...'?
It's almost as though 'science' has been designed to fool, trick and mislead......and the 'observers' trained to be fooled........
.......almost...??