https://medium.com/belover/what-happens-when-scholars-lie-8a1330a050d8
For those who say that we must listen to the experts, I'd ask what they would do when the experts falsify their research to move forward an agenda.
https://www.thefp.com/p/i-overhyped-climate-change-to-get-published
What if the experts leave out details and Truth in order to get published? Doesn't this undermine the whole system of giving people credibility because they've been published? Doesn't it undermine the credibility of academic journals?
https://apnews.com/article/coronavirus-ivermectin-fda-doctors-lawsuit-bbc8d4fc726c08940ae4b0dad70170e0
What about when the government experts overstep their authority?
https://www.npr.org/2023/09/08/1197971952/biden-administration-fifth-circuit-ruling-social-media-injunction
Or when the administration violates the 1st amendment?
https://voz.us/there-is-no-climate-emergency-two-nobel-laureates-lead-a-statement-against-environmental-sensationalism/?lang=en
Clearly these idiots can't be experts.
5 comments:
I'd ask what they would do when the experts falsify their research to move forward an agenda.
When one expert falsifies their research, it gets discovered when other experts notice the problems. We don't rely upon data from one expert, it's the congregated research and data that makes science work.
Of course.
What if the experts leave out details and Truth in order to get published?
When one expert falsifies their research, it gets discovered when other experts notice the problems. We don't rely upon data from one expert, it's the congregated research and data that makes science work.
Of course.
The bad work of one or two (or ten) operators doesn't invalidate the research and data from hundreds of experts. Again, this is the scientific method and why it's important and more reliable than, for instance, some religious experts' personal or collective opinions about what a god or allah or buddah may think.
While I haven't read your links yet, the appeal to "experts" in order to validate one's opinion should require reviewing opposing perspectives by others with expertise. For some...such as the modern progressive...that seems to result in accusations of those others being "outliers" or "religious fanatics" or whatever other expressions of disparagement created to stifle opposition to a preconceived or preferred notion. I have a piece about a recent volcanic eruption I'll provide later, which is ignored by the "climate change" "experts" for its far more obvious effect on rising temperatures than any man-made suggestion. I've another which speaks of outrageously high temperatures going back to the early part of the 20th Century which speaks to how common outrageously high temperatures truly are, as opposed to seeing them as emblematic of the end of the world, as we're to fear now. That's just one field whereby "experts" are cited by the left to justify policies far more destructive to the population than the Chicken Little warnings by those who worship "experts".
"When one expert falsifies their research, it gets discovered when other experts notice the problems. We don't rely upon data from one expert, it's the congregated research and data that makes science work. Of course."
Except, in this particular case, this "expert"'s data was used as the basis for thousands of other "experts" "research", and was taught to lord knows how many students as being True. Are you really suggesting that that spreading of false information should simply be ignored? The problem with your position is that it ignores the damage that this false "research" causes and simply assumes that somehow it'll magically get set right.
"When one expert falsifies their research, it gets discovered when other experts notice the problems. We don't rely upon data from one expert, it's the congregated research and data that makes science work."
See above. Your naive belief that this falsified "research" doesn't have affects the extend far beyond the scope of a paper/article or two is touching in it's childlike faith. The very fact that you don't seem bothered by the fact that the very scientific journals you put so much faith in, can be manipulated by playing to their biases and known prejudices is kind of disturbing.
"The bad work of one or two (or ten) operators doesn't invalidate the research and data from hundreds of experts."
This may be the first time I've seen you espouse dealing with people as individuals in quite some time. But hey, who cares if these "scientific journals" can be manipulated by false "research, or if one guy making shit up and calling it "research" can provide the false foundation for an entire academic discipline. What's amazing is that folx like you will still cite the fruit of this poisonous tree as if it is serious academic research.
Eric Stewart taught at FSU for 16 years and taught every single one of his students crap based on "research" he falsified. How do we "fix" that? Just chalk it up to the scientific method allowing false crap to be put out there for almost 2 decades?
His false "research" was cited in 8500 other "research" papers, which would seem to mean that all 8500 of them are based on bullshit. I'd assume that these papers would also be invalidated, wouldn't they? Aren't these other "researchers" supposed to validate what they cite, not just assume it's accuracy? Seriously, after 20 years and at least 6 major studies (which undermine pretty much the entire BLM false narrative), you just chime in with "No harm, no foul,",
That's how science works.".
This guy was honored by multiple groups funded by the federal government, and even even sat in judgement over students accused of cheating, and all you have is "That's just how science works".
"Again, this is the scientific method and why it's important and more reliable than, for instance, some religious experts' personal or collective opinions about what a god or allah or buddah may think."
Yet, clearly (given the widespread effect of one guys fake "research", and the fact that it wasn't even questioned for almost 20 years raises serious questions about how "reliable" this system is.
Art,
The short version is that we're seeing evidence that actual falsified "research" is being used to underpin entire segments of "academic" endeavor and that it is easy to get published in a scientific journal as long as you slant your "research" and conclusions to align with the biases of the journal.
Craig,
That's been the case for some time. There's a true "jumping on the bandwagon" in the scientific community which is not at all a new phenomenon. Another example of how it harms is the outrage by the more atheist among them when one of their own comes to the conclusion the data suggests an intelligent designer of the universe. Guillermo Gonzalez, for example, suffered from this "consensus", even losing his tenure. But his findings weren't reviewed objectively and debunked as a result. Just rejected.
We've also seen peer-review indulging in fraudulence, and not as discerning as it ought to be, given some scientific journals were purposely defrauded with a BS paper just to prove how easy it is to submit one and have it accepted as legitimate research.
And "discernment" is the operative word here. It doesn't work for Dan as he defends what discerning people suspect is bunk. Dan will simply attack the person as not an expert for questioning what he wants to be regarded as true.
There was a time when the left was really big on "Question Everything". Not when it comes to questioning what they want accepted as truth and fact. Then, "you're no expert".
Post a Comment