https://x.com/kevinnbass/status/1937188249803329784?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw
https://x.com/kevinnbass/status/1937205664146760060?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw
https://x.com/kevinnbass/status/1936852763134038064
More than 50% of high-profile scientific findings cannot be independently reproduced by other scientists. Lab research is the worst, with irreproducibility for top publications reaching nearly 90%. This is a waste of more than $28,000,000,000 from taxpayers in America alone.
For years we've heard that Science has all the answers, that peer reviewed studies were the be all and end all, and that we must listen to the experts. Well, it seems like we've ignored the simple fact that repeatability is one of the major parts of the Scientific Method. Maybe we shouldn't make such a big deal over Scientific findings until they can reliably be repeated.
7 comments:
No one in "science " has said they have "all the answers." That suggestion is an anti-scientific notion. Science has PROCESSES for finding better answers.
Just fyi.
So, when people like you said "Listen to the Science" or insist that the "Science is settled", the answer should be to tell you to shut up.
But really, excellent job of ignoring the point. When over 50% of what gets published in "respected scientific journals" and cited by folx like you as "The Science" fails the very basic test of repeatability, that suggests a significant reason for concern.
For someone who regularly refers to "peer reviewed" articles and studies as "proof" of various things, it seems reasonable to be aware that there is over a 50% chance that "The Science" isn't repeatable and therefore of little value.
Wow. Dan never fails to expose himself, does he? (He's like a flasher, but he flashes his corrupt character instead of his lady bits.)
This is a true concern, and not just for the wasted tax dollars subsidizing lousy research. The harm of leading people to believe that which has not been so much as duplicated in a second trial borders on the criminal. I've often wondered whey reports of findings far from confirmed are so common. "This may mean a cure is right around the corner" or some other suggestions which the initial study can't possibly honestly assert.
Loren Marks had some time ago gathered some 60 studies supporting the premise that children raised by lesbians had equal, if not better outcomes, than those who weren't. His study of the studies showed just how lacking they were in professionalism and honesty, with such flawed methodologies reaching verdicts already accepted as true before the study began (much like the trial which convicted Trump).
There's money is science, and if one's conclusions are found to be in error, the money stops. If one's work is based on conclusions found to be in error, the money stops. Peer review...which has been shown several times in these here blogs over the years...is too often a matter of politics and self-interest, which some good research not even being reviewed on the basis of such. The possibility of a reviewer not being vetted with regard to conflict of interest is low, if a concern at all.
One source I have for workout information often speaks of studies in this way, differentiating between claims not properly vetted with repeatable research versus those which have been confirmed or shown to be most true by repeating methods or independently coming to the same conclusions via different methods. What results is more reliable information which benefits us all.
The report in your post is more than a little alarming and very much shameful.
Whatever he flashes will likely be tiny and insignificant.
Obviously the use of tax dollars is concerning, especially in a "good money after bad" sense. That this might lead to drugs being used on people without adequate repeated results is tragic.
I follow a couple of stats/research accounts on Twitter and they regularly post about meta analysis that shows that the conventional Scientific wisdom of various topics is simply shit. It's bad research, fraudulent in some cases, that gets published and referenced without anyone knowing or caring that it's shit.
There is definitely money in certain areas of science, and there is definitely a pressure to produce something tangible or lose your funding attitude. It's not surprising given human nature, but the fact that schmucks like Dan have so much faith in a system that is inherently and (probably) fatally flawed, leads to bad outcomes because you can't question "The Science".
I've posted this sort of thing on and off over the years. Yet Dan still clings to the fantasy of "peer reviewed" research as being some Holy Grail or whatever.
"when people like you said "Listen to the Science" or insist that the "Science is settled", the answer should be to tell you to shut up."
Of course not. The message is that policies and procedures should generally be data-driven. IF there is data different than the data or experts we are listening to, then that data should be presented.
But when the experts (Trump's own, in this example) say there are no nukes and Trump waves it away and say the experts are wrong, with NO data to support the hunch, we should listen to the data, not the hunch.
Of course.
This is an absolutely fascinating response. Instead of taking a look at the data, and acknowledging that there has been years of peer reviewed garbage that's affected numerous areas of everyday life, you revert to "But Trump...".
In what world are "experts" saying that Iran was not close to completing nuclear weapons? In what fantasy world is it necessary to enrich uranium to 60%+ for non weapon uses?
It's cute that you choose not to acknowledge the problems inherent in this system you so frequently cite as your source for facts while spinning this fantasy. It's amazing that this data about the unreliability on the peer review system and the amount of fraud and garbage that somehow gets' published and then cited as if it's factual doesn't bother you enough to address it, instead you default to "But Trump...".
Just one example. You and people like you parroted the talking points to force people to take the COVID vaccine. Yet, the data now tells us that the "vaccine" isn't what we were told, likely has caused harm, and folx like you just ignore the role y'all played in that. Y'all lied about Ivermectin, social distancing, and enacted policies that literally caused avoidable harm based on your reverence for "The Science". I'm sorry, but considering this new data, I'm officially skeptical about anything y'all claim based on "settled science".
Post a Comment