Science is in danger. Peer review scandal in the community.
Discussion
The very definition of science and any scientific research that produce new assertions or claims should be, testable, measurable and repeatable.
Some interesting reading.
https://www.sott.net/article/319331-Crisis-in-scie...
https://www.sott.net/article/344085-Peer-reviewed-...
https://www.sott.net/article/346659-Former-editor-...
Some interesting reading.
https://www.sott.net/article/319331-Crisis-in-scie...
https://www.sott.net/article/344085-Peer-reviewed-...
https://www.sott.net/article/346659-Former-editor-...
There is no need to take aim at me my friend, I did not compose or publish any of the material I link to.
I am assuming you haven't read all the info in the links? Sources and cases are cited and worthy of discussion, unless you know more about every subject discussed by those with PHDs coming out their ears.
So, have you anything constructive to add to the discussion?
I am assuming you haven't read all the info in the links? Sources and cases are cited and worthy of discussion, unless you know more about every subject discussed by those with PHDs coming out their ears.
So, have you anything constructive to add to the discussion?
Thing is, although I'm a reasonably intelligent chap with a good understanding of many things scientific, I don't have the time (or, frankly) inclination to trawl through what is undoubtedly a pain-stakingly constructed series of self-referential websites with lots of big words and impressive-sounding job titles to try to understand what they are wittering on about.
What I do have is a finely-honed bulls
t detector, and it is going off loud and clear based on the posts I've seen from you over the last couple of days plus the sites you link to.
I know I'm breaking all the rules - don't shoot the messenger, play the ball not the man, <insert internet forum cliche of choice> - but I see little evidence that there is a genuine debate to be had here.
Tell you what. You have one post, 200 words, no links. Explain, in your own words, the systemic issues that you see amongst the scientific community and how they are impacting the quality of research today.
What I do have is a finely-honed bulls
t detector, and it is going off loud and clear based on the posts I've seen from you over the last couple of days plus the sites you link to.I know I'm breaking all the rules - don't shoot the messenger, play the ball not the man, <insert internet forum cliche of choice> - but I see little evidence that there is a genuine debate to be had here.
Tell you what. You have one post, 200 words, no links. Explain, in your own words, the systemic issues that you see amongst the scientific community and how they are impacting the quality of research today.
I am not inclined to respond to your 'test' as all the info and a lot more is already presented above.
If you don't like the font or colours, you could search for the original source material.
For example, the 3rd link is to a Guardian piece written by Charlie Cooper, dated 15 Apr 2015, with the main protagonist being Dr. Richard Smith, who edited the British Medical Journal for more than a decade.
I suggest you expand upon the knowledge you already think you have.
If you don't like the font or colours, you could search for the original source material.
For example, the 3rd link is to a Guardian piece written by Charlie Cooper, dated 15 Apr 2015, with the main protagonist being Dr. Richard Smith, who edited the British Medical Journal for more than a decade.
I suggest you expand upon the knowledge you already think you have.
Appeals to authority do not impress me.
Shonky websites with alarming headlines and long lists of reasons why only they know the truth, and everybody else is wrong - are not compelling.
People who hold genuine opinions and can construct a coherent and defensible position are far more interesting and more likely to prompt me to 'expand my knowledge'.
Shonky websites with alarming headlines and long lists of reasons why only they know the truth, and everybody else is wrong - are not compelling.
People who hold genuine opinions and can construct a coherent and defensible position are far more interesting and more likely to prompt me to 'expand my knowledge'.
TellYaWhatItIs said:
I am not inclined to respond to your 'test' as all the info and a lot more is already presented above.
If you don't like the font or colours, you could search for the original source material.
For example, the 3rd link is to a Guardian piece written by Charlie Cooper, dated 15 Apr 2015, with the main protagonist being Dr. Richard Smith, who edited the British Medical Journal for more than a decade.
I suggest you expand upon the knowledge you already think you have.
Funny, the link you quoted says the Cooper article was in the Independent, not the Guardian! If you don't like the font or colours, you could search for the original source material.
For example, the 3rd link is to a Guardian piece written by Charlie Cooper, dated 15 Apr 2015, with the main protagonist being Dr. Richard Smith, who edited the British Medical Journal for more than a decade.
I suggest you expand upon the knowledge you already think you have.
It won't be long, in fact the day may have come already, when the biggest and best scientific research and the most important breakthroughs will come from China and other privately funded research groups outside of the peer review process, like they do in engineering and industry.
The claim in the first article that most claims are unrepeatable would suggest the success of peer review process though, surely?
The claim in the first article that most claims are unrepeatable would suggest the success of peer review process though, surely?
FredClogs said:
It won't be long, in fact the day may have come already, when the biggest and best scientific research and the most important breakthroughs will come from China and other privately funded research groups outside of the peer review process, like they do in engineering and industry.
The claim in the first article that most claims are unrepeatable would suggest the success of peer review process though, surely?
That is a very good point you make FredCLogs, a quick refresh and tinternet search to re-clarify the numbers I had in my head shows China produces 600,000 engineers p/a. USA, 70,000, the UK, around 12,000 from memory. The claim in the first article that most claims are unrepeatable would suggest the success of peer review process though, surely?
The same 'politics' will apply in China of WHO is funding the research.
Scientists being paid to carry out research will not produce information contrary or inverse to what the paymasters want the outcome to be. It's all weighted, only with China you would have an increased level of control or influence form the state.
TellYaWhatItIs said:
Scientists being paid to carry out research will not produce information contrary or inverse to what the paymasters want the outcome to be.
That is a temptation I agree. But scientists can't work for free so who pays them? Everybody has an agenda, be it industry or government.I have no doubt that real genuine science is in decline as it gets bent/taken over by the media (ie arts graduates) and shouty activists on social media.
TellYaWhatItIs said:
Scientists being paid to carry out research will not produce information contrary or inverse to what the paymasters want the outcome to be.
That’s quite some claim, and it’s one that I know to be false, having been a scientist myself, and having a fair few friends who still are.If you’d care to share your research into this I’d be happy to have a look to see where you are going wrong.
Kent Border Kenny said:
TellYaWhatItIs said:
Scientists being paid to carry out research will not produce information contrary or inverse to what the paymasters want the outcome to be.
That’s quite some claim, and it’s one that I know to be false, having been a scientist myself, and having a fair few friends who still are.If you’d care to share your research into this I’d be happy to have a look to see where you are going wrong.
Apparently you scientists are quite happy to spend your whole careers lying in order to earn a decent wage. To hell with your morals and professionalism not to mention your actual interest in getting to the truth.
Gadgetmac said:
Please post that in the Climate Politics thread which is positively overflowing with climate change deniers claiming scientists are all in it for the money and are prepared to doctor their own research to say something the government wants them to say rather than the actual results of their investigations.
Apparently you scientists are quite happy to spend your whole careers lying in order to earn a decent wage. To hell with your morals and professionalism not to mention your actual interest in getting to the truth.
Well, I’m possibly not the best person to make that argument, having left science to move into finance.Apparently you scientists are quite happy to spend your whole careers lying in order to earn a decent wage. To hell with your morals and professionalism not to mention your actual interest in getting to the truth.
I can’t imagine ever having falsified results though, the whole point for going into science was to find things out.
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff