Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Call Out to Zach11

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by Mr.Angry View Post
    You called out Zach11 and got Analhamster.
    Yeah...that's gotta be extremely disappointing. But in the end any idiot will do, I suppose.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by charliesheen View Post
      I just let AH dismiss a shit-ton of phoney research by not arguing back when he said it's "confined" to (insert laundry list of whatever). Most of the writings on the subject are from the community itself. It's referred to as a crisis for some reason. Over half the experimental results can't be replicated. In some fields it's more than two thirds. But hey, the topic is too complex to discuss outside the lab.
      You haven't grasped what quotation marks mean either, that is not what I said.

      Comment


      • #18
        It's an inevitable problem, given the nature of the system. Scientists compete for an increasingly limited pool of funds with which to do their research, and generally speaking, the proposals that do get funded tend to be the ones exploring new territory, not repeating previous work. Usually the only studies that are actively replicated are those that are contentious and/or have major implications - there's simply not much of an incentive structure in place to cover the less prominent stuff. Many smaller studies get published and are largely ignored. Some studies get cited for years before anybody bothers trying to replicate them. As AH already pointed out, this is a much more prominent issue in the soft sciences, given the huge variability of the subject matter and the relatively limited accuracy with which it can be measured. With the harder, mechanistic sciences, you're far less likely to get away with publishing bullshit results since the methods are generally more precise and repeatable. If you claim to have developed a new breakthrough in genetic sequencing, it's not going to hold up if it isn't real, because people are going to want to use it.

        The same can be said for many of the prominent climate models. Due to the immense political scrutiny these studies frequently generate, they tend to get dissected and re-analyzed more than your average study. Thus far they've held up pretty well.

        Comment


        • #19
          From my favorite right-wing conspiracy-theory blog. I think it's called "NATURE":

          But sorting discoveries from false leads can be discomfiting. (my italics Although the vast majority of researchers in our survey had failed to reproduce an experiment, less than 20 percent of respondents said that they had ever been contacted by another researcher unable to reproduce their work. Our results are strikingly similar to another online survey of nearly 900 members of the American Society for Cell Biology. That may be because such conversations are difficult. If experimenters reach out to the original researchers for help, they risk appearing incompetent or accusatory, or revealing too much about their own projects.
          Soooooo, nevermind. Cut those taxpayer wealth-transfer checks. Let the Chinese continue to do as they please and build 700 more coal-fired plants in places where there are none, creating new economies dependent upon evil coal. Stop US energy projects. We need to trust these people. After all, feelings may be hurt!

          http://www.nature.com/news/1-500-sci...bility-1.19970



          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by charliesheen View Post
            And FTR, I take back the "grant-whore" thing. Not using the term again here. I am close with somebody doing groundbreaking research on diabeetus, and he runs his department on many different sources of funding. Like being a politician, I guess.
            Originally posted by charliesheen View Post
            Soooooo, nevermind. Cut those taxpayer wealth-transfer checks.
            Well let lasted nearly a day.

            Comment


            • #21
              Congrats, you have discovered that the scientific process is vulnerable to human flaws and biases. Turns out those pointy-headed elites are people, after all. For a moment there I almost believed you were honestly interested , silly me

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by AnalHamster View Post




                Well let lasted nearly a day.

                I was referring to the 100 billion that gets pulled from the western pocket and moved to the south eastern one.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Zach11k View Post
                  Congrats, you have discovered that the scientific process is vulnerable to human flaws and biases. Turns out those pointy-headed elites are people, after all. For a moment there I almost believed you were honestly interested , silly me
                  It would be silly to assume any process is immune to people screwing it up by bringing their biases into it. But it appears that the process of selling global warming, which was morphed to climate change, evokes a process more like a sales pitch than like presenting research. So many claims, based on computer models or other predictive methods have not come to fruition. In many times, the opposite has occurred.

                  Look @ how this article whipsaws back and forth, when the science was supposed to be, what is it, 95 or is it 99% settled?

                  http://www.motherjones.com/environme...on-ipcc-sandy/

                  Reliance on this research has crushing implications for the US. Except for those tasked with draping the God Save Us All cloak over the economy. They'll do fine, no matter what. So, doubters get personally attacked. Some propose locking them up. The "scientific community" scoffs at differing views.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    You confuse research and political policy, as always.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Not when they are used as tools or wedges to serve each other's interests, I don't.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Case in point, classifying carbon dioxide as a pollutant. That gives government regulators control over every aspect of anything that ever burns. No surprise this is of no concern you. Only producers have to worry about regulations like this. Getting monitored and taxed for every move they make.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by charliesheen View Post
                          Not when they are used as tools or wedges to serve each other's interests, I don't.
                          It appears you can't even comprehend the difference between research and political policy.

                          Comment

                          Working...
                          X