Fake Science
 

Fake Science? Well more like dishonest, or capitalism infected science. I figure it'll probably get worse as faith, trust, and interest in science erodes, and Funding becomes death matches in the thunderdome.

The reason Morgenstern did this is he was spammed to distraction by the phony journals. So the first time he created a character who sounded plausible. It was shockingly successful which led him to Hoss, the most ridiculous character he could think of. Sadly his worst fears were realized.:(

link

Well, Adam Cartwright went on to become Trapper John M.D.: so, anything's possible.

I thought this would be about the three scientists who submitted 20 ridiculously fake papers to scientific journals and got 7 of them peer-reviewed and published.

Unfortunately, this is the most surprising thing in this thread.

I like that phrase.

... by journals that were fake science journals.

The Rubin Report also just covered this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=97FuO-hEhQo

It's long but understanding how everything fell together is both funny and disturbing.

Peer review isn't what is used to be.

I'll just leave this here.
https://ideas.ted.com/why-you-think-...mpression=true


TL;DR - it's not about teaching people to have more rigorous logic/deduction/"left-brain" skills. It's about shifting them from one emotional state to another.

That can't be true 'cause she's just a chick. :haha: :runaway:

Watched that earlier... their discussion of the dog park rape paper was hilarious

tw's objection is half on point, and I think they should have addressed it. These are shitty journals.

The point of the researchers should not be that all science is in question, but that there are serious problems with those particular sciences where these journals reside. Nobody is submitting fake papers to the New England Journal of Medicine, the targets are journals called Sexuality and Culture and Journal of Feminist Philosophy. The "soft" sciences have gotten less scientific over time. This is a push back against that.

Part of the problem, again, is that these entire concepts aren't traditionally "scientific" because they are trying to explain the behavior of humans who often behave in untestable, unpredictable, complex ways. We want to insist, for example, that psychiatry is (at least somewhat) more rigorous and thus valid than sociology, but usually it's not:

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com...rs-have-names/

Any science based on the symptoms, outward behavior, and self-reporting of its subjects will always be hand-waving at best. We don't have to ask the bacteria why it infected us, only how to kill it--which means it's a little disingenuous for those folks to mock the people who are trying to answer much harder and more sophisticated questions for their lack of answers. It's like, "Well, *I* can add, so why can't *you* prove string theory?"

N.B. my "watched that" ref's the Rubin Report item, can't watch the TED talk yet

Ah--it's actually a written thing, not a video.

(As for me, I'm not saying the dog rape paper was a good one--from what I remember, the "evidence" was moderately impressive if taken at face value, it's just that they made up the evidence and no one asked for sources.)

The problem, as Peter Boghossian and James Lindsay point out on RR, is that these types of papers are published and the thesis becomes a "laundered" idea. It MUST be true, it's was published in [select your choice of institution]

Then it flies around a variety of other sources and eventually becomes fact. Fact that policy is based on.

Now, one might make the argument that it's only the fly by night pseudo science types that publish these laundered ideas but years ago Duke University was duped into publishing a hoax piece now called the sokal affair

Absolutely. False information can be extremely damaging in any context.

But I think it's actually unhelpful for the writers of the dog rape paper to act like the journal should have been suspicious purely based on the subject matter. Actual evidence often is counterintuitive. The paper cited documentation of over 1800 observed fucking/fighting incidents--data the journal didn't ask for, and they should have--but you are deluding yourself if you think a huge percentage of "hard science" studies aren't based on far less data relating to far more unexpected correlations.

The journal should be asking for proof of every study's data. The importance of this statement is weakened by the authors acting like the mere subject of dog rape is too hilarious for anyone to study.

My layman's understanding of popular science is that everyone wants to get grants by producing *headline-grabbing study results, but nobody wants to shell out for additional studies to verify results.



*ETA: it's not actually the scientists' fault that pop sci writers write non sequitur headlines

All depends on the science. Psychology has always been a form of blood-letting since most conclusions were only on subjective observation. Only recently has that science finally had some tools to actually quantify conclusions.

In another famous incident, Schon did research in organic transistors in a location that anyone with science knowledge knows (because so many products that made America great in the 1980, 90s and 2000 were developed there in the 1940, 50s, 60s and 70s).

Schon was making claims beyond what anyone else was able to accomplish. At one point, his name was appearing in a paper every eight days. But with all science that is truly quantitative, his data quickly and eventually exposed him. He had been faking it all along. It is a famous story.

The reason why he was exposed also must be learned. Those damning details are so important - and not found in soundbyte conclusions.

Organic transistors were then and are still an essential technology. His junk science seriously undermined progress. In part, because so many tried (wasted time and money) trying to reproduce his results without success.

Fraud in science based in perspective (numbers) is quickly discovered. Other science (ie psychology) does not have (yet) those necessary tools. So fraud is so much easier.

And then is another problem. So many only believe a first thing they are told. Limbaugh, Hannity, Ingalls, etc live on those who are most easily manipulated and deceived (brainwashed). Since their emotions replace honest and logical thought.

Jenny McCarthy demonstrates another who is an enemy of mankind. Even when autism (from MMR) science was well proven as a fraud, people such as Jenny McCarthy continued to do so much harm to children, in particular, and mankind, in general. Because so many adults are still (think like) children (even with big tits and blond hair). And because so many others would believe her only because she has big tits and blond hair.

We saw same with Saddam's WMDs. Facts with numbers clearly stated it did not exist. Some were so brainwashed as to even believe that lie long after the President (George Jr) admitted they did not exist.

Other problem with fraud (and discussed in that youtube video) is how entrenched some can be once emotions justify a conclusion. Making those fraudulent (and very subjective) papers to be easily believed. Entrenchment into lies is so much easier when science is based in too must subjective (qualitative) reasoning and not in quantitative (numeric) reasoning.

The fake papers were actually about softer sciences than Psych. From the authors' essay on their study:

So, to nail it down, they were addressing the respected journals that covered the fakest, softest sciences.

If somebody tells me somebody has proven A + B = C in quantum physics, I'll accept it because:
1 - I have no idea what quantum physics entails.
2 - It doesn't affect me that I know of.

Then somebody tells me that it's not true, A + B actually = G, I'll accept it because of the same two reasons.

But somebody tells me all this yes/no round and round research is being funded with my tax money... now wait a god damn minute!
So I look to Limbaugh, Hannity, and FOX to keep me informed. Oh, and twitter too. :rolleyes:

It explains why Huawei has now replaced America as the new world leader in advanced telecommunications. EVen the Bell Labs where so much of this wsa once done is now owned by Nokia.

Research in the 80s, 90s, and 2000 that would have been creating products today was stifled back then by cost concerns. By the same thought processes that also killed seven Challenger astronauts.

We are watching this problem getting worse since so many Americans are only educated in cost controls instead of how to learn facts and how the world really works. Slowly things that once made America great are being driven overseas by extremists who know only from their feelings - who do not know how to think - who ironically also love Trump lies.

It never ceases to amaze that so many foolishly believe a blackout will damage electronics - now that emotions and observation replace knowledge.

We know the future for today's kids is quantum physics. But that is too hard - it cost too much (originally $8 billion). So even that technology must go overseas where people better understand what is necessary to know something.

Everyone was taught fundamental concepts such as a hypothesis and experimental evidence. With greater frequency and instead, knowledge is now proven only by observation, emotion (Jenny McCarthy), talk show hosts, and insults.

Inability to think logically is why Saddam had WMDs, why a defense budget is now two thirds of the American expenditures due tp wars that will never end, why the national debt has now exceed (for the first time) the debt in WWII, and why so many did not even learn from Vietnam.

So many do not even understand why global warming is happening. Put $30 of gasoline in a car. How much actually moves that car. Maybe $4. Rest is wasted as heat, noise, and pollution. Already many eyes have just glazed over due to numbers. Numbers are hard because 'Barbie' said so. So the emotional would rather ignore it.

Junk science reasoning explains all those symptoms.