Scientific Papers Can No Longer Be Trusted

admin orbnaa , , , , , , , , ,

first_img(Visited 811 times, 1 visits today)FacebookTwitterPinterestSave分享0 How do you know a paper is not a hoax? or fake science? It’s getting increasingly difficult to tell, and Big Science is worried.Like every other source of information, scientific journals depend on trust. Readers have to trust that editors are not trying to fool them. Most papers end with long lists of references, where scientists refer to previous papers they trust gave correct information. They don’t have the time to repeat the experiments in previous papers, and even if they had the time, the details may be so complicated or difficult as to make replication impossible. We’ve already heard of the “replication crisis” in psychology and medicine, but what if “fake science” becomes so widespread, nobody can tell what is genuine and what is fake? It’s no longer possible to trust a scientific paper just because a reputable peer-reviewed journal published it. Let’s look at some news that may undermine public trust in scientific papers.Intelligently Designed HoaxI got a hoax academic paper about how UK politicians wipe their bums published (The Conversation). Psychologist Gary Lewis is concerned about “predatory journals” with lax standards for peer review, so he tried a practical joke. He submitted a paper to one of them that was obviously silly, claiming that conservatives wipe themselves with the right hand, and liberals with the left hand. In the tradition of investigative journalism, he made it look authentic to see if the journal would publish it – and they did. Lewis proved that one “predatory journal” was guilty of promoting fake science, but his concerns extend beyond this one case:Why is this sort of thing a problem? In a nutshell, predatory journals are contaminating the scientific literature by providing ostensibly rigorous reports of studies that in reality are often far from acceptable. Work published in such journals is occasionally used in serious public debates, such as on climate change. They present a serious credibility problem for science.Of additional concern, it turns out that many academics actually struggle to identify the rogue journals from the bona fide. A recent piece in Nature makes this point only too clearly – many senior scientists have published their work in these outlets, and paid thousands of dollars for publishing fees. Indeed, the journal in which I published my hoax paper has authors based at well-regarded institutions like Rutgers, Princeton, and Florida State University. (I am not implying that their papers are necessarily bogus in any way: in fact, they often seem to be regular articles that might well have been accepted in more mainstream outlets.)As we have seen, though, “mainstream outlets” have their own issues with peer review, misconduct and bias. They will publish silly Darwinian just-so stories, for instance, that could not meet minimum standards for rigor in physics.Motivators for FakeryWith this example in mind, let’s list some factors that contribute to the dissemination of fake science, and then look at more examples. Scientific results can become untrustworthy when:Ideology trumps method or evidence, as with Darwinian just-so storytellingThe “publish or perish” atmosphere leads scientists to be careless, rushing results to pressFunding from special interests colors the findingsGovernment funding could be threatened unless results go along with the consensusGovernment leaders fund bad science (e.g., Lysenkoism, Nazi medicine)Rivalry motivates dirty tricks to prevent a rival from gaining priority for a discoveryClosed peer review allows a reviewer to reject his rival’s findingsA scientist’s career is on the lineThe institution rewards number of publications over quality in CV’sA culture of corruption pervades a university departmentIt becomes easier to “go along to get along” instead of blowing the whistleA respected academic advisor punishes grad students whose results disagree with hisData become so complex, multiple conclusions are possibleData are so distant or inaccessible, speculative ideas fill the voidAuthors are unaware of the problem of underdetermination of theories by dataAuthors are careless about confirmation bias, the tendency to find what they expect to find and credit their pet theoryConclusions never get tested because they are untestablePolitical correctness tugs the conclusions in a direction that is currently socially acceptableTrusted references turn out to be untrustworthyImportant findings are buried in low-grade journals (e.g., Mendel)Authors are unaware of retractions or corrections to earlier papers they relied onA paradigm asks the wrong questionsScientists are oblivious to alternative paradigmsScientists are blind to their biases (e.g., atheism)Soft sciences are treated as just as reliable as hard sciencesThe nature of the problem is far removed from empirical verification (e.g., multiverse theory)Mathematics or statistics are used inappropriately, for bluffing and not for supportAlternative ideas have been censored, so that authors are oblivious to challengesA scientist begins to believe his or her list of publications confers automatic credibilityPrestige becomes more valuable than rigorHaving won a prize makes a scientist’s views unassailableLack of education in philosophy of science makes the authors oblivious to well-known fallaciesThese problems are not mutually exclusive. Any of them, singly or in combination, undermine trust in a paper’s findings. Nor is this list exhaustive. It becomes apparent that a so-called ‘scientific method’ is no cure for dishonesty, groupthink or carelessness.Test Your Critical ThinkingLet’s look at three recent papers and ‘scientific’ findings in this light, and ask if they deserve respect just because a ‘science journal’ or a science news site published them.Bullshit-sensitivity predicts prosocial behavior (PLoS One). The title of this paper alone should send hoax sirens sounding. Who decides what is BS? The scientist? Go ahead and read this open-access paper’s methods and conclusions, and see if the paper itself would fail its own BS detector. Maybe the authors were testing PLoS One to see if they could get four-letter words published.How do religious ideologies spread? ( The authors of this ‘finding’ seem intent on undermining Christianity. Researchers from the ‘Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History’ single out Christianity for their ‘study’ that comes to the conclusion that the spread of Christianity was not due to grass-roots conversion but by top-down pressure. Other researchers could doutbless find numerous counter-examples. Cautious readers might ask if the authors would be willing to apply the same scientific ‘methods’ to the spread of Darwinism.Chimpanzee ‘nests’ shed light on the origins of humanity (The Conversation). Gaining the title of ‘scientist’ grants privileges in storytelling denied the bulk of humanity, and this example is a whopper. What possible connection can chimpanzee nesting have with human origins? The notion provides a case study in Darwinian orthodoxy driving conclusions. So convinced are Alexander Piel and Fiona Steward that they are mere evolved great apes themselves, they engage in pure speculation:How does this link to our ancestors? Given we know that all great apes build nests, and that many early hominins retained adaptations for tree-living such as feet that could grasp onto branches or food, it is likely that they also built varied nests. This would have helped them adapt to a changing landscape and an unpredictable climate during key periods of evolution. The ability to build cosy and also functional beds when required would have been a key buffer against colder temperatures on the drying savanna.In evolutionary terms, there’s a very long leap from architecturally-flexible nightly bed construction to an eventual investment in more permanent structures or “home bases”, which appeared around 2m years ago. But these later bases are what today provide insight into more transformative hominin behaviours like the use of fire or social organisation, and these dramatic changes would not have been possible without the ability to construct reliable shelter. To gain a critical insight into our own evolution we must look at the “nests” built by early hominin species – and modern chimpanzees.This one example is guilty of numerous flaws from the above list.You see what we are up against reporting on science each day at CEH. We cannot assume that any paper is trustworthy. Figures, equations and references do not by themselves confer credibility on any finding. Being published in a respected, peer-reviewed journal is no insurance. We have to apply critical thinking to papers, never assuming that findings are trustworthy until we see sufficient empirical evidence and attention to alternative conclusions. Darwinian papers are the worst! Evolutionist authors still often cite Darwin’s Origin as reference numero uno, and it’s all downhill from there: ‘evolutionary biologists’ will apply copious amounts of Darwin Flubber to hold together just-so stories that would fall apart if the observational facts were considered without the ideology. We hope this entry warns people against taking a scientist’s word for something carelessly. Discerning the truth of a matter is hard work. And remember: science without integrity is indistinguishable from the mythology it tries to supplant. For a good myth, ask a Darwinist how integrity evolved.last_img

You May Also Like..

Channel 4 makes ‘significant investment’ in agent comparison site

first_imgHome » News » Channel 4 makes ‘significant investment’ in agent comparison site previous nextProducts & ServicesChannel 4 makes ‘significant investment’ in agent comparison siteFour-year-old proptech firm GetAgent has struck an equity-for-media deal with the national broadcaster.Nigel Lewis11th May 201802,035 Views Estate agent comparison website GetAgent has struck a deal with TV station Channel 4 that will see its service advertised in TV ads (see below) across the media giant’s various channels for the next 10 months.The investment, which is spearheaded by Channel 4’s Capital Growth Fund, is a media-for-equity deal that includes both Channel 4 but also E4, Dave, Alibi and others.GetAgent, which started up in 2014 and has 6,000 agents signed up in the UK, was founded by 30-year-old tech entrepreneurs Sebastian Powell, Colby Short and Peter Thum-Bonanno (pictured, above with staff).It enables vendors to compare branches in their local area based on their recent performance.“Never again will a homeowner have to choose an agent without understanding how well they have sold homes in the past,” Powell said at the time.The service offers a shortlist of local agents best suited to sell their home and, if the property sells following an introduction, GetAgent charges the agent a referral fee.It is based in Farringdon, London and has received at least two rounds of funding until now including a seed investment in 2015, and last year cash from venture capital firm 500 Startups, which has a handful of other online home selling sites including Homelight and Settled.“We all know that estate agents as a whole don’t have the best reputation, but many estate agents work extremely hard to help homeowners get the best value for their home,” says GetAgent CEO Colby Short.“At GetAgent, we are passionate about helping these great estate agents stand out from the crowd and demonstrate their superiority and value.“We feel the war on fees will not benefit homeowners and that agents should focus on demonstrating quality instead. That is where we can help.”Out of the three founders, Thum-Bonanno is the only one with direct property experience. He established London property portal FindProperly, which he later sold to Lokku/Mitula, the parent company of Nestoria, and which is still going. GetAgent Peter Thum-Bonanno Sebastian Powell Channel 4 Colby Short Dave e4 May 11, 2018Nigel LewisWhat’s your opinion? Cancel replyYou must be logged in to post a comment.Please note: This is a site for professional discussion. Comments will carry your full name and company.This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.Related articles Letting agent fined £11,500 over unlicenced rent-to-rent HMO3rd May 2021 BREAKING: Evictions paperwork must now include ‘breathing space’ scheme details30th April 2021 City dwellers most satisfied with where they live30th April 2021last_img

USS O’Kane to Return from Nine-Month Deployment

first_img View post tag: News by topic View post tag: americas Back to overview,Home naval-today USS O’Kane to Return from Nine-Month Deployment View post tag: Deployment View post tag: USS O’Kane USS O’Kane to Return from Nine-Month Deployment December 5, 2014 View post tag: Hawaii View post tag: monthcenter_img The Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyer USS O’Kane (DDG 77) will return to its homeport Dec. 5 from a nine-month deployment to the Arabian Gulf and Western Pacific Ocean.The ship and crew of nearly 280 Sailors, assigned to Destroyer Squadron (DESRON) 31, conducted goodwill activities with partner nations along with various presence operations with two carrier strike groups during the ship’s deployment.While deployed in the 5th and 7th Fleet areas of responsibility, O’Kane Sailors participated in community service projects in Bahrain, United Arab Emirates, India and Guam by tutoring special needs children, assisting with general community clean up, and participating in sporting and social events.Also during the deployment, the ship’s visit, board, search and seizure (VBSS) team safely conducted 47 maritime interdiction operations while in the 5th Fleet AOR.O’Kane is named for Rear Adm. Richard O’Kane, a submarine commander in World War II who received the Medal of Honor for his service aboard USS Tang (SS-306). O’Kane directly participated in more successful attacks on shipping than any other submarine officer during the war. The ship’s motto is “A Tradition of Honor.”The ship is homeported in Hawaii and is part of Naval Surface Group Middle Pacific and U.S. 3rd Fleet.[mappress mapid=”14621″]Press release, Image: US Navy View post tag: NINE View post tag: Return View post tag: Naval Authorities Share this article View post tag: Navylast_img


first_imgImage: Senators Debate Health Care Bill On Capitol HillSen. John McCain (R-AZ) leaves the Senate chamber at the U.S. Capitol after voting on the GOP ‘Skinny Repeal’ health care bill on July 28, 2017 in Washington, DC. Justin Sullivan / Getty Images McCain’s life was punctuated by wild highs and lows, from the horrific conditions he endured for nearly 2,000 days as a prisoner of war to subsequent professional successes that brought him to the forefront of American politics.Over the course of his career, he rallied against pork-barrel spending and went against his own party’s president, George W. Bush, on strategy for the Iraq war. He earned a reputation as a party maverick by advocating campaign finance reform, lending his name to the bipartisan McCain-Feingold Act of 2002, and supporting overhauling the nation’s immigration system over the years. His daughter, Meghan McCain, said in a statement that “I was with my father at his end, as he was with me at my beginning.”“All that I am is thanks to him. Now that he is gone, the task of my life is to live up to his example, his expectations, and his love,” she said.McCain’s wife, Cindy McCain, tweeted: “My heart is broken. I am so lucky to have lived the adventure of loving this incredible man for 38 years. He passed the way he lived, on his own terms, surrounded by the people he loved.” She said he died in “the place he loved best.”In his 36 years in Congress, McCain became one of the country’s most respected and influential politicians, challenging his fellow lawmakers to reach across the aisle for the good of the country, and often sparring with reporters with a biting if self-deprecating wit. SENATOR JOHN MCCAIN DIES AT 81John McCain, who shed a playboy image in his youth to become a fighter pilot, revered prisoner of war and both an independent voice in the Republican Party and its 2008 presidential nominee, died on Saturday, little more than a year after he was told he had brain cancer. He was 81.McCain’s office said in a statement “Senator John Sidney McCain III died at 4:28 p.m. on August 25, 2018.” He announced on July 19, 2017, that he had been diagnosed with a glioblastoma, an aggressive type of brain tumor. On Friday his family announced he was discontinuing treatment. But the pinnacle of his political career came in 2008, when he clinched the Republican nomination for president, only to lose to Obama amid the global financial meltdown and dragged down by Bush’s low approval ratings. His contentious choice for a running mate, Sarah Palin, the governor of Alaska at the time, was also believed to have contributed to the loss and is still seen by some as a tarnish on his reputation.center_img On a variety of issues — torture, immigration, campaign finance, the Iraq War — McCain was often known as the moral center of the Senate and of the Republican Party.Last year, in his last act of defiance, McCain returned to the Capitol less than a week after his cancer was diagnosed to cast his vote on the Republican effort to repeal the Affordable Care Act — the biggest legislative achievement of President Barack Obama, the man who defeated him in the 2008 election.McCain first voted in favor of debating the bill, giving his fellow Republicans hope that their long-sought goal of repealing Obamacare was in sight. McCain then dashed those hopes by casting the decisive vote against repeal.Before the vote, McCain denounced the rise of partisanship in a heartfelt speech from the Senate floor on July 25, 2017.“Why don’t we try the old way of legislating in the Senate, the way our rules and customs encourage us to act?” McCain said. “Merely preventing your political opponents from doing what they want isn’t the most inspiring work.”But in recent months, the man who had been a mainstay on Capitol Hill for more than three decades was noticeably absent.He missed a White House ceremony on Dec. 12, 2017, in which President Donald Trump signed the annual defense bill into law — one of McCain’s signature achievements.A statement issued the following day by the senator’s office said he was at the Walter Reed National Military Medical Center in Maryland receiving treatment for the “normal side effects of his ongoing cancer therapy” and looked forward to returning to work as soon as possible. FacebookTwitterCopy LinkEmailShare “With the Senator when he passed were his wife Cindy and their family. At his death, he had served the United States of America faithfully for sixty years,” McCain’s office said in the statement.last_img

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *