Science: Only correct if it fits the popular narrative

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Ward Smith said:

I certainly hope that tournament wasn't in Vegas! Just sayin

Most certainly not. Rather eat my own feet.

#macau beats vegas   - China v USA time?   That doesn't happen enough in threads ...

Edited November 15, 2019 by Guest

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

15 minutes ago, remake it said:

This calls your knowledge into question, as it has been called many times already, however why not show where the science community regards the journal as you suspect.

Here's one buckwheat. 

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/dec/09/how-journals-nature-science-cell-damage-science

[Guest]

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

41 minutes ago, Ward Smith said:

Here's one buckwheat. 

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/dec/09/how-journals-nature-science-cell-damage-science

Some "damage" may be true, but that is because of their tremendous success.  Perhaps, now they have become TOO prestigious for their own good. 

"The incentives my colleagues face are not huge bonuses, but the professional rewards that accompany publication in prestigious journals – chiefly Nature, Cell and Science."

Edited November 15, 2019 by Enthalpic

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

1 hour ago, DayTrader said:

Who's that sexy legend? Ah ...

So you guys know that's a photo a gorgeous journalist took of me without me knowing on day 3 of a poker tournament. Hence the hoodie and ridiculous good looks. I'm not normally so mysterious and gorgeous and intense but hey, she's only human, she had to take it. I had a hotel room opposite the casino too. You know how it is.

If you don't you go on Tinder ...

That's my version of ''published'' anyway.

#wobble

Cheers.

Wow a pretty girl took his picture, highlight of his life.

I'm not allowed on tinder anymore, all those banked up matches gone!  Oh well...

[Otis11 + 551]

On 10/27/2019 at 4:11 PM, PE Scott said:

I never researched polar bears, but I did work in a biomedical lab while I was in school. I'd say you are more or less correct here. I think there is a lot of pressure to publish work in order to retain funding that often results in rushed or incomplete analysis. I saw that often. The other thing, as you said, is the tenured professors were typically the ones getting grants to do "innovative" or new experiments. The ones with out tenure trying to get their name known often relied on grant funding to basically repeat experiments done by the tenured professors previously in order to validate the results. The rub here is that if you're provided grant money to repeat an experiment and you can't replicate the results, the pressure is on to finesse the data until it fits as opposed to risking your credibility by denying the efficacy of the experiment. This was of course in my very narrow experience and not indicative of the entire scientific community. Just my 2 cents.

I agree with @Douglas Bucklandthat there are definately instances of bias. I also agree with you, @Enthalpic, that there are some credible sources and not all academia is rubbish. Also, that securing and maintaining funding can sometimes lead to questionable behavior.....as with anything.

 

Whoa... you sound like you actually understand how academia works because you might have actually been involved in - gasp - research!

(And from the sounds of it - likely a fairly good university/research institution)

This was actually exactly my experience and one of the many reasons I fled to Industry...

On 10/28/2019 at 1:31 AM, Ward Smith said:

Recommended reading Peer review in need of change

Bottom line, as the Climategate emails clearly proved, the "gate" keepers on "the team" make CERTAIN that no dissenting voices enter their "hallowed halls". You are right, science was never meant to be constrained by "publications" who effectively steal the works that those who publish there lose their rights to. It might surprise those reading this that once the author gets published in "a journal", they've signed away copyright to THEIR piece to that journal.  I know scientists who have had to pay Elsevier to get THEIR OWN PAPER! 

Researchgate is the place I recommend to everyone. Upload your research there, no "gatekeepers" and let the world decide. Exactly as you recommend. 

Wait, we have more than one person who may have done research and is knowledgeable on academia and publishing? 

As a side note - if Climategate is all about the scandal of all this false climate science push, what's Researchgate? 

On 10/28/2019 at 2:23 AM, PE Scott said:

Exactly this. This is why I found this even more odd. She never said that reductions in ice weren't evident or that climate changes weren't occurring. Instead, she said that collective census data indicated that populations of polar bears were thriving in the majority of locations studied. This alone, being in direct contradiction to previous publicity stunts showing polar bears starving because AGW is wrecking their enviroment, was enough to get her fired.

Honestly, I sometimes find myself on the fence a bit with respect to anthropogenic global warming. I agree that the last 150 years of data seems to point to a trend of warming though. However, its stuff like this that makes me doubt the AGW narrative even more. To often correlation is represented as causation when often things are far more complex than the set of parameters being compared. When that data is questioned, the person who questions it is attacked. It just throws a wrench in the whole narrative and makes the argument feel more political than scientific. Soon, it's difficult not to be skeptical of anything your told from anyone entrenched far to either side of an argument as they lose the ability to be objective.

 I can tell you're at least willing to consider other evidence when its presented to you @Enthalpic, which I respect. I try to be open minded and willing to accept alternative viewpoints provided there is enough supporting evidence.

See, and this is what kills me. I'm open to listen to the argument, and I even have a tendency to believe in AGW, (I've done some rough math on it and had access to play with some simulators from some very good institutions) however it's been so completely politicized that I don't even know if I can trust the data that's the basis for all of this. Without trustworthy base data, we have no earthly idea about anything, period. 

Because of this, I simply cannot - in good faith given the data i've seen to date - support any of these austerity measures that supposedly will avert the worst issues of climate change. 

I still support Renewable Energy to minimize other pollutants (as well as long-term benefits to the economy from domestically produced energy, assuming it's domestically financed), I support efficiency measures to reduce our wastefulness (which will also conserve resources and have a long-term benefit on our economy), I support electric vehicles, and all sorts of alternative fuels... but all of this has to be done with a level of common sense and a critical eye. Diving head first into uneconomical 'environmental' measures will actually harm long term environmental sustainability.

Strong economies are more environmentally conscious than weak economies. Strong economies drive more research and innovation - including alternative energy and environmental impact. Strong economies have more resources to pivot when solutions become available.

Austerity measures weaken economies. Unfunded government mandates weaken economies. Unnecessarily burdensome regulation weakens economies (not all regulation is bad, but again - critical eye).

This goes on and on and on... Most self evangelized environmentalists are totally...

I'm going to leave that sentence unfinished.

3 hours ago, remake it said:

This calls your knowledge into question, as it has been called many times already, however why not show where the science community regards the journal as you suspect.

Seriously?

First, you're the only one who has ever called my knowledge into question.

So, @remake it - my apologies that I can't reach your standard for knowledge, education, and intelligence. Would you mind sharing your pedigree so that I have something to aspire to? (I ask, fully realizing this is the internet and anyone can make up anything...)

Edited November 16, 2019 by Otis11
Removed rant

[remake it + 288]

45 minutes ago, Ward Smith said:

Here's one buckwheat. 

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/dec/09/how-journals-nature-science-cell-damage-science

And here is what the author of the article says

"The incentives my colleagues face are not huge bonuses, but the professional rewards that accompany publication in prestigious journals – chiefly Nature, Cell and Science."

[remake it + 288]

2 minutes ago, Otis11 said:

First, you're the only one who has ever called my knowledge into question.

I certainly called your logic dubious and what you know aside from that is trivial.

[Otis11 + 551]

Just now, remake it said:

I certainly called your logic dubious and what you know aside from that is trivial.

I'm formally educated in multiple types of formal logic. Been over this. Try again. Whole post. Here's the key:

So, @remake it - my apologies that I can't reach your standard for knowledge, education, and intelligence. Would you mind sharing your pedigree so that I have something to aspire to? (I ask, fully realizing this is the internet and anyone can make up anything...)

[remake it + 288]

Just now, Otis11 said:

I'm formally educated in multiple types of formal logic. Been over this. Try again. Whole post. Here's the key:

If that were so, then you should know the number of times your points were logically flawed and use fallacious standards, yet you seem oblivious, especially in that this very context has you appealing to authority.

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

2 minutes ago, Otis11 said:

I'm formally educated in multiple types of formal logic. Been over this. Try again. Whole post. Here's the key:

So, @remake it - my apologies that I can't reach your standard for knowledge, education, and intelligence. Would you mind sharing your pedigree so that I have something to aspire to? (I ask, fully realizing this is the internet and anyone can make up anything...)

Poking Jello to get intelligent answers tends to be pretty pointless.  Your results may vary.

 

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

1 minute ago, remake it said:

If that were so, then you should know the number of times your points were logically flawed and use fallacious standards, yet you seem oblivious, especially in that this very context has you appealing to authority.

Worse it's an appeal to his own authority, which is worse than appealing to a commonly respected authority, like Nature.

[Guest]

[Guest]

18 minutes ago, Otis11 said:

Second (DT - don't crucify me for name dropping...

Wouldn't dream of it mate  🤣

I certainly wouldn't use the word ''crucify'' either - learnt my lesson there. 

Also, what you and Ward namedrop / boast about are things you can be proud of ... unlike some. 

Just sayin'

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

Delusional guy continues to think everything is about him....

Try actually ignoring me instead of pretending and including a dig in every post regardless of thread.

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

2 minutes ago, DayTrader said:

Wouldn't dream of it mate  🤣

I certainly wouldn't use the word ''crucify'' either - learnt my lesson there. 

Also, what you and Ward namedrop / boast about are things you can be proud of ... unlike some.

I hear trips to Vegas are pretty much the pinnacle of name dropping.

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

10 minutes ago, DayTrader said:

Wouldn't dream of it mate  🤣

SEAGULLS! (Stop It Now)" -- A Bad Lip Reading of The Empire Strikes Back

[Guest]

Yep true, that's why there's a phrase ''what happens in vegas stays in vegas'' (famous for gambling and hookers) ...

Some are the opposite and talk about it before even going ...

Could go to a log cabin in the mountains? As the country is so great?

Nah ... Vegas.

Classy.

Cheers. 

44 minutes ago, Tom Kirkman said:

54 minutes ago, DayTrader said:

Wouldn't dream of it mate  🤣

SEAGULLS! (Stop It Now)" -- A Bad Lip Reading of The Empire Strikes Back

 

Edited November 15, 2019 by Guest

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

41 minutes ago, remake it said:

And here is what the author of the article says

"The incentives my colleagues face are not huge bonuses, but the professional rewards that accompany publication in prestigious journals – chiefly Nature, Cell and Science."

Buckwheat, Enthalpic beat you to it. But while you grasped at the gnat, you totally missed the thrust of the article, which is that Nature et al sold their souls years ago and are skating along on PAST PRESTIGE. All too deep for your little cybernetic neurons but the intelligent folks here have zero trouble following this logic chain. 

[Guest]

53 minutes ago, Otis11 said:

Most self evangelized environmentalists are totally...

I'm going to leave that sentence unfinished.

I'll finish it if you like?

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

So after all these years, I finally get to see a picture of the pervasive, omniscient, California, banhammer:

[remake it + 288]

6 minutes ago, Ward Smith said:

Buckwheat, Enthalpic beat you to it. But while you grasped at the gnat, you totally missed the thrust of the article, which is that Nature et al sold their souls years ago and are skating along on PAST PRESTIGE. All too deep for your little cybernetic neurons but the intelligent folks here have zero trouble following this logic chain. 

You quoted an article to disprove Nature was prestigious yet the article said it was, so that's an own goal.

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

33 minutes ago, DayTrader said:

Yep true, that's why there's a phrase ''what happens in vegas stays in vegas'' (famous for gambling and hookers) ...

Nah ... Vegas.

Classy.

 

You know what's even less classy than Vegas? Atlantic city, where your god built his failed casino.

A gambling trump lover who bad mouths the States, sex, and gambling.  Priceless.

Edited November 15, 2019 by Enthalpic

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

9 minutes ago, remake it said:

You quoted an article to disprove Nature was prestigious yet the article said it was, so that's an own goal.

Was buckwheat, as in past tense. Do try and keep up

[remake it + 288]

40 minutes ago, Ward Smith said:

Was buckwheat, as in past tense. Do try and keep up

So, show it is no longer the case, as your link showed what was true then, and it was not what you thought.