Bad Science Sleuthing

[bbhero]

We all based our decision on something, something we trust as simple as 1+1 = 2 or traffic lights is not trying to kill us with green on all 4 ways. Science is building future knowledge based on past knowledge, so it is more important to build it right instead of discard it completely. What are you going to build your decision on without science? Your engine oil is based on science and you don't put caster oil in your engine in 2023 because Castrol used to do it.

There are plenty of societies back in times and today with no functioning government. You do not want to live in one (Somalia).

The problem with massive government funding of research….

Is once it becomes great enough and high enough of percentage of those “ researchers” paid money to them and those lovely “ higher institutions of learning”.

Then those results WILL be guaranteed to be weighted in favor of whatever the omnipotent STATE wants those results to be.

And to be candid…. The EXACT same phenomenon is true if “ research “ is bought and paid for multinational corporations. And the “higher institutions of learning” and those “researchers” are bought and paid for too.

Then the supposedly independent “referee” is therefore removed from the match.

Research … Legitimate research with no real paid for biases one way or the other is what is ACTUALLY key here.

 

[PandaBear]

The problem with massive government funding of research….

Is once it becomes great enough and high enough of percentage of those “ researchers” paid money to them and those lovely “ higher institutions of learning”.

Then those results WILL be guaranteed to be weighted in favor of whatever the omnipotent STATE wants those results to be.

And to be candid…. The EXACT same phenomenon is true if “ research “ is bought and paid for multinational corporations. And the “higher institutions of learning” and those “researchers” are bought and paid for too.

Then the supposedly independent “referee” is therefore removed from the match.

Research … Legitimate research with no real paid for biases one way or the other is what is ACTUALLY key here.

You either get a monopoly gouging you paying for the research or a government paying for the research. I don't like waste but there are situations where monopoly is worse. Not wanting a research weight in flavor one way or another? You probably have to wait till someone else coming up with a competing research that proves you otherwise, or another enemy state win the arm race to prove you wrong (space race anyone?).

I have yet to see anyone paying for a research on a large scale with no intention. Sure you can get a fund raising done for maybe 10-100k here and there, but as a whole you won't get someone to fund you building something that doesn't make people money. If they want to help they always want to make sure they profit as well.

Nuke? The only research into better nuke is a nation trying to get their energy independent. Computer? Because we want to drop our bombs more efficiently. Roads? Logistics for wars. Airplanes? Obviously for wars. Medicines? Sure we want to save lives but let's make sure we make money before the patents expire ok.

So you have to wonder, who wants to pay to research pollution reduction. Those who lose out due to pollution, either indirectly (quality of life of voters) or directly (destroying our fishing and farming).

The only human natures I believe in is we are all biased and we can only stay true to competition for our own profit, and it reflects in our research.

 

[SC Maintenance]

You either get a monopoly gouging you paying for the research or a government paying for the research. I don't like waste but there are situations where monopoly is worse. Not wanting a research weight in flavor one way or another? You probably have to wait till someone else coming up with a competing research that proves you otherwise, or another enemy state win the arm race to prove you wrong (space race anyone?).

I have yet to see anyone paying for a research on a large scale with no intention. Sure you can get a fund raising done for maybe 10-100k here and there, but as a whole you won't get someone to fund you building something that doesn't make people money. If they want to help they always want to make sure they profit as well.

Nuke? The only research into better nuke is a nation trying to get their energy independent. Computer? Because we want to drop our bombs more efficiently. Roads? Logistics for wars. Airplanes? Obviously for wars. Medicines? Sure we want to save lives but let's make sure we make money before the patents expire ok.

So you have to wonder, who wants to pay to research pollution reduction. Those who lose out due to pollution, either indirectly (quality of life of voters) or directly (destroying our fishing and farming).

The only human natures I believe in is we are all biased and we can only stay true to competition for our own profit, and it reflects in our research.

I have no issues with research for profit, or patents. Institutions like the FDA and NIH and publicly funded universities are there for oversight and peer review, except many have all been proven to be liars or with holders. That's all I better say about that before I get in trouble.

 

[PandaBear]

I have no issues with research for profit, or patents. Institutions like the FDA and NIH and publicly funded universities are there for oversight and peer review, except many have all been proven to be liars or with holders. That's all I better say about that before I get in trouble.

You can find liars and withholders everywhere, there's nothing you can do other than hoping the "competitions" will do an opposite research to prove and disprove. This is pretty much in the lawyers vs lawyers in court territories and therefore need reproduction of the research results to prove and disprove otherwise.

For me, I look at researches that have paper published in major reputable journal of the industry (i.e. Nature in biology) or conference (Semicon, etc). US gov or certain "think tank" sponsored research, everyone knows they are just a "whatever" piece. I wouldn't distrust what Nature and Semicon publish because some think tanks are running some infomercials.

This is why I ignores all "studies show" logics like coffee is good for you, wine is good for you, smoking is good for you by cleaning your breath after a meal, video games are good for you, etc etc. Bring me a double blind study published and reproduced by a foreign university and we will talk.

 

[wemay]

Social media has made proper researching a thing of the past to our ever increasing ignorant masses. It is the insidious creep of laziness.

 

[PandaBear]

Social media has made proper researching a thing of the past to our ever increasing ignorant masses. It is the insidious creep of laziness.

That happens way before social media. Newspaper, town halls, schools, religions gathering, public shaming by throwing tomatoes at someone you don't like .... We haven't changed much.

 

[MolaKule]

Scientific research requires reproduction by other people outside your organization. It would be a matter of time before someone else catch a fraud.

The biggest lie actually comes from social studies, performing arts, economics, religion, finance, etc. Those fields often have unquantifiable datas and personal beliefs involved, and human cultures are always changing.

In tribo-chemistry it is very difficult to fake results but I have seen misinterpretations of the resulting data.

I think one of the worst fields to distort and subvert the scientific method is cosmology, because it is non-testable.

It is fun to run "what-if" simulations and make conjectures, but don't tell me I have to accept a theory that cannot be validated.

"If a theory has a substantial conflict between prediction and observation it is illogical to continue promoting the theory as true.

The photos obtained from the James Webb telescope reveal a universe that is contrary to the expectations of big bang theory. This is by no means the first time that observations have heavily contradicted the theory and it is likely that this issue will largely be ignored and covered up through fudge factors such as Dark Energy and Dark Matter, due to cosmology's philosophical bias."

A beautiful star cluster that's relatively close to Earth: just 200,000 lightyears away.

From the James Webb Space Telescope... NGC 346 This image shows a beautiful star cluster that's relatively close to Earth: just 200,000 lightyears away. (186,000 miles per second * number of seconds in a year * 200,000 years). 1 lightday is 16.1 billion miles. 1 light year is 5.8 trillion...

bobistheoilguy.com

 

[wemay]

That happens way before social media. Newspaper, town halls, schools, religions gathering, public shaming by throwing tomatoes at someone you don't like .... We haven't changed much.

Social media accelerated this two-fold.