481–490 of 970 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Incredible that you cite Brett and Eric Weinstein as credible sources of information. Those guys are charlatans through and through.
Yes, it’s incredibly ironic to be recommending Brett and Eric Weinstein in a comment about fraudulent researchers.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are a ton of problems with how science is done and most of it comes down to the same root cause: greed. You have corporations buying off scientists (if not to rig experiments/falsify results, then to bury unfavorable findings), journals willing to publish any garbage with little (if any) meaningful review, then media companies willing to turn that junk science into a click-bait friendly press release for a comp…
> You have corporations buying off scientists (if not to rig experiments/falsify results, then to bury unfavorable findings), journals willing to publish any garbage with little (if any) meaningful review, then media companies willing to turn that junk science into a click-bait friendly press release for a company or industry. What reason does a corporation have to pay for science that they know will not work? That's…
When the world learns of your treachery, you sponsor scientific research in which monkeys are exposed to your modern VW diesel tail pipe emissions and also model year 1990s Ford diesel fumes, to show that you’re really pretty harmless compared to old pickup trucks. Your research is trash, the conclusions meaningless, and scientists cash your checks.
Hypothetically: you manufacture cigarettes..
Hypothetically: your fracking is injecting heavy metals into my groundwater..
Hypothetically: you manufacture margarine..
I mean. For God’s sake. Think for just a moment.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Educated" people can say what they want about how important it is to believe in the science and have faith in our researchers and the institutions they work for. This comment shows the problem in the argument. Science does not require belief or faith. In fact the idea of faith is the antithesis of science. Science is about the hypothesis supported by evidence and remains current knowledge until a hypothesis that is…
Unfortunately, my knowledge is insufficient to question. So I’m forced to have faith that the researchers are not bullshitting me.
The problem is when you would expect someone else to to have faith just because you do. Or equally, that you would expect someone to find an explanation compelling just because you did.
People who don't understand speak with conviction as if they do, but then resort to this chained together appeal to authority as their reasoning.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've always felt voting was a bad idea. It drives candidates to waste inordinate amounts of time and money on campaigning. For many posts, the ancient Athenians selected people at random (sortition) usually from a pool of willing candidates. A large enough random selection would be represenative. This would work well for the US House of Representatives. Your comment implies that you don't want representatives, you wa…
That is really interesting. Do you know if it's been used anywhere else? Even non-governmental type votes?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Even new research needs funding. The point is that you can't trust the findings of research to be accurate if it hasn't been proven to be reproducible. When it comes to science it doesn't do any good to fund research into X if you don't actually do the grunt work and part of that work needs to be seeing the initial results carefully reviewed, and then replicated. Right now, far too often "review" is a rubber stamp an…
Yeah, I completely agree with all of that. But again, this is an economic problem. In a perfect world, we'd have an infinite fund for doing science and you couldn't publish a paper until your results were reproduced. But we live in a capitalist society where incentives are profit-driven (mostly). That's a reality regardless of whether you think it's good or bad.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Much of this was told to me in confidence (via their lab-mates, etc) I’m not going to betray their trust.
This website is pretty easy to post on anonymously. It takes five seconds to make a throwaway and another three to post a name. While I agree that there are frauds out there in academia and elsewhere, I have no reason to believe that you’re not yourself some sort of fraud. You’ve essentially posted “I have direct knowledge of [unspecified academic fraud in which somebody claimed to have direct knowledge of [unspecifi…
Correct me if I am wrong, but this website, and the owners are in U.S. of A. If so, an appropriate court order would force the disclosure of logs, IP addresses, accounts, etc. There are plenty of examples where sites had to disclose sufficient details to track an 'anonymous' writer down. With multi-million (billion?) dollar endowments on the line, I would be worried to presume just a throw away account would work.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Great choice of critic -- who has written many books about scientists commiting fraud because of their lust for grant money. Too bad his criticism comes from fantasy, instead of facts. And of course he's a climate change denier.
I’ve read State of Fear, and I agree that Crichton isn’t a great source for scientific facts. But this quote isn’t really a criticism of science. It’s a criticism of journalism. I think most people here on HN agree with his premise regarding the quality of science journalism. I’m not so sure about his conclusion that all journalism should be treated with the same suspicion.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Incredible that you cite Brett and Eric Weinstein as credible sources of information. Those guys are charlatans through and through.
What makes you say they’re charlatans
I recommend this podcast for a complete breakdown of the Weinsteins. https://decoding-the-gurus.captivate.fm/episode/eric-and-bre...
Just throwing my 2c into the well, as someone who used to be highly "pro-science" but lost confidence in much of academia and the validity of scientific research in general after starting a PhD and seeing how the sausage is made. The biggest problem science is facing is not an external threat from a rabble of ignorant science deniers, but the complete degradation of quality within the scientific institutions themselv…
> Most research is flawed or useless, but published anyway because it's expedient for the authors to do so. For the record I now know a professor at one of the premier institutions in the world, who is a total fraud. Their research was fraudulent in grad school. Their lab mates tried to raise concerns and nothing happened. That person graduated, with everyone on the committee knowing the issues. Then they got a premi…
Just throwing my 2c into the well, as someone who used to be highly "pro-science" but lost confidence in much of academia and the validity of scientific research in general after starting a PhD and seeing how the sausage is made. The biggest problem science is facing is not an external threat from a rabble of ignorant science deniers, but the complete degradation of quality within the scientific institutions themselv…
> Most research is flawed or useless, but published anyway because it's expedient for the authors to do so. For the record I now know a professor at one of the premier institutions in the world, who is a total fraud. Their research was fraudulent in grad school. Their lab mates tried to raise concerns and nothing happened. That person graduated, with everyone on the committee knowing the issues. Then they got a premi…