Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Fraud, so much fraud

science.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

671–680 of 868 posts

Re: Fraud, so much fraud

#671

Post by oneshtein »

echoangle wrote: post #665
oneshtein wrote: post #660

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's model of a humanoid robot. It's not a model of a human.

A model of a model of X is also a model of X. It absolutely is a very simple model of human walking. You’re just using „model“ in a very narrow sense that excludes many things that are commonly called models.

Models are used as orders of magnitude cheaper substitutes of real thing in learning, predicting, and so on, known as «modelling».

AI, in it current state, is not good enough to serve as substitute for human, or human brain, but good enough to serve as substitute of human level intelligence. At this point, we are able to model brain of a fly.

It looks like you are confused by similarity of scheme, model, and similarity.

A model needs a map to transfer knowledge in both directions: from a real thing to a model, and from the model to the real thing, while in scheme, knowledge is transferred in one direction: from a real thing to a scheme. They toy humanoid robot is just a schematic representation of a real human.

Moreover, similar things are not models of each other. Apes are not models of humans and vice versa.

Re: Fraud, so much fraud

#672

Post by bigbacaloa »

searine wrote: post #299
Balgair wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean, the replication crisis had come and gone, about 5 years now. The fraudsters are running the place and have been for at least the last half decade, full stop.

That is a ridiculous exaggeration. Yes, like in every walk of life, fraud happens. However, the extreme success of academic science shows that most of it is real, honest, work.

[dead]

Re: Fraud, so much fraud

#673

Post by aziaziazi »

momoschili wrote: post #531
tim333 wrote: post #429

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Preventing people from working if they didn't get a covid vaccine was a bit heavy handed. And saying it was likely made in a lab in China is kind of censored to this day. I think partly because the science community doesn't want to take flack for doing risky stuff and killing millions.

From a philosophical perspective, I don't see how the vaccine mandates for public jobs is appreciably different than vaccine requirements for public school that already exist. As far as the China lab goes, there were plenty of scientific papers that studied the China leak theory, though I personally don't know what they found.

The difference between the vaccines you're talking about lies in their development time: The one in school have been (tested) around for decades before getting mandatory.

Re: Fraud, so much fraud

#674

Post by ChoHag »

acchow wrote: post #300
dennis_jeeves2 wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>outcomes we collectively agree upon. lol, what are the chances? The average Joe is interested in Dem vs Rep or what the latest show on Netflix. The average researcher is worried about his livelihood, tenure etc.

“Average joe”. Humanity evolves slowly over long periods. The average joe today is far more educated than one from 200 years ago.

[dead]

Re: Fraud, so much fraud

#675

Post by low_tech_love »

eightysixfour wrote: post #227
vasco wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pick up an old engineering book at some point, something from mid 1800's or early 1900's and you'll quickly realize that the trust people put on science isn't what it should be. The scientific method works over a long period of time, but to blindly trust a peer review study that just came out, any study, is almost as much faith as religion, specially if you're not a high level researcher in the same field and have sp…

Science is eventually consistent. Scientists, individual papers, and the dogma at any given time may not be. It just takes a long time.

Exactly, but the problem is that everyone has to be the first to publish about something and then every paper after that which deals with the same thing is relegated to second-level venues (or lower). So whatever is the first word about something becomes the accepted and is super hard to contest.

Re: Fraud, so much fraud

#676

Post by trustno2 »

eig wrote: post #85
ta8645 wrote: post #65

Everyone seems to acknowledge this is a problem, but refuse to believe it actually affects anything when it comes time to "trust the science". Yes, science is corrupted, but all the results can be trusted, and the correct answer is always reached in the end. So, is it really a problem? Or not?

A key skill for any scientist is to differentiate quality work and science that can be easily faked. The Alzheimer's and Parkinson's fields are too easy to fake, and too difficult to replicate. The new ideas are only ~20 years old. Big pharma companies are understandably wary of published papers. When people say "trust the science", they often refer to things like masks, and antibiotics, and vaccines. That science is…

mRNA is very new...

Re: Fraud, so much fraud

#677

Post by jorvi »

nativeit wrote: post #543
fluoridation wrote: post #500

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be honest, it's difficult to tell if the subplot makes sense on purpose, or if the writers just wanted to make a joke and it just happened to end up making sense. I don't think I had ever put the three scenes together before now.

One of the first things I learned in film school is _nothing_ in a production at that level is coincidence or serendipity. To get to the final script and storyboard, the writers would have gone through multiple drafts, and a great deal of material gets either cut, or retooled to reinforce thematic elements. To the extent that The Simpsons was a goofy cartoon, its writers’ room carried a great deal of intellectual and…

> One of the first things I learned in film school is _nothing_ in a production at that level is coincidence or serendipity.

Perhaps they should have taught you to be less sure of that. So many takes in movies that ended up being the best one are where a punch accidentally did land, something is ad-libbed, a dialogue is mixed up, etc.

To take an example of a very critically acclaimed show: in Breaking Bad the only reason we got Jonathan Banks in the role of Mike is because Bob Odenkirk had a scheduling conflict, and Banks improvised a slap during his audition. Paul Aaron even complained about it indicating that he would not have agreed to it.

Re: Fraud, so much fraud

#678

Post by [deleted] »

momoschili wrote: post #157
Maxatar wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because those two texts are the two among literally thousands of scientific publications that have survived the test of time, which is exactly the point being made. This might seem crazy to hear now, but when Maxwell first published A Dynamical Theory of the Electromagnetic Field in 1865, no one cared, it received very little attention at the time. It was decades later in 1888 with the work of Hertz that Maxwell's eq…

It seems convenient that the evidence to corroborate the claim can't be found yes? I think you will also find that the publications of the 1800-1900s are quite well preserved.

[deleted]

Re: Fraud, so much fraud

#679

Post by camillomiller »

The damage this person and he accomplices blew to science and the reputation of medical research in this moment in time is enormous. The first thing that comes to mind is that this outing of such blatant fraud will be inevitably quoted by hordes of novaxxers and anti-science cultists for years to come.

Re: Fraud, so much fraud

#680

Post by echoangle »

oneshtein wrote: post #671
echoangle wrote: post #665

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A model of a model of X is also a model of X. It absolutely is a very simple model of human walking. You’re just using „model“ in a very narrow sense that excludes many things that are commonly called models.

Models are used as orders of magnitude cheaper substitutes of real thing in learning, predicting, and so on, known as «modelling». AI, in it current state, is not good enough to serve as substitute for human, or human brain, but good enough to serve as substitute of human level intelligence. At this point, we are able to model brain of a fly. It looks like you are confused by similarity of scheme, model, and similari…

It just depends on your definition of a model, but to me, a neural network is modeled after how a human brain works. If Apes were man-made, I would also count them as a model of a human.
Post reply on HN