Seems that nearly 4 in 10 "Research" papers (paid for mostly with Government grants) are.....bullshit. These include "Peer Reviewed" studies....
And note that the remaining 62 % include those that "show an effect in the same direction as the original studies.”...not that can be fully replicated, but just kinda can be sorta almost maybe...if you squint hard....might sorta kinda show sorta similar results....
It’s become a profitable industry, where scheming researchers get taxpayer-funded grants to find specific conclusions, then those manipulated and fake conclusions are reported back to the public as if they are real, and then policies and recommendations are made that further cost people money.
This used to be the claim when industry paid for research..especially when they wanted research to show that their products were safe....But now it is pretty much ALL "research"....ESPECIALLY anything to do withGlobal Warming Climate Change...(isn't it interesting how, once the "warming" failed to show up the researchers and climatologists and the media switched to "Climate Change" and the believers just ate it up?)
And there is no downside to publishing a "research" paper full of bullshit either....it's not like you have to pay the money back or worry about being charged with fraud or anything...
I remember reading Scientific American 45 years ago as a kid....My Dad gave me articles to read and explained them if I had questions....and researchers back then published articles which were clear on the methods used and made their research fairly easy for anyone to duplicate....So their peers could easily check their methods....Those days in that publication are long gone, however....
Remember this when you read or are told by the Media that eating food kept in plastic containers increases your chance of getting some exotic cancer that only occurs in white rats that are exposed to extremely high levels of Cell phone radiation while growing up or something....It has a 1 in three chance that the whole research is bullshit.
And note that the remaining 62 % include those that "show an effect in the same direction as the original studies.”...not that can be fully replicated, but just kinda can be sorta almost maybe...if you squint hard....might sorta kinda show sorta similar results....
It’s become a profitable industry, where scheming researchers get taxpayer-funded grants to find specific conclusions, then those manipulated and fake conclusions are reported back to the public as if they are real, and then policies and recommendations are made that further cost people money.
This used to be the claim when industry paid for research..especially when they wanted research to show that their products were safe....But now it is pretty much ALL "research"....ESPECIALLY anything to do with
And there is no downside to publishing a "research" paper full of bullshit either....it's not like you have to pay the money back or worry about being charged with fraud or anything...
I remember reading Scientific American 45 years ago as a kid....My Dad gave me articles to read and explained them if I had questions....and researchers back then published articles which were clear on the methods used and made their research fairly easy for anyone to duplicate....So their peers could easily check their methods....Those days in that publication are long gone, however....
Remember this when you read or are told by the Media that eating food kept in plastic containers increases your chance of getting some exotic cancer that only occurs in white rats that are exposed to extremely high levels of Cell phone radiation while growing up or something....It has a 1 in three chance that the whole research is bullshit.
4 comments:
Of course! You can't argue against climate CHANGE. Warming, on the other hand, can be refuted just by looking at the record books... You say "The climate is ALWAYS changing." They say "PROVE that the changes aren't because of human influence!" I say "NO. YOU prove your argument! You're the ones doing all the bellyaching. YOU do the work!"
This is how the Left works. They spout some babble, and leave you to prove your way out of the argument, when you had nothing to do with STARTING the argument. The best tack; DON'T pay attention to them!
Think of climate change in the same manner as believing in God. If you don't believe in climate change (or God) and it turns out its real, you're kinda screwed. But if you believe in climate change (or God) and it turns out to be not true, what's the harm in believing?
Dale
Scientists either publish or perish, so I am told. And so it pays to have other scientists do a peer review that is favorable to your research. And of course, you scratch my back and I will scratch yours.
It is a wonder that any real science ever gets done in todays world.
DTWND - "what's the harm in believing?"
The harm is in their big government, globalist "solutions." The proposed solutions to glowbull warning all involve doubling or tripling taxes and regulating fossil fuel use out of existence. Plus forcing people to stop eating meat.
The harm done by their the "solution" is orders of magnitude worse than their worst case scenarios of potential harm if we do nothing.
Post a Comment