The Science thread - Page 7 - ehMac.ca
Facebook
Twitter
YouTube
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Advertise


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old Jul 28th, 2011, 09:49 AM   #61
peek-a-boo
 
groovetube's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 15,869
"The compassionate intellectual left." Followed by inserting words into someones mouth.

Sorry but I've seen this sort of thing on tory blogs, if you're going to whine about things, I wouldn't be throwing gas on the fire and running screaming who started the fire.

just my humble observation.

edit: it appears brync said the same thing.



__________________
using: 2013 retina 15" MBP 16gigs of ram/1tb ssd, iphone5, 2 appleTV 3s.
groovetube is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old Jul 28th, 2011, 10:22 AM   #62
Honourable Citizen
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: S. Alberta
Posts: 20,382
Quote:
Originally Posted by bryanc View Post
FeXL, this is where you went wrong
I went wrong nowhere.

I chose my words most carefully.

If you don't like the highly reasonable condition I politely requested, then quietly leave. Start your own thread. Go have a beer & cool off. Kick the dog. Get into a fight with your spousal unit. Hit the gun range and fire off a coupla hunnert rounds. Crank the Marshall up to 11 and offend the neighbors. Go for a <snort> scooter ride. Chase the assistant around the lab. Something. Anything. I don't care.

Just don't trash the whole thread because you don't agree with it.

As to the balance of your post, consider it ignored.
FeXL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 19th, 2013, 02:08 PM   #63
Honourable Citizen
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: S. Alberta
Posts: 20,382
Going to try this again...

So, a while back a website designed to discover science fraud & protect whistleblowers was started. You may ask why, if papers pass the hallowed peer-review process, is a site like this needed?

An abstract from a paper published by the National Academy of Science gives a hint.

Abstract.

Quote:
A detailed review of all 2,047 biomedical and life-science research articles indexed by PubMed as retracted on May 3, 2012 revealed that only 21.3% of retractions were attributable to error. In contrast, 67.4% of retractions were attributable to misconduct, including fraud or suspected fraud (43.4%), duplicate publication (14.2%), and plagiarism (9.8%). Incomplete, uninformative or misleading retraction announcements have led to a previous underestimation of the role of fraud in the ongoing retraction epidemic. The percentage of scientific articles retracted because of fraud has increased ∼10-fold since 1975. Retractions exhibit distinctive temporal and geographic patterns that may reveal underlying causes.
Bold mine.

Unfortunately, due to legal threats, the site has shut down.

Whistleblower Science Fraud Site is Shut Down

A Barrage Of Legal Threats Shuts Down Whistleblower Site, Science Fraud

Quote:
Operated as a crowdsourced reference site much like Wikipedia, Science Fraud, in its six months of operation, documented egregiously suspicious research results published in over 300 peer reviewed publications. Many were subsequently retracted, including a paper by an author whose lawyer sent Science Fraud a cease and desist letter.

Given the tens of millions of dollars in misappropriated research funds that financed this small sample of what is surely a larger problem and the cascading pollution of the scientific literature whenever fraudulent publications get cited, it’s a shame that this tip-of-of-the-iceberg effort at cleansing the muck is being shut down rather than expanded.
Bold mine.

What a sad, sad state has "science" become.
__________________
Just a meat eating, mouth-breathing, knuckle-dragging, Harley riding deplorable troglodyte peoplekind, back from a better place...

“Have no respect whatsoever for authority; forget who said it and instead look what he starts with, where he ends up, and ask yourself, is it reasonable?” —Richard Feynman

“Charm and nothing but charm at last grows a little tiresome...It's a relief then to deal with a man who isn't quite so delightful but a little more sincere.” — W. Somerset Maugham
FeXL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 19th, 2013, 04:00 PM   #64
Honourable Citizen
 
Macfury's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Toronto Proper
Posts: 41,075
Quote:
Originally Posted by FeXL View Post
What a sad, sad state has "science" become.
P-p-p-p-p-p-p-p-p-peer reviewed!!
__________________
"My life is my own."

Mac Pro 5,1 3.2 GHZ Quad Core; MacBook Pro 1,1; iPhone 4
Macfury is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 19th, 2013, 06:17 PM   #65
Honourable Citizen
 
iMouse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Oshawa, Ontario
Posts: 2,014
Quote:
Originally Posted by Macfury View Post
P-p-p-p-p-p-p-p-p-peer reviewed!!
P-p-p-p-p-p-p-p-p-political p-p-p-p-p-p-p-p-p-peer reviewed.
__________________
"We'd like to talk to you about cheeses. - Gouda's Witnesses
iMouse is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 19th, 2013, 06:47 PM   #66
Resident Curmudgeon
 
SINC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Central Alberta
Posts: 84,913
Send a message via AIM to SINC
Quote:
Originally Posted by FeXL View Post
I went wrong nowhere.

I chose my words most carefully.

If you don't like the highly reasonable condition I politely requested, then quietly leave. Start your own thread. Go have a beer & cool off. Kick the dog. Get into a fight with your spousal unit. Hit the gun range and fire off a coupla hunnert rounds. Crank the Marshall up to 11 and offend the neighbors. Go for a <snort> scooter ride. Chase the assistant around the lab. Something. Anything. I don't care.

Just don't trash the whole thread because you don't agree with it.

As to the balance of your post, consider it ignored.
Ah, the master of the rim shot strikes again. Sorry FeXL. Done.
__________________
Visit my website:
St. Albert's Place On The Web
(Over 3.1 million folks have.)

Last edited by SINC; Jan 19th, 2013 at 07:08 PM.
SINC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 19th, 2013, 07:58 PM   #67
peek-a-boo
 
groovetube's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 15,869
shut down because of legal threats? Well if I suppose if what they said was legit and provable, why did they shut down?



groovetube is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 19th, 2013, 08:16 PM   #68
Honourable Citizen
 
iMouse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Oshawa, Ontario
Posts: 2,014
Quote:
Originally Posted by groovetube View Post
Shut down because of legal threats?

Well if I suppose if what they said was legit and provable, why did they shut down?
Because lawyers threaten. It's what they do. Bull-**** baffles brains all the time.

Quote:
The Scorpion and the Frog

One day, a scorpion looked around at the mountain where he lived and decided that he wanted a change. So he set out on a journey through the forests and hills. He climbed over rocks and under vines and kept going until he reached a river.

The river was wide and swift, and the scorpion stopped to reconsider the situation. He couldn't see any way across. So he ran upriver and then checked downriver, all the while thinking that he might have to turn back.

Suddenly, he saw a frog sitting in the rushes by the bank of the stream on the other side of the river. He decided to ask the frog for help getting across the stream.

"Hellooo Mr. Frog!" called the scorpion across the water, "Would you be so kind as to give me a ride on your back across the river?"

"Well now, Mr. Scorpion! How do I know that if I try to help you, you wont try to kill me?" asked the frog hesitantly.

"Because," the scorpion replied, "If I try to kill you, then I would die too, for you see I cannot swim!"

Now this seemed to make sense to the frog. But he asked. "What about when I get close to the bank? You could still try to kill me and get back to the shore!"

"This is true," agreed the scorpion, "But then I wouldn't be able to get to the other side of the river!"

"Alright then...how do I know you wont just wait till we get to the other side and THEN kill me?" said the frog.

"Ahh...," crooned the scorpion, "Because you see, once you've taken me to the other side of this river, I will be so grateful for your help, that it would hardly be fair to reward you with death, now would it?!"

So the frog agreed to take the scorpion across the river. He swam over to the bank and settled himself near the mud to pick up his passenger. The scorpion crawled onto the frog's back, his sharp claws prickling into the frog's soft hide, and the frog slid into the river. The muddy water swirled around them, but the frog stayed near the surface so the scorpion would not drown. He kicked strongly through the first half of the stream, his flippers paddling wildly against the current.

Halfway across the river, the frog suddenly felt a sharp sting in his back and, out of the corner of his eye, saw the scorpion remove his stinger from the frog's back. A deadening numbness began to creep into his limbs.

"You fool!" croaked the frog, "Now we shall both die! Why on earth did you do that?"

The scorpion shrugged, and did a little jig on the drownings frog's back.

"I could not help myself. It's what I do."

Then they both sank into the muddy waters of the swiftly flowing river.
__________________
"We'd like to talk to you about cheeses. - Gouda's Witnesses
iMouse is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 19th, 2013, 08:42 PM   #69
peek-a-boo
 
groovetube's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 15,869
Sure they do. But people generally fold if they lack the goods to prove their claims. Otherwise they would have stood their ground.



groovetube is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 20th, 2013, 12:04 AM   #70
Honourable Citizen
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 4,559
Quote:
Originally Posted by FeXL View Post
Going to try this again...
You may ask why, if papers pass the hallowed peer-review process, is a site like this needed?

An abstract from a paper published by the National Academy of Science gives a hint.

Abstract.
Quote:
A detailed review of all 2,047 biomedical and life-science research articles indexed by PubMed as retracted on May 3, 2012 revealed that only 21.3% of retractions were attributable to error. In contrast, 67.4% of retractions were attributable to misconduct, including fraud or suspected fraud (43.4%), duplicate publication (14.2%), and plagiarism (9.8%). Incomplete, uninformative or misleading retraction announcements have led to a previous underestimation of the role of fraud in the ongoing retraction epidemic. The percentage of scientific articles retracted because of fraud has increased ∼10-fold since 1975. Retractions exhibit distinctive temporal and geographic patterns that may reveal underlying causes.
not sure why you're trying to link the PubMed articles to the 'Science Fraud' site....since there's nothing to connect them to each other. AT ALL.

perhaps you're trying to make a case that the misconduct runs rampant through the PubMed articles, and therefore run rampant through all peer reviewed work?

Just to put some perspective on the PubMed articles that were retracted.....there was 2047. PubMed houses over 24 million records....so basically 1 in every 11,724 articles are retracted.....which is actually pretty damn good if we're being honest about these things.

----------

As for the 'science fraud' website...it'd be interesting to see what they had posted. But perhaps there was legitimate legal reasons for it to be taken down?

Quote:
But we should also note that the site went beyond simply questioning the integrity of the images; it also accused scientists of wrongdoing and questioned the scientists‘ integrity. Put together with what Brookes acknowledges was offensive language, there are a lot of clear-minded attorneys who would disagree with his conclusion that there is “in no way grounds for a libel or defamation suit.”

Perhaps we’re just used to thinking as journalists whose publications are at risk if we wander too close to the libel line, and some Retraction Watch commenters — mostly anonymous — are happier with Science Fraud’s approach than with ours. Fair enough: As we’ve noted a number of times, Science Fraud’s analyses led to a number of corrections and retractions. But the end doesn’t justify the means, certainly not in court. And a number of commenters seem to agree.
Owner of Science Fraud site, suspended for legal threats, identifies himself, talks about next steps « Retraction Watch
i-rui is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The closing of the Canadian Election Thread by EhMax... screature Everything Else, eh! 148 May 2nd, 2011 09:27 PM
Canadians Don't Want Iggy: Poll SINC Everything Else, eh! 384 Mar 5th, 2011 06:06 PM
Mod Log Chealion Info Centre 7 May 25th, 2006 01:18 PM
Vexel's Intel iMac thread Vexel Anything Mac 54 Mar 30th, 2006 10:38 PM
P4 vs G5 vs G3 jfpoole Anything Mac 41 Jan 12th, 2006 03:55 PM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:32 AM.



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
vBulletin Security provided by vBSecurity v2.2.2 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright © 1999 - 2012, ehMac.ca All rights reserved. ehMac is not affiliated with Apple Inc. Mac, iPod, iTunes, iPhone, Apple TV are trademarks of Apple Inc. Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0 RC 2

Tribe.ca: Urban living in Toronto!