The Science thread - Page 8 - 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 Jan 20th, 2013, 12:54 AM   #71
Honourable Citizen
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: S. Alberta
Posts: 20,382
Quote:
Originally Posted by i-rui View Post
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.
It was linked to JoNova's article. That is all.

Quote:
Originally Posted by i-rui View Post
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?
What I found interesting was the misconduct #'s. I don't know where else problems lie, it seems reasonable that if it's happening in one area, it's happening elsewhere.

Quote:
Originally Posted by i-rui View Post
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.
I wasn't aware, thx for clarifying. Still, it's sad that, like the article noted, there would have been a ton of money pissed away on this fabricated "science" that would have been better spent on honest research.

----------


Quote:
Originally Posted by i-rui View Post
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?
Dunno. I'd like to see what comes out in the next little while, as well.
__________________
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
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old Jan 20th, 2013, 08:04 AM   #72
peek-a-boo
 
groovetube's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 15,869
Quote:
Originally Posted by i-rui View Post
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?



Owner of Science Fraud site, suspended for legal threats, identifies himself, talks about next steps « Retraction Watch
That's what I've been saying here.

Of course some jump on it as the big zinger without seeing what this is about as usual.



groovetube is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 20th, 2013, 08:15 AM   #73
Honourable Citizen
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 4,559
Quote:
Originally Posted by FeXL View Post
Still, it's sad that, like the article noted, there would have been a ton of money pissed away on this fabricated "science" that would have been better spent on honest research.
yes, it is sad. but no system is perfect, and human beings are flawed creatures and there will always be some who will try to game the system.

having said that, overall the system does appear to be working well. there is always room for improvement so i think most people are for the idea of legitimate whistleblowers, but i wouldn't see a few bad apples as an indictment of the entire process.
i-rui is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 20th, 2013, 08:53 AM   #74
Honourable Citizen
 
Macfury's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Toronto Proper
Posts: 41,075
Quote:
Originally Posted by i-rui View Post
... i wouldn't see a few bad apples as an indictment of the entire process.
What more can they do? Only their peers can validate that the proper methodology was followed prior to publication. It's merely disappointing to see peers go easy on papers authored by friends, or those papers that support their political or financial goals.
__________________
"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 20th, 2013, 09:21 AM   #75
peek-a-boo
 
groovetube's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 15,869
It's interesting to see the all out assault on science or whistleblowers, particularly this conservative government to ensure no roadblocks for corps wishing to ram through making piles of money with little worry some pesky scientist will get in the way.

Certainly closing down the station that helped identify the ozone problems from CFCs is a real eye opener.



groovetube is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 20th, 2013, 12:17 PM   #76
Honourable Citizen
 
BigDL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Moncton
Posts: 6,388
Quote:
Originally Posted by groovetube View Post
It's interesting to see the all out assault on science or whistleblowers, particularly this conservative government to ensure no roadblocks for corps wishing to ram through making piles of money with little worry some pesky scientist will get in the way.

Certainly closing down the station that helped identify the ozone problems from CFCs is a real eye opener.
That you see that is HSSMCG™'s clarity at work. Science, facts and figures need to be bent to the will of those in charge who will advise the citizens exactly the information we need know.

The more the government can obscure, the clearer things come into focus for most of us.

For some of us not so much.
__________________
OGL breathed life back into the dying Bloc...way to go Steve!

Ad links aka CLICK BATE in my posts were not put there by me.

DO NOT CLICK on the random links in my post if not logged in as a member of this site.
BigDL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 20th, 2013, 12:42 PM   #77
peek-a-boo
 
groovetube's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 15,869
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigDL View Post
That you see that is HSSMCG™'s clarity at work. Science, facts and figures need to be bent to the will of those in charge who will advise the citizens exactly the information we need know.

The more the government can obscure, the clearer things come into focus for most of us.

For some of us not so much.
For some, it's a rimshot!



groovetube is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 21st, 2013, 09:17 AM   #78
Honourable Citizen
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 6,415
Send a message via AIM to bryanc
Quote:
Originally Posted by Macfury View Post
Only their peers can validate that the proper methodology was followed prior to publication. It's merely disappointing to see peers go easy on papers authored by friends, or those papers that support their political or financial goals.
This is an old, but valid criticism of the peer-review process. No one has found a good solution (some journals send manuscripts out to reviewers without names or other obvious identifying information, but in any given field, it's usually not that hard to figure out who's the most likely author(s), so this doesn't really solve the problem). Fortunately, peer-review is not the only (or even most important) filter. Any important research findings will be tested, reproduced and extended upon by other researchers in the field. So it's pretty rare that any incidence of scientific fraud goes un-noticed; if it's significant enough to draw the interest of other researchers, it'll be independently verified, and if it's not significant enough to draw the interest of other researchers, what's the point of faking it?

This is why almost all the retractions that occur turn out to be cases of honest errors; peer review catches 99% of this stuff, but there will always be some that gets through. That small amount that gets through will be independently verified and the errors discovered through the normal process of science.

This is not to say that there is no problem and all science is good and pure; especially in medical research, where billions of dollars of pharmaceutical money stands to be made or lost, there is a lot of pressure to 'get the right results' and there have been clear cases of systematic fraud. So I think it's good to be suspicious of research that has significant industrial application or support. This would clearly apply to the findings of researchers supported by the oil industry.
bryanc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 21st, 2013, 09:35 AM   #79
peek-a-boo
 
groovetube's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 15,869
I think the mistake some are making here is assuming that since conclusions have been made and peer reviewed, that no one will dispute it. I'm not a scientist, merely an observer and this seems rather obvious to me.

What you posted makes perfect sense. The idea that the worlds scientific community is somehow all conspiring to not dispute one another's findings to cover up some sort if fraud is the stuff for he tinfoil hat fans.

To put it mildly.



groovetube is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 21st, 2013, 09:41 AM   #80
Honourable Citizen
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 6,415
Send a message via AIM to bryanc
Quote:
Originally Posted by groovetube View Post
The idea that the worlds scientific community is somehow all conspiring to not dispute one another's findings to cover up some sort if fraud is the stuff for he tinfoil hat fans.
Absolutely; and while the point of this thread is not to digress into science that FeXL finds offensive, anyone who has any experience with the culture of science will know that consensus is extremely rare among scientists because we *like* arguing and we're trained to find fault with each other's interpretations as much as possible. When consensus emerges, it's because there is no alternative; scientists are almost allergic to agreeing with each other, and will only do so if they have no choice.

So consensus emerges very rarely in science, and when it does, it's because the data is overwhelming.
bryanc 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 02:53 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!