Science denial

Discussion in 'Science' started by (original)late, Aug 23, 2020.

  1. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,394
    Likes Received:
    3,008
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No it isn't. It has nothing to do with the author, who simply reports on the established statistical relationships between measured intelligence and various individual life outcomes, and some implications of those relationships for public policy.
    No, it is your assumption that is BS, and everything that follows from it is thus also BS.
     
  2. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    27,364
    Likes Received:
    17,357
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Notice the last quoted sentence. The OP's author regards climate skepticism as science denial.
     
    Ddyad and bringiton like this.
  3. kungfuliberal

    kungfuliberal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2017
    Messages:
    3,616
    Likes Received:
    1,073
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Got it. Thanks.
     
  4. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    27,364
    Likes Received:
    17,357
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The fight to defend credibility goes on.
    Journal becomes “victim of an organized rogue editor network”
    [​IMG]

    We’re not accustomed to seeing journal article titles that end in exclamation points. But that’s what a title did earlier this month: “The Journal of Nanoparticle Research victim of an organized rogue editor network!

    The journal, a Springer Nature title, wrote the editors, “has been attacked in a new way by a sophisticated and organized network.” (It turns out not to be entirely new, but more on that in a moment.) As the editors explain:

    Continue reading Journal becomes “victim of an organized rogue editor network”. . . .
     
    Ddyad and bringiton like this.
  5. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,467
    Likes Received:
    16,350
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I don't get your point here.

    Obviously, if this is real the perps should be tracked down and exposed with suitable punishment.

    I'd also point out that this journal (and even other reputable journals) have had to retract papers for reasons such as that they were created by bots or had some other nevarious aspect.
     
  6. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    27,364
    Likes Received:
    17,357
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The point is to raise awareness of the threat posed by organized subversion of peer review.
     
    Ddyad likes this.
  7. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,467
    Likes Received:
    16,350
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I don't believe that one incidence can do that.

    Besides, I don't see evidence that this is the largest problem for journals in general or yours in partiuclar.

    Even the journal you posted has had other issues - published papers that were written by bots, screwing up ratings of the journal by artificial self references to make papers (and thus the journal) look more important.
     
  8. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    27,364
    Likes Received:
    17,357
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I'm not trying to rank the problems. I just found this episode interesting. More from the linked story:

    ". . . Ah, the old faked emails trick, which has been responsible for many of the more than 900 fake peer review retractions we’ve tracked since 2011.

    Who would have thought of such a thing? bemoaned the editors. As it turns out, the editor of another Springer Nature journal, Australasian Physical & Engineering Sciences in Medicine, wrote last year about being the victim of an identical scam. Pinna tells Retraction Watch the Journal of Nanoparticle Research team wasn’t aware of the Australasian journal’s editorial, nor of our post about it. To be fair, that probably wouldn’t have helped them prevent the scam, given the timing, but it might have saved them from calling it a “new way.”. . . ."
     
    Ddyad likes this.
  9. kungfuliberal

    kungfuliberal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2017
    Messages:
    3,616
    Likes Received:
    1,073
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male

    GMAFB with this guff, will ya please?

    Debunking The Bell Curve (mdcbowen.org)

    The Real Problem with Charles Murray and "The Bell Curve" - Scientific American Blog Network
     
    WillReadmore likes this.
  10. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,394
    Likes Received:
    3,008
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Jack Hays likes this.
  11. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,467
    Likes Received:
    16,350
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That's still nonresponsive to my post.

    Attemting to blow this into something big based on one story makes no sense at all.

    Science gets attacked all over the place.

    In fact, you pitch in with your general direction of accepting only those papers that support your position while denigrating the world of highly respected journals.
     
  12. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    27,364
    Likes Received:
    17,357
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    It is what it is.
     
    Ddyad likes this.
  13. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    27,364
    Likes Received:
    17,357
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I just follow the evidence. This website is indispensable. It was founded with a MacArthur "genius" grant.

    A look back at retraction news in 2020 — and ahead to 2021
    [​IMG]

    Like everyone else, it seems, we here at Retraction Watch are more than ready to put 2020 to bed. It was a bittersweet year to celebrate our tenth anniversary and reflect on what we’ve learned. But the work never stops, so as we’ve done every year since 2010, we’ll take a look at the most notable retractions of the last 12 months, and review some important milestones and events.

    Given that journals retracted more than 1,800 papers in 2020, we had plenty of stories from which to choose. However, leading the list would have to be the papers about the pandemic that were pulled for flaws ranging from problematic data to shaky science to absolute wackiness. Indeed, if Covid were an author, it would be fifth on our leaderboard, with 72 so far. We’re certain that’s not the high-water mark for Covid retractions given the haste with which scientists have churned out papers about the disease and the virus behind it.

    The intersection of politics and science drew particular attention, such as this paper about race and police killings whose authors triggered an outcry from the right after they called for their work to be retracted. Some journals engaged in an exercise of cupboard cleaning, retracting papers offensive to minorities, women and other groups. As we argued in Wired, critics of this “purging” tended to miss the larger point: the papers deserved to be retracted not just because of their repellent content but because they were scientifically unsound. And best practices for retraction recommend that they not disappear down a “memory hole,” but that they remain online, but marked “RETRACTED.”

    Continue reading A look back at retraction news in 2020 — and ahead to 2021. . . .
     
    Sammy9000 and Ddyad like this.
  14. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,467
    Likes Received:
    16,350
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I thought your claim was that there is an organized assault. Your cite doesn't show that.

    Claiming that there have been papers published that shouldn't have been published is certainly true. But, the solution to that is to make the bar higher for getting work published - requiring more duplication, requiring stiffer review, and watching what gets published so that work found to be flawed can get removed asap.

    Of course, that presents real challenges, as finding scientists to duplicate the work of others and finding adequate review is really hard. Plus, people (like you) complain when papers favoring their personal opinion don't get immediately featured by prominent journals that get hundreds of thousands of applications.

    BTW, when talking about numbers of retractions it might be interesting to know what fraction that is.

    With more than 2.5 million papers publsihed by technical journals earch year, that means not even 1 in a 2,000 papers is retracted.

    Obviously, published papers need to be monitored. Obviously, one would like all publsihed papers to be perfect. But, I'm not so sure that you are making a convincing argumnet concerning there being a serious problem.
     
    Last edited: Jan 5, 2021
  15. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    27,364
    Likes Received:
    17,357
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    When you debate with yourself there's not really room for anyone else. You will find no claim from me of evidence of widespread organized assault. You will find evidence that a threat of organized assault exists.
    You will also find no post of mine complaining that papers favoring my personal opinion don't get immediately featured.
    And finally, you will find no post of mine claiming there is a "serious problem," or even trying to define "serious" in that context. It cannot, nevertheless, have escaped your attention that a "reproducibility crisis" has been much discussed in science in recent years. One of the results of those discussions was the creation of "Retraction Watch."
     
    Ddyad likes this.
  16. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,394
    Likes Received:
    3,008
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No. The solution is to stop making publication and citation the metrics of academic success, because they virtually guarantee an academic environment where publication and citation will be driven by economic incentives rather than scholarly merit, and consequently be pro forma, paid for, and meaningless. We already have the great majority of papers being published for often-substantial payment by the authors to the journals in question because the journals are corporate-owned, and required to turn a profit. Even the overwhelming majority of legitimate peer-reviewed journals now require submitting authors to be paid subscribers, which for scholars in poor countries is a formidable economic barrier to academic recognition.
    Especially when the enormous amount of work involved is effectively unpaid, leaving other considerations -- like favors to friends and political allies -- as the dominant motives for peer reviewers.
    In the Internet age, the centuries-old peer-review model is obsolete and should be scrapped. Academic journals should instead provide moderated Internet forums where papers can be submitted and criticisms made and responded to by forum participants until a consensus emerges on the papers that have merit, and then publish a selection of the most important and meritorious ones. Authors should be required to release all their data and analysis software, and no form of patent or copyright should be permitted on any of it. At no point should authors be asked to pay for publication of their work, and the journals should be owned, operated and funded by universities, never corporate financial interests. Publication in a private, for-profit, corporate-owned journal should not be regarded as legitimate academic publication, and should be ignored in metrics of academic success and merit.
     
    Grey Matter and Jack Hays like this.
  17. kungfuliberal

    kungfuliberal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2017
    Messages:
    3,616
    Likes Received:
    1,073
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
  18. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    27,364
    Likes Received:
    17,357
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    New Study: IPCC Made Fatal Errors In Assumptions About CO2 Which Destroy Global Warming Alarm
    By Kenneth Richard on 7. January 2021

    Share this...
    CO2 is higher at the Poles than at the Equator. When air warms, CO2 goes down and water vapor goes up. The warming effects of CO2 and water vapor do not add; they oppose each other. This is opposite IPCC claims.
    The IPCC claims doubling CO2 from 280 ppm to 560 ppm over the course of several centuries produces a warming of 1.2°C on its own (IPCC TAR). Since this is not enough to induce catastrophic warming or propel CO2 mitigation policies, IPCC models suggest water vapor perpetually rises along with CO2 and warming, and this rising positive water vapor feedback drives this initial 1.2°C warming up to 3°C, 4°C, and beyond.

    The problem with this hypothetical model is that observational evidence fails to corroborate it.

    A new paper (Lightfoot, 2020) shows that the claims (a) CO2 and air temperature go up and down together, (b) CO2 and water vapor go up and down together, and (c) warming by water vapor can be added to that of CO2 to give enhanced warming are all not observed to occur in the real world.

    Instead, when air warms, CO2 falls as water vapor concentrations (40,000 ppm in the tropics, <1,000 ppm at the poles) rise. Again, this fundamentally contradicts IPCC claims. . . .
     
    Sammy9000 likes this.
  19. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    27,364
    Likes Received:
    17,357
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
  20. DennisTate

    DennisTate Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2012
    Messages:
    31,489
    Likes Received:
    2,601
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male

    What do you think of the idea that scientists.....
    may have at least some bias AGAINST any idea that might appear in the Bible?


    http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/graham-hancock.581870/page-2#post-1072388255

    Graham Hancock



     
    Last edited: Jan 19, 2021
  21. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    27,364
    Likes Received:
    17,357
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The struggle continues.

    Publisher retracting 68 articles suspected of being paper mill products
    [​IMG]
    via Pixy

    It appears to be Paper Mill Sweeps Week here at Retraction Watch.

    On Tuesday, we reported on an editor who believes one such operation was responsible for the withdrawals of at least two articles in her journal.

    Now, the Royal Society of Chemistry is retracting 68 articles, across three of its titles, after an investigation turned up evidence of what it suspects was the “systemic production of falsified research.” The society said it is in the process of beefing up its safeguards against milled papers and plans to train its editors to have “extra vigilance in the face of emerging, sophisticated digital fraud.”

    Continue reading Publisher retracting 68 articles suspected of being paper mill products . . . .
     
  22. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    27,364
    Likes Received:
    17,357
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Uncomfortable knowledge
    Posted on March 3, 2021 by curryja | 59 comments
    by Judith Curry

    On the misuse of science and scientific authority.

    Continue reading →
    ". . . Much of the discussion of the “war on science” and our “post-truth” condition, of course, regards not a generalized condition but a specific controversy, the failure of policy makers to heed the recommendations of climate scientists, with many climate advocates claiming that the failure to act is the result of a sustained campaign of media disinformation underwritten by fossil fuel interests.

    But in “Unbalanced: How Liberal Elites Have Cued Climate Polarization,” political scientists Eric Merkley and Dominik Stecula argue that there is little evidence to support this claim. Drawing upon a comprehensive study of three decades of news coverage of the issue, Merkley and Stecula find that mainstream media outlets, including conservative outlets like the Wall Street Journal and Fox News, have never given climate skeptics much of a platform. . . . "
     
    Sammy9000 likes this.
  23. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,467
    Likes Received:
    16,350
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Also, one can easily find "political scientists" who carefully spport the premise that our elections were rigged by Democratis to foil Trump's bid for the presidency, too.

    The idea that Fox has given equal representation of science on ANY topic of any import is just too ridiculous for words.

    They've waged more than a year of war against science on COVID. For many months, their central theme was that Democrats invented COVID as a political attack on our president!!!

    Their climate denial has been full bore for more than two decades. The same goes for Rushbo, Breitbart, and other right wing media.

    Suggesting that major media campaigns such as these have no effect is really rather silly. If studies didn't show that people are listening, then they could not sell advertising time and they would go out of business.

    Let's remember. Even TRUMP listened to Fox closely enough to try to implement Fox policy.

    Don't be a toady.
     
    Last edited: Mar 7, 2021
  24. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    27,364
    Likes Received:
    17,357
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Sorry, but your post is 100% off-topic deflection. Perhaps to avoid uncomfortable knowledge.
    Don't be an ostrich.
     
    Sammy9000 likes this.
  25. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,467
    Likes Received:
    16,350
    Trophy Points:
    113
    All you are doing is searching the internet for contrarians who agree with your preconceptions.

    That is just plain pathetic.

    But, it absolutely IS what a science denier would spend days doing. So, you at least got THAT part right - lol!
     
    Cosmo likes this.

Share This Page