“Much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue.”
16 Replies to “Published This Month In The Journal Of The Blindingly Obvious”
Most science is unproven theory or the best explanation based in available data and probability – may be true, may not – the problem is those who stray from scientific method in presuming unsubstantiated theories to be fact and rejecting new data which indicates the popular theory may have to be reassessed.
What an odd story to be published in Vox since their history is steeped in “the science is settled”.
Whatever happened to artisans, craftsmen, those who seek perfection in their profession? If the MMGW crowd is any indication, any acts of dissention or whistleblowing of agendas will be poisonous to your career.
When I was a small kid growing up in the 60’s I really respected 2 groups, policemen and scientists. It has been sad to watch both groups slip from grace over the years.
It is the entire apparatus of science that is broken. It has been purchased by Wall St. et al since the “git go”. The overwhelming majority here seem to see the fraud in climate science because for whatever reasons you are prepared to see the cause/effect scam. It seems though when presented with the overwhelming evidence of fraud in medicine (which will actually kill you so someone can make an extra buck) you all dig in your heels and cry foul…”not our doctors! They would never betray their oaths!”.
Well here is a fact of life, yes they will, not because they are evil, but because that is what they were taught. It is “how and why” they are taught what they are where there should be an investigation.
The many here who have pilloried Andrew Wakefield should save some room for a humble pie just dessert, because he is on track to be entirely exonerated in a civil trial in Texas (just the way his colleague in the UK was, post facto). His research was solid, compassion driven science, trying to solve an enigmatic riddle. The billions in funding jeopardized by his findings came down on him in the exact manner CO2 deniers are hit elsewhere.
Why is this such a difficult concept for the “free thinkers” who frequent this blog to grasp?
Science may be flawed at times, but I cannot think of a single better way to understand the world around us. That’s the good thing about science, it is NEVER settled. Maybe that’s Kates point?
Not just science, but industry too. When a process measurement is difficult, dangerous, or just plain pain-in-the-neck, it will be forged. The odds of a forgery double on afternoon shift, and double again on graveyard.
Scientific questions are settled by experiments which either validate a hypotheses or disprove it. As soon as any scientist or researcher is subjected to character assassination instead of factual counter-evidence to disprove a theory you know the status quo money boys ox is being gored.
Yeah. I skimmed through the story, and saw no reference at all to the well-known malfeasance on the part of CAGW “Climate scientists.” Fancy that!
Science has been corrupted roughly by the same extent as has the growth of the state in terms of the extent to which its involvement has engulfed otherwise civil activities. Politicization of virtually everything doesn’t leave science uninfected. The green theocracy is considered above science by its believers and therefore its goals can bend science as required.
When I was a small kid growing up in the 60’s I really respected 2 groups, policemen and scientists. It has been sad to watch both groups slip from grace over the years.
I enjoyed the article. I think those of us involved in scientific fields know how difficult it is to do good, rigorous scientific studies. Science is a process and like any process can be derailed at many points along its way. Add human agendas and overzealous pursuit of a predetermined result, money or fame and the process can be completely derailed before the train even leaves the station e.g. climate “science”. Good science requires an open, inquiring and humble mind — Michael Mann and David Suzuki need not apply.
So now we have studies to study the studies (whew) which if done properly would eliminate 2/3 of this process. It’s the hallmark of good intentions that veered from scientific research to a larger interest of following the money and guaranteed employment while big pharma, the IPCC and other vested players decide the speed and number of shortcuts that determine the quality of fact or fiction in any given study. Perhaps that’s why we have situations like this: http://www.foxnews.com/health/2015/05/12/us-is-about-to-get-cuba-lung-cancer-vaccine/?intcmp=latestnews
Where dirt poor countries put priorities and quality, but basic education ahead of outside interests and can’t afford the luxury on wasting time and effort studying studies. Cuba ? Really ?
But when you look at the big picture, and follow the money, it makes perfect sense. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AazObF_pHSU
Changing the way science is published would be a good start. Right now, science publication is dominated by journals. That made sense when publishing a journal meant paying for typesetting, printing, and distribution.
In such a system, peer review prior to publication is limited to a handful of referees, and providing feedback after publication is cumbersome at best.
I think the blog format is far better suited to scientific publication. Typesetting and distribution are automatic. Review and commenting are by anyone interested in looking, not just a handful of referees. Citation is by hyperlink and trackback. The entire raw data set can be uploaded to the cloud.
Peter,
I would disagree that “it has been purchased by Wall St. since the git go”. Companies are not allowed to tout any new product, or new use of a product, unless the testing is to the regulatory body’s satisfaction. This lead to results like aspirin not being able to be advertised in the US as immediate treatment for heart attacks because the testing wasn’t done in-house, and the regulatory hurdles were so high that no one without a patent would be willing to run those tests. No patent for the new use was available, so no company was willing to face the (?) hundreds of millions of dollars in testing required for a proof. How many people did overly rigourous application of the rules for “must be tested here” kill before the regulators agreed that it was proven elsewhere to the point of not needing “local” proof?
A similar effect can be found for male blood donors – I regularly donate because I like the decreased risk of heart and stroke. I did a half a dozen web searches to find out more about how regular blood donation helps men live longer, and Canadian Blood Services and the Red Cross don’t have any data on these topics. University studies, published studies, and news reports list it, but (presumably for liability reasons) the groups that would actually benefit most from increased blood donations don’t promote the link.
I can’t speak for the other posters here, but I don’t automatically assume that a published study is either right or wrong. I look at the results, at what they tested, and against my own experience (including what I’ve learned from other sources) before deciding in favour, against, or deciding to study it further. Sometimes we just don’t know. Sometimes results are glaringly obvious. Sometimes the results are ridiculous in comparison to other knowledge one possesses.
You mention climate science. I’m a mining engineer, so I’m trained in Geology. When I hear the litany of how it’s never changed like this in the past, or how there will be a runaway positive feedback, or how a 10m sea rise will cause mass extinctions, I laugh. At one time the ice here in Calgary was as tall as our new Bow building, with an extra Calgary tower perched on top. That is, a stack of 5 Bow building – Calgary towers. The natural range of climate change is when this first formed, then melted. There have never been positive feedbacks at the level currently suggested, the system always stabilizes itself at a new normal. And the melting of the last ice age raised sea levels around the world by 130 metres without mass extinctions. Based on my experience, what they are promoting is hooey.
Regarding the other examples you raised, we’re dealing with humans, not angels. In a society of angels no police, lawyers, or peer review is required. Instead we’re a society where hip-hop culture is trying to be normalized. Draw your own conclusions.
Companies are not allowed to tout any new product, or new use of a product, unless the testing is to the regulatory body’s satisfaction.
There may well be a more corrupt organization than the FDA (or Health Canada), but I doubt it. The regulatory bodies satisfaction is the drug companies wish…to make it come true it is staffed by their former (and future) employees.
As well, if you review the video by peterj above, you hear from a former drug detailers mouth how products are sold and why. Billions have been paid in “no fault settlements” by pharma for getting their reps to recommend “off label indications”. The tragedy of seniors and children being horrendously over-prescribed anti-psychotics is just one manifestation. The entire pharma/finance/academia cartel is a killing machine that takes out around 250,000 North Americans/year…but hey, every one is making money.
And so begins the Glibberring Climb Down.
This will be the official meme.
Oh well it is not our fault, we exaggerated, misled and lied…
Oh no its because…. of science.
Yes the scientific method is the best we have come up with so far, to pierce the veil of our pattern seeking mind, blind prejudices and human madness.
But those who refuse to apply this simple method, cannot style themselves “Scientists”.
Modern academia imitates the high priests of past fallen cults.
Dogma, appeal to authority and bland ignorance.
For all their damage control and excuse making, their Climate Emperor is still stark naked, fat and useless.
Most science is unproven theory or the best explanation based in available data and probability – may be true, may not – the problem is those who stray from scientific method in presuming unsubstantiated theories to be fact and rejecting new data which indicates the popular theory may have to be reassessed.
What an odd story to be published in Vox since their history is steeped in “the science is settled”.
Whatever happened to artisans, craftsmen, those who seek perfection in their profession? If the MMGW crowd is any indication, any acts of dissention or whistleblowing of agendas will be poisonous to your career.
When I was a small kid growing up in the 60’s I really respected 2 groups, policemen and scientists. It has been sad to watch both groups slip from grace over the years.
It is the entire apparatus of science that is broken. It has been purchased by Wall St. et al since the “git go”. The overwhelming majority here seem to see the fraud in climate science because for whatever reasons you are prepared to see the cause/effect scam. It seems though when presented with the overwhelming evidence of fraud in medicine (which will actually kill you so someone can make an extra buck) you all dig in your heels and cry foul…”not our doctors! They would never betray their oaths!”.
Well here is a fact of life, yes they will, not because they are evil, but because that is what they were taught. It is “how and why” they are taught what they are where there should be an investigation.
The many here who have pilloried Andrew Wakefield should save some room for a humble pie just dessert, because he is on track to be entirely exonerated in a civil trial in Texas (just the way his colleague in the UK was, post facto). His research was solid, compassion driven science, trying to solve an enigmatic riddle. The billions in funding jeopardized by his findings came down on him in the exact manner CO2 deniers are hit elsewhere.
Why is this such a difficult concept for the “free thinkers” who frequent this blog to grasp?
Science may be flawed at times, but I cannot think of a single better way to understand the world around us. That’s the good thing about science, it is NEVER settled. Maybe that’s Kates point?
Not just science, but industry too. When a process measurement is difficult, dangerous, or just plain pain-in-the-neck, it will be forged. The odds of a forgery double on afternoon shift, and double again on graveyard.
Scientific questions are settled by experiments which either validate a hypotheses or disprove it. As soon as any scientist or researcher is subjected to character assassination instead of factual counter-evidence to disprove a theory you know the status quo money boys ox is being gored.
Yeah. I skimmed through the story, and saw no reference at all to the well-known malfeasance on the part of CAGW “Climate scientists.” Fancy that!
Science has been corrupted roughly by the same extent as has the growth of the state in terms of the extent to which its involvement has engulfed otherwise civil activities. Politicization of virtually everything doesn’t leave science uninfected. The green theocracy is considered above science by its believers and therefore its goals can bend science as required.
I always wondered what it was about that fifth dentist.
Four out of five dentists recommend. . .
I enjoyed the article. I think those of us involved in scientific fields know how difficult it is to do good, rigorous scientific studies. Science is a process and like any process can be derailed at many points along its way. Add human agendas and overzealous pursuit of a predetermined result, money or fame and the process can be completely derailed before the train even leaves the station e.g. climate “science”. Good science requires an open, inquiring and humble mind — Michael Mann and David Suzuki need not apply.
So now we have studies to study the studies (whew) which if done properly would eliminate 2/3 of this process. It’s the hallmark of good intentions that veered from scientific research to a larger interest of following the money and guaranteed employment while big pharma, the IPCC and other vested players decide the speed and number of shortcuts that determine the quality of fact or fiction in any given study. Perhaps that’s why we have situations like this:
http://www.foxnews.com/health/2015/05/12/us-is-about-to-get-cuba-lung-cancer-vaccine/?intcmp=latestnews
Where dirt poor countries put priorities and quality, but basic education ahead of outside interests and can’t afford the luxury on wasting time and effort studying studies. Cuba ? Really ?
But when you look at the big picture, and follow the money, it makes perfect sense.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AazObF_pHSU
Changing the way science is published would be a good start. Right now, science publication is dominated by journals. That made sense when publishing a journal meant paying for typesetting, printing, and distribution.
In such a system, peer review prior to publication is limited to a handful of referees, and providing feedback after publication is cumbersome at best.
I think the blog format is far better suited to scientific publication. Typesetting and distribution are automatic. Review and commenting are by anyone interested in looking, not just a handful of referees. Citation is by hyperlink and trackback. The entire raw data set can be uploaded to the cloud.
Peter,
I would disagree that “it has been purchased by Wall St. since the git go”. Companies are not allowed to tout any new product, or new use of a product, unless the testing is to the regulatory body’s satisfaction. This lead to results like aspirin not being able to be advertised in the US as immediate treatment for heart attacks because the testing wasn’t done in-house, and the regulatory hurdles were so high that no one without a patent would be willing to run those tests. No patent for the new use was available, so no company was willing to face the (?) hundreds of millions of dollars in testing required for a proof. How many people did overly rigourous application of the rules for “must be tested here” kill before the regulators agreed that it was proven elsewhere to the point of not needing “local” proof?
A similar effect can be found for male blood donors – I regularly donate because I like the decreased risk of heart and stroke. I did a half a dozen web searches to find out more about how regular blood donation helps men live longer, and Canadian Blood Services and the Red Cross don’t have any data on these topics. University studies, published studies, and news reports list it, but (presumably for liability reasons) the groups that would actually benefit most from increased blood donations don’t promote the link.
I can’t speak for the other posters here, but I don’t automatically assume that a published study is either right or wrong. I look at the results, at what they tested, and against my own experience (including what I’ve learned from other sources) before deciding in favour, against, or deciding to study it further. Sometimes we just don’t know. Sometimes results are glaringly obvious. Sometimes the results are ridiculous in comparison to other knowledge one possesses.
You mention climate science. I’m a mining engineer, so I’m trained in Geology. When I hear the litany of how it’s never changed like this in the past, or how there will be a runaway positive feedback, or how a 10m sea rise will cause mass extinctions, I laugh. At one time the ice here in Calgary was as tall as our new Bow building, with an extra Calgary tower perched on top. That is, a stack of 5 Bow building – Calgary towers. The natural range of climate change is when this first formed, then melted. There have never been positive feedbacks at the level currently suggested, the system always stabilizes itself at a new normal. And the melting of the last ice age raised sea levels around the world by 130 metres without mass extinctions. Based on my experience, what they are promoting is hooey.
Regarding the other examples you raised, we’re dealing with humans, not angels. In a society of angels no police, lawyers, or peer review is required. Instead we’re a society where hip-hop culture is trying to be normalized. Draw your own conclusions.
Companies are not allowed to tout any new product, or new use of a product, unless the testing is to the regulatory body’s satisfaction.
There may well be a more corrupt organization than the FDA (or Health Canada), but I doubt it. The regulatory bodies satisfaction is the drug companies wish…to make it come true it is staffed by their former (and future) employees.
As well, if you review the video by peterj above, you hear from a former drug detailers mouth how products are sold and why. Billions have been paid in “no fault settlements” by pharma for getting their reps to recommend “off label indications”. The tragedy of seniors and children being horrendously over-prescribed anti-psychotics is just one manifestation. The entire pharma/finance/academia cartel is a killing machine that takes out around 250,000 North Americans/year…but hey, every one is making money.
And so begins the Glibberring Climb Down.
This will be the official meme.
Oh well it is not our fault, we exaggerated, misled and lied…
Oh no its because…. of science.
Yes the scientific method is the best we have come up with so far, to pierce the veil of our pattern seeking mind, blind prejudices and human madness.
But those who refuse to apply this simple method, cannot style themselves “Scientists”.
Modern academia imitates the high priests of past fallen cults.
Dogma, appeal to authority and bland ignorance.
For all their damage control and excuse making, their Climate Emperor is still stark naked, fat and useless.