Junk Science: Poor science, pseudoscience, errors, and fraud

Advances in the investigation of the physical universe we live in.
Post Reply
Mr. Perfect
Posts: 16973
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 am

Re: Junk Science: Poor science, pseudoscience, errors, and f

Post by Mr. Perfect »

Richard Dawkins is a huge black eye on the face of science and atheism. To the degree that anyone who espouses atheism or science needs to denounce him. Here he makes the spectacular claim that all scientists do not have ulterior motives. All one has to do is peruse this thread and you know that's a lie.

3E25jgPgmzk
Censorship isn't necessary
User avatar
Doc
Posts: 12561
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2012 6:10 pm

Re: Junk Science: Poor science, pseudoscience, errors, and f

Post by Doc »

From last year but a good article.

http://reason.com/archives/2016/08/26/m ... ong-or-use

Most Scientific Findings Are Wrong or Useless
“Science isn’t self-correcting, it’s self-destructing.”


Ronald Bailey | August 26, 2016
"I fancied myself as some kind of god....It is a sort of disease when you consider yourself some kind of god, the creator of everything, but I feel comfortable about it now since I began to live it out.” -- George Soros
User avatar
Typhoon
Posts: 27242
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 6:42 pm
Location: 関西

Re: Junk Science: Poor science, pseudoscience, errors, and f

Post by Typhoon »

Doc wrote:From last year but a good article.

http://reason.com/archives/2016/08/26/m ... ong-or-use

Most Scientific Findings Are Wrong or Useless
“Science isn’t self-correcting, it’s self-destructing.”


Ronald Bailey | August 26, 2016
Perhaps. Perhaps not.

I do agree with the trans-science as a problem aspect.

However, most major scientific discoveries have been and continue to be the result of serendipity and a prepared mind able to realize the significance*.

Not goal-directed micromanaged research which has become the convention today.

This reality is an anathema to the contemporary managerial classes as it defies their dogmas.

*The author mentions nuclear power as an example of successful directed research by the military-industrial complex.
This shows a lack of understanding of the difference between science and engineering.
The first scientific step was the discovery of radioactivity, by Becquerel, which was accidental.
The second scientific step was the discovery of the neutron, by Chadwick, which was not anticipated.
The third scientific step was the discovery of nuclear fission, by Hahn, Meitner, and Strassmann, was not initially understood
until solved by Meitner and Frisch.

Build the first nuclear reactor, under the stands of Stagg Field at the U of Chicago, was an engineering problem.
As was the future development of nuclear power.
May the gods preserve and defend me from self-righteous altruists; I can defend myself from my enemies and my friends.
User avatar
Doc
Posts: 12561
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2012 6:10 pm

Re: Junk Science: Poor science, pseudoscience, errors, and f

Post by Doc »

Typhoon wrote:
Doc wrote:From last year but a good article.

http://reason.com/archives/2016/08/26/m ... ong-or-use

Most Scientific Findings Are Wrong or Useless
“Science isn’t self-correcting, it’s self-destructing.”


Ronald Bailey | August 26, 2016
Perhaps. Perhaps not.

I do agree with the trans-science as a problem aspect.

However, most major scientific discoveries have been and continue to be the result of serendipity and a prepared mind able to realize the significance*.

Not goal-directed micromanaged research which has become the convention today.

This reality is an anathema to the contemporary managerial classes as it defies their dogmas.

*The author mentions nuclear power as an example of successful directed research by the military-industrial complex.
This shows a lack of understanding of the difference between science and engineering.
The first scientific step was the discovery of radioactivity, by Becquerel, which was accidental.
The second scientific step was the discovery of the neutron, by Chadwick, which was not anticipated.
The third scientific step was the discovery of nuclear fission, by Hahn, Meitner, and Strassmann, was not initially understood
until solved by Meitner and Frisch.

Building the first nuclear reactor, under the stands of Stagg Field at the U of Chicago, was an engineering problem.
As was the future development of nuclear power.

I fully agree Basic science is part discovering things we don't know, part confirming the discovery, part figuring out what it implies, and how it might be applied.

None of which conforms to a schedule. I have heard stories of smart researchers holding back on some of what their results and using as a grant proposal to fund their next round of research
"I fancied myself as some kind of god....It is a sort of disease when you consider yourself some kind of god, the creator of everything, but I feel comfortable about it now since I began to live it out.” -- George Soros
User avatar
Heracleum Persicum
Posts: 11567
Joined: Sat Dec 22, 2012 7:38 pm

Re: Junk Science: Poor science, pseudoscience, errors, and f

Post by Heracleum Persicum »

.

Thomas Edison, at school, gets a letter from the principal to hand to his Mom

At home, Mom, after reading the letter, starts crying

Thomas asks Mom why shy crying ?

Mom says, letter says "you are too gifted to be at this school"

Mom starts "home schooling", teaching Thomas at home by herself.

The rest you guys know

After years, after Mom passes away, Thomas Edison finds the letter in her drawer

The letter says : Madame, your son Thomas is not intelligent enough to be in this school, we do not accept him.

The rest you know


Well, folks, maybe not science & scientist but you guys not intelligent enough to understand "global warming" and the rest :lol:

Doc, CS you have the mike. :D


.
Last edited by Heracleum Persicum on Thu Jun 29, 2017 4:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Simple Minded

Re: Junk Science: Poor science, pseudoscience, errors, and f

Post by Simple Minded »

Like I have said for decades, perennial victims always want blame society, when instead they should blame their parents!

Or is it multigeneralizational Karma?
User avatar
Heracleum Persicum
Posts: 11567
Joined: Sat Dec 22, 2012 7:38 pm

Re: Junk Science: Poor science, pseudoscience, errors, and f

Post by Heracleum Persicum »

.


The U.S. fertility rate just hit a historic low.
Why some demographers are freaking out.


The United States is in the midst of what some worry is a baby crisis. The number of women giving birth has been declining for years and just hit a historic low. If the trend continues — and experts disagree on whether it will — the country could face economic and cultural turmoil.

According to provisional 2016 population data released by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on Friday, the number of births fell 1 percent from a year earlier, bringing the general fertility rate to 62.0 births per 1,000 women ages 15 to 44. The trend is being driven by a decline in birthrates for teens and 20-somethings. The birthrate for women in their 30s and 40s increased — but not enough to make up for the lower numbers in their younger peers.

Somebody should send this to "Spengler".

.
noddy
Posts: 11318
Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2011 3:09 pm

Re: Junk Science: Poor science, pseudoscience, errors, and f

Post by noddy »

Simple Minded wrote:
Like I have said for decades, perennial victims always want blame society, when instead they should blame their parents!

Or is it multigeneralizational Karma?
in my country this outcome is enforced by lefties who demand proper qualifications and university training for all high paid jobs.

poor cant afford to acquire those, its only private business which will cover those costs or do in house training.
ultracrepidarian
User avatar
Heracleum Persicum
Posts: 11567
Joined: Sat Dec 22, 2012 7:38 pm

Re: Junk Science: Poor science, pseudoscience, errors, and f

Post by Heracleum Persicum »

noddy wrote:
Simple Minded wrote:

Like I have said for decades, perennial victims always want blame society, when instead they should blame their parents!

Or is it multigeneralizational Karma?
in my country this outcome is enforced by lefties who demand proper qualifications and university training for all high paid jobs.

poor cant afford to acquire those, its only private business which will cover those costs or do in house training.


.


Not sure what you sayin, noddy

What has "The Left" (or "Right") or any direction to do with demanding "proper qualification and university training" for a job, let alone high paid job ? ? ?


"proper qualification" should be the prerogative for any job

.
noddy
Posts: 11318
Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2011 3:09 pm

Re: Junk Science: Poor science, pseudoscience, errors, and f

Post by noddy »

proper qualifications is a blurred concept - on one level we have brain surgeons and on other levels we have the person holding the lollypop stop sign on road works.

the modern west requires qualifications for the most trivial of tasks and also does blood testing on most manual labouring which removes people who drink or smoke marijuana from the pool.

hence, the barrier to entry for a poor person used to be motivation, now it includes money upfront for training courses and radical changes in lifestyle.

entire suburbs of my country have become unemployable in the last few decades, this is all government legislation driven and government training driven.

the puritans get a smug feeling, so thats all that counts.
ultracrepidarian
User avatar
Typhoon
Posts: 27242
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 6:42 pm
Location: 関西

Re: Junk Science: Poor science, pseudoscience, errors, and f

Post by Typhoon »

Heracleum Persicum wrote:.


The U.S. fertility rate just hit a historic low.
Why some demographers are freaking out.


The United States is in the midst of what some worry is a baby crisis. The number of women giving birth has been declining for years and just hit a historic low. If the trend continues — and experts disagree on whether it will — the country could face economic and cultural turmoil.

According to provisional 2016 population data released by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on Friday, the number of births fell 1 percent from a year earlier, bringing the general fertility rate to 62.0 births per 1,000 women ages 15 to 44. The trend is being driven by a decline in birthrates for teens and 20-somethings. The birthrate for women in their 30s and 40s increased — but not enough to make up for the lower numbers in their younger peers.

Somebody should send this to "Spengler".

.
Fertility rates in the US, Canada, Japan, China, and Korea

The US fertility rate has been as low before for an extended from about the early 1970's to the late 1980's.

Both Canada and the US have a solution in the form of immigration.

China, Korea, and Japan do not by their past and current policy choice.

The problem for Korea and Japan is not a declining population as much as too few workers having too support too many long lived retirees.

The problem for China is to become rich before it gets old.

For those that believe that demographics is destiny, India would be the place to invest.
May the gods preserve and defend me from self-righteous altruists; I can defend myself from my enemies and my friends.
Simple Minded

Re: Junk Science: Poor science, pseudoscience, errors, and f

Post by Simple Minded »

https://www.thesun.co.uk/tech/3935615/s ... -humanity/

....audience in tears!

When an expert says something, ya gotta take them seriously.....
User avatar
Heracleum Persicum
Posts: 11567
Joined: Sat Dec 22, 2012 7:38 pm

Re: Junk Science: Poor science, pseudoscience, errors, and f

Post by Heracleum Persicum »

noddy wrote:.


the modern west requires qualifications for the most trivial of tasks and also does blood testing on most manual labouring which removes people who drink or smoke marijuana from the pool.

hence, the barrier to entry for a poor person used to be motivation, now it includes money upfront for training courses and radical changes in lifestyle.

.

What has "not being drunk or high on marijuana" to do with education or any qualification no matter what.

Anybody being drunk or high on marijuana should not be at workplace for many reason, accident the primary

"entire suburbs of my country have become unemployable in the last few decades" means something wrong socially AND culturally

.
noddy
Posts: 11318
Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2011 3:09 pm

Re: Junk Science: Poor science, pseudoscience, errors, and f

Post by noddy »

Heracleum Persicum wrote:
"entire suburbs of my country have become unemployable in the last few decades" means something wrong socially AND culturally

.
absolutely, the new lefty controlers who would rather see people waste away in ghettos than work drunk gotta go.

the old christian puritans knew better, germanic culture is built on alcohol.

http://www.historynet.com/uneasy-about- ... estion.htm
If barley be wanting to make into malt,
We must be content and think it no fault,
For we can make liquor to sweeten our lips,
Of pumpkins and parsnips and walnut-tree chips.
im only partly joking, however the reality is northern european culture is a hard drinking culture and has been since the dawn of time.

personally i dont like being drunk but ive never had a problem with high functioning addicts, i certainly wouldnt climb the moral high horse and destroy their working careers.

the type of person who thinks they can destroy other peoples lives because of habits they dont like is repulsive to me, their rise in power due to technological advances is the number 1 reason modern life is going to suck hard.

everything but anything is up for detection and ostracisation in an effort to create the uber mencsh
ultracrepidarian
User avatar
Heracleum Persicum
Posts: 11567
Joined: Sat Dec 22, 2012 7:38 pm

Re: Junk Science: Poor science, pseudoscience, errors, and f

Post by Heracleum Persicum »

noddy wrote:
Heracleum Persicum wrote:
"entire suburbs of my country have become unemployable in the last few decades" means something wrong socially AND culturally

.
absolutely, the new lefty controlers who would rather see people waste away in ghettos than work drunk gotta go.

the old christian puritans knew better, germanic culture is built on alcohol.

http://www.historynet.com/uneasy-about- ... estion.htm
If barley be wanting to make into malt,
We must be content and think it no fault,
For we can make liquor to sweeten our lips,
Of pumpkins and parsnips and walnut-tree chips.
im only partly joking, however the reality is northern european culture is a hard drinking culture and has been since the dawn of time.

personally i dont like being drunk but ive never had a problem with high functioning addicts, i certainly wouldnt climb the moral high horse and destroy their working careers.

the type of person who thinks they can destroy other peoples lives because of habits they dont like is repulsive to me, their rise in power due to technological advances is the number 1 reason modern life is going to suck hard.

everything but anything is up for detection and ostracisation in an effort to create the uber mencsh


.


Agree, as long as ones "bad habit" does not "interfere" for the "task at hand", it should not be discriminatory

But being "high" on anything, alcohol, drug (these days even being "horny" :D ) would interfere with pretty much every task as it "diminishes" ones judgement .. you know of any task or job that does not need a degree of clear head ?

Yes, European nordic nations, Germanic and Scandinavian live with Alcohol .. but ..the driver could have had a beer too many

.
User avatar
Typhoon
Posts: 27242
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 6:42 pm
Location: 関西

Re: Junk Science: Poor science, pseudoscience, errors, and f

Post by Typhoon »

Simple Minded wrote:https://www.thesun.co.uk/tech/3935615/s ... -humanity/

....audience in tears!

When an expert says something, ya gotta take them seriously.....
Another empirical demonstration that expertise is rarely transferable from one field to another.

Expertise-in-everything is an affliction that seem to strike some scientists in the twilight of their careers,
especially if they are well known to the general public.

Although Hawkings is not one, Nobel laureates seem especially susceptible.
May the gods preserve and defend me from self-righteous altruists; I can defend myself from my enemies and my friends.
Mr. Perfect
Posts: 16973
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 am

Re: Junk Science: Poor science, pseudoscience, errors, and f

Post by Mr. Perfect »

One thing I find interesting is that I have found Tyson, Harris, and Dawkings caught dead wrong about several subjects that they have forceful opinions on, and I'm supposed to listen to them for what reason, exactly.

Celebrities are not authorities.
Censorship isn't necessary
User avatar
Nonc Hilaire
Posts: 6168
Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2011 1:28 am

Re: Junk Science: Poor science, pseudoscience, errors, and f

Post by Nonc Hilaire »

Typhoon wrote:
Simple Minded wrote:https://www.thesun.co.uk/tech/3935615/s ... -humanity/

....audience in tears!

When an expert says something, ya gotta take them seriously.....
Another empirical demonstration that expertise is rarely transferable from one field to another.

Expertise-in-everything is an affliction that seem to strike some scientists in the twilight of their careers,
especially if they are well known to the general public.

Although Hawkings is not one, Nobel laureates seem especially susceptible.
Especially true in science. To achieve in science requires an exceptional degree of specialization.
“Christ has no body now but yours. Yours are the eyes through which he looks with compassion on this world. Yours are the feet with which he walks among His people to do good. Yours are the hands through which he blesses His creation.”

Teresa of Ávila
User avatar
Nonc Hilaire
Posts: 6168
Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2011 1:28 am

Re: Junk Science: Poor science, pseudoscience, errors, and f

Post by Nonc Hilaire »

"It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guideline. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as editor of the New England Journal of Medicine.” ~ Dr Marcia Angell (physician and long-time editor in chief of the same journal)

“Much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness.” ~ Richard Horton (editor of Lancet)
“Christ has no body now but yours. Yours are the eyes through which he looks with compassion on this world. Yours are the feet with which he walks among His people to do good. Yours are the hands through which he blesses His creation.”

Teresa of Ávila
Mr. Perfect
Posts: 16973
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 am

Re: Junk Science: Poor science, pseudoscience, errors, and f

Post by Mr. Perfect »

FWIW. I don't support the speaker per se but many of his points are dead on the money. I have heard for many years that the speed of light or gravity may not be constant, to the screeches of the secular left. But Einstein proposes that time and space are not constant, so why g and c must constant sort of has no basis.

JKHUaNAxsTg
Censorship isn't necessary
User avatar
Typhoon
Posts: 27242
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 6:42 pm
Location: 関西

Re: Junk Science: Poor science, pseudoscience, errors, and f

Post by Typhoon »

Mr. Perfect wrote:FWIW. I don't support the speaker per se but many of his points are dead on the money. I have heard for many years that the speed of light or gravity may not be constant, to the screeches of the secular left. But Einstein proposes that time and space are not constant, so why g and c must constant sort of has no basis.

JKHUaNAxsTg
Rupert Sheldrake

Sorry. The measured constant values of c and G are not due to a leftist conspiracy.
Nature is indifferent to parochial politics.

Theorists, being an inventive lot, have come up with lots of theories wherein the fundamental constants vary over time.
However, the results of countless experiments have set bounds on any such variation:

Time-variation of fundamental constants

Einstein's theory of GR has passed every test done to date.
May the gods preserve and defend me from self-righteous altruists; I can defend myself from my enemies and my friends.
Mr. Perfect
Posts: 16973
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 am

Re: Junk Science: Poor science, pseudoscience, errors, and f

Post by Mr. Perfect »

It never occurred to physicists that time and space were not constant until Einstein came along. Thus, a physicist may yet come along that show us g and c are not constant either.

At any rate only one small part of the Ted talk, the overarching theme is of science becoming a religion, or rather the emergence of a religion that is calling itself science.
Censorship isn't necessary
User avatar
Typhoon
Posts: 27242
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 6:42 pm
Location: 関西

Re: Junk Science: Poor science, pseudoscience, errors, and f

Post by Typhoon »

Mr. Perfect wrote:It never occurred to physicists that time and space were not constant until Einstein came along. Thus, a physicist may yet come along that show us g and c are not constant either.
If you had actually bothered to read what I'd posted you now know that P. A. M. Dirac first proposed varying fundamental constants in 1937 known as Dirac's Large Number Hypothesis.

There is no lack of theory papers proposing a time varying G:

https://scholar.google.jp/scholar?hl=en ... 5&as_sdtp=

or a time varying c:

https://scholar.google.jp/scholar?q=var ... _sdt=0%2C5

[Pro tip: it helps to have at least a passing familiarity with and understanding of the the field that is the target of one's criticism.]

Until there is actual strong experimental evidence for either, they are speculative hypotheses.
A key difference between science and religion anticipating your complaint below.
Evidence for time variation in either would be a major scientific discovery, Noble award worthy.

Again, the only reason Einstein's hypotheses were elevated to the level of the current theory of gravitation is because

1/ GR offers a self-consistent field theory description of gravity, unlike Newton's action-at-a-distance, and most important
2/ GR has passed all experimental tests to date.

Whether you happen to approve of it or not does not enter into the equation.
Mr. Perfect wrote:At any rate only one small part of the TED talk, the overarching theme is of science becoming a religion, or rather the emergence of a religion that is calling itself science.
Well, the speaker does have an axe to grind.
However, the problem with his hypotheses is a lack of testable predictions so whatever it is he's doing it is not science.
Not the best source to learn about issues regarding science.

If you want to read worthwhile criticisms of aspects of science, especially biological/biomedical research, then the best site is probably

http://retractionwatch.com/

As for your complaint above, some people have a strong need for authority figures, religious and/or secular.
However, they're typically not the ones doing science.
May the gods preserve and defend me from self-righteous altruists; I can defend myself from my enemies and my friends.
Mr. Perfect
Posts: 16973
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 am

Re: Junk Science: Poor science, pseudoscience, errors, and f

Post by Mr. Perfect »

If you actually read what I posted you would see than indeed I had heard of all that years ago. That's why I brought it up.
Censorship isn't necessary
Post Reply