ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2017 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Friday, April 28, 2017

Most "science" is fake science

Yet another incident demonstrating why it is so amusing when people argue that religion is false and the supernatural does not exist because science:
The journal Tumor Biology is retracting 107 research papers after discovering that the authors faked the peer review process. This isn’t the journal’s first rodeo. Late last year, 58 papers were retracted from seven different journals— 25 came from Tumor Biology for the same reason.

It’s possible to fake peer review because authors are often asked to suggest potential reviewers for their own papers. This is done because research subjects are often blindingly niche; a researcher working in a sub-sub-field may be more aware than the journal editor of who is best-placed to assess the work.

But some journals go further and request, or allow, authors to submit the contact details of these potential reviewers. If the editor isn’t aware of the potential for a scam, they then merrily send the requests for review out to fake e-mail addresses, often using the names of actual researchers. And at the other end of the fake e-mail address is someone who’s in on the game and happy to send in a friendly review.

Fake peer reviewers often “know what a review looks like and know enough to make it look plausible,” said Elizabeth Wager, editor of the journal Research Integrity & Peer Review. But they aren’t always good at faking less obvious quirks of academia: “When a lot of the fake peer reviews first came up, one of the reasons the editors spotted them was that the reviewers responded on time,” Wager told Ars. Reviewers almost always have to be chased, so “this was the red flag. And in a few cases, both the reviews would pop up within a few minutes of each other.”
All of the arguments about the presumed reliability of science are ridiculous and easily shown to be false. Science is no more "self-correcting" than accounting. Peer review is more commonly known as "proofreading" by the rest of the publishing industry and is not even theoretically a means of ensuring accuracy or correctness. And scientists are observably less trustworthy than nearly anyone except lawyers, politicians, and used car salesmen; at least prostitutes are honest about their pursuit of "grants" and "funding".

These days, the scientific process is mainly honored in the breach by professsional, credentialed scientists. And we have a word for testable, reliable science. That word is "engineering".

Labels: ,

116 Comments:

Anonymous Iacobus April 28, 2017 11:11 AM  

It's nice to see that convergence has infected even the cancer fields. That'll end well.

"Scientists" of the SJW kind (e.g., Bill Nye) really are an insufferable bunch. They're like the Jehovah's Witnesses of the scientific world. "I'm right and you're wrong and THAT is that!"

Blogger KSC April 28, 2017 11:12 AM  

I resemble that remark; I'm sure, as the mirror image of Daredevil, I will be considerably more diabolical than any scientist, one day.

Blogger Shitavious Lordecai April 28, 2017 11:30 AM  

Curious what percentage of the false papers were written by non-Europeans.

Blogger Revelation Means Hope April 28, 2017 11:34 AM  

I also am very, very curious how many of the fake science papers were written by nonWASP scientists.

I am friends and colleagues with many asians. Not even an eye-blink for the ones who are not converted Christians to lie and cheat without the slightest qualms of conscience.

If you're not cheating in their culture, you're not filling your family's rice bowl and are a bad child.

Blogger Daetrin April 28, 2017 11:36 AM  

@3 One of the comment's on Darek Lowe's blog lamented that the entire body of work from non-Western (excluding Japan) biochemists is ignored because the quality is so low it's just a waste of journal space.

Blogger darkdoc April 28, 2017 11:40 AM  

There really is no way to account for the huge number of variables in human science, making medical research very hard to trust.

Simple, accepted, and revered statistical tests such as a "p-value" are looked at with awe, but they only fool readers into believing research is valid. Even the inventor of the p-value states it is highly misused.

I often tell my patients, the most untrustworthy words you can hear are, "Studies show that...".

Blogger kurt9 April 28, 2017 11:45 AM  

And we have a word for testable, reliable science. That word is "engineering".

Yep! If it leads to technological innovation, it is real. If it does not, it may or may not be real, but it certainly isn't relevant to the price of tea in China.

Anonymous Azimus April 28, 2017 11:48 AM  

Peer review itself is a dubious method of verification... in fact it isn't any kind of method at all. There should be independent labs that repeat the experiments and verify results, if they don't exist already. That IS the standard of proof required by the Scientific Method, yes?

And these guys didn't even do peer review? Shows you what value they put on it, yes?

Blogger Noah B The Savage Gardener April 28, 2017 11:48 AM  

Those who idolize science have adopted the fictitious Marxist belief in the perfectibility of man. Science is totally reliable, except for the scientists.

Blogger Anthony April 28, 2017 11:51 AM  

Best part - they figured out the game reviewers because they turned in their reviews on time.

Like cops catching drunks because they're going *exactly* the speed limit.

Blogger Boxty April 28, 2017 11:52 AM  

The list of retracted papers is here:

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13277-017-5487-6

Would it be racist to say that I'm surprised that all the lead authors are Chinese and there's not a single Indian (dot) among them?

Blogger Gaiseric April 28, 2017 11:54 AM  

However; here's a good example of a testable model. http://www.breitbart.com/london/2017/04/28/french-physicist-maths-le-pen-victory/

Anonymous Grayman April 28, 2017 11:59 AM  

kurt9 wrote:And we have a word for testable, reliable science. That word is "engineering".

Yep! If it leads to technological innovation, it is real. If it does not, it may or may not be real, but it certainly isn't relevant to the price of tea in China.


Its not always that clear, especially in the pharma/medical world. Look at statins, they shouldn’t be on the market, or at least shouldn’t be taken by the vast majority of people who take them. The research that justified their use has been shown to be “incorrect” multiple times. Additionally much of the published research across the board, in all fields, is so vague on critical details that it is not actually reproducible based on the work in the papers.
You have approved drugs that have single digit statistical positive impacts in clinical trials and believe me you can massage those numbers to get that single digit positive impact even if the initial result is negative. There are some important and use drugs on the market for sure. However there is a LOT of snake oil out there. I’d suggest that a major factor in the snakeoil factor of medicine is the western fear of mortality. If we focused on quality of life as opposed to quantity a huge chunk of the medical industry would disappear overnight.

Anonymous Stephen J. April 28, 2017 11:59 AM  

“When a lot of the fake peer reviews first came up, one of the reasons the editors spotted them was that the reviewers responded on time.”

That is one of the funniest and simultaneously most depressing things I've read in years.

Anonymous Grayman April 28, 2017 12:02 PM  

Noah B The Savage Gardener wrote:Those who idolize science have adopted the fictitious Marxist belief in the perfectibility of man. Science is totally reliable, except for the scientists.

It seems to have been forgotten that part of "science" is reproducability by independent parties. That part has been dropped for the most part and as such violates much of the work that has been done for decades.

Blogger totenhenchen April 28, 2017 12:03 PM  

But...but...muh consensus...

Anonymous instasetting April 28, 2017 12:03 PM  

"Kicking the Sacred Cow" by J.P. Hogan was a non-fiction with a number of interesting topics. In it, it had the idea that there was no science, just speculation and engineering.

Blogger frigger611 April 28, 2017 12:14 PM  

I've never liked the idea or term "peer review."

Should be "peer replicated." Because that would take considerably more time, cost and effort, it won't be done.

At least then we wouldn't have to suffer through 100,000 worthless documents to be quoted by pinhead journalists, "studies show..." BS.

Like back in the old days when our culture preferred quality over quantity. Now community colleges churn out millions new and unqualified "graduates" who fucking just love science but can't do long division.

r/K applies here as well - some scientists prefer massive quantities of low quality essays full of junk data, in pursuit of yet another government grant - while other scientists love their work and want their efforts (their offspring) to truly have lasting meaning and value.

Anonymous Darth Dharmakīrti April 28, 2017 12:14 PM  

And we have a word for testable, reliable science. That word is "engineering".

Let's stipulate that social "science" is nothing of the kind, that 99% of biological research is no better.

Let's further stipulate that experimentation-free mathematical noodling like string theory or Bayesian sperginess is, at best, speculative and therefore not empirically grounded as true science must be.

And finally, let us acknowledge that fundamentally, when we're thinking about "scientific research" what we have in mind is physics, that everyone thinks in terms of a research paradigm loosely based in the Galileo --> Newton --> Maxwell --> Bohr model. That this "physics envy," and the concomitant application of this model of physics research to domains where at best it simply does not apply (such as society or psychology), is at the heart of the breakdown in science broadly considered.

I still don't understand how you can say that, for example, the series of experiments culminating in the establishment of Bell's Inequality are not "science." It's new knowledge about the world, valid knowledge about the world, replicable--replicated--and it tells us something important about the structure of reality. However, it's hardly a feat of "engineering," and the technological implications of the fact that local hidden variables do not exist are hardly obvious.

Or perhaps I'm missing something? Would you care to elaborate?

Blogger dc.sunsets April 28, 2017 12:24 PM  

While working in a physiology lab decades ago I saw with my own eyes that Guyton's Textbook of Medical Physiology, the standard text for every First Year medical student and every 300-level undergrad physiology class, was dead wrong on the pathways taken by the autonomic nervous system from CNS to the heart.

The dogs didn’t lie. Guyton was wrong. But he and the guy I worked for couldn't stand each other, and nothing would make Guyton change his textbook.

I wonder if, now that both men are long gone, the reference text on this has changed.

You can't take human nature out of any human endeavor.

Blogger Francis Parker Yockey April 28, 2017 12:26 PM  

@6

"Simple, accepted, and revered statistical tests such as a "p-value" are looked at with awe, but they only fool readers into believing research is valid. Even the inventor of the p-value states it is highly misused."

One of the simplest ways to misuse p-values, of course, is to dredge the data for correlations until you find one that is "significant," when the calculation of a p-value assumes a single, prespecified hypothesis. The "scientific" version of drawing a target around the bullet hole.

Blogger Deplorable April 28, 2017 12:28 PM  

How did the dogs differ from humans?

Anonymous fop April 28, 2017 12:31 PM  

What kind of sick bastard fakes a cancer research paper?

Blogger dc.sunsets April 28, 2017 12:32 PM  

Engineering is, to me, science where the proof of theory is not up for polite disagreement.

The plane flies, or it doesn't. The engine runs, or it doesn't. Testing essentially eliminates wishful thinking.

There are lots of interesting questions where narrowing the number of variables to one is impossible. These questions can be examined with the tool of science but with nowhere near the conclusive confidence seen in engineering.

This is why social engineering isn't. It's just politics masquerading as science.

People who pound the table in certainty WRT such things annoy me.

Blogger Jon D. April 28, 2017 12:33 PM  

This triggered someone so badly when I linked it I'm being told "you lack of belief does not actually affect anything."

Tell me again about your scientism religion and how it changed your life? lol

Anonymous fop April 28, 2017 12:34 PM  

Nevermind I just checked the list.

Blogger dc.sunsets April 28, 2017 12:36 PM  

They don't. AFAIK all mammals have the same pathways of innervation.

Animal models work for most basic science. Yes, pigs have organs about the same size as humans and guinea pigs share our lack of vitamin C synthesis, so there are plenty of exceptions.

Like everything else, one must examine the details.

Blogger praetorian April 28, 2017 12:39 PM  

What kind of sick bastard fakes a cancer research paper?

Game-winning oriented people, vs. Truth oriented people.

Blogger VD April 28, 2017 12:49 PM  

What kind of sick bastard fakes a cancer research paper?

The kind whose paycheck depends upon it.

Blogger wreckage April 28, 2017 12:54 PM  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reproducibility_Project

The infogalactic page seems slightly out of date?

There are organizations and projects working exclusively on reproducibility. This is one, but there are others.

Have a look at the Center for Open Science:

https://cos.io/

Of course, it should be mandatory that all publicly funded science provide access to all raw data in a useful and accessible format, and that any published results/papers be available to the public in full.

Blogger Wayne April 28, 2017 12:56 PM  

Is a Big Fork planned for sports programming? Sounds like a golden opportunity.

Blogger Redpill Angel April 28, 2017 12:58 PM  

#16, #18: Yup, the whole peer review process is why we now have "consensus science." You have only a dozen or so scientists worldwide who work in the same subfield, as VD remarks, reviewing one another's papers, and bear in mind, these people are friends and colleagues who travel to conferences to visit one another on a regular basis. A note on cheating in the sciences: they learn young. In the department where I work, students who cheat are no longer referred to an honors court; discipline is left to the teacher personally, who must then run the risk of bad reviews or SJW retaliation. Two (female)graduate instructors who passed answers to students are still employed.

Anonymous Athor Pel April 28, 2017 12:59 PM  

"25. Blogger Jon D. April 28, 2017 12:33 PM
This triggered someone so badly when I linked it I'm being told "you lack of belief does not actually affect anything."

Tell me again about your scientism religion and how it changed your life? lol
"



Tell me I'm not the only one that got an image of Darth Vader uttering the line, "I find your lack of faith disturbing." And then he uses the Force to choke the guy out.

Blogger Peter Jackson April 28, 2017 12:59 PM  

As an engineer, I appreciate your noting that engineering is the testable, reliable branch of science.

So where's the testable, reliable evidence for the supernatural?

Anonymous Opus April 28, 2017 1:02 PM  

Science and people like Science apologist Bill Nye ((()))? claim infallibility as if they were a Roman Pontiff - and equally unconvincingly.

Anonymous Azimus April 28, 2017 1:09 PM  

34. Peter Jackson April 28, 2017 12:59 PM
So where's the testable, reliable evidence for the supernatural?


Assuming you're not being rhetorical/disingenuous, many Biblical claims are testable, particularly about human behavior. It would not take much imagination to draw up a DOE on various claims about the human penchant for sin, for example. Then start gathering data. If you want to use science to point to which deity leads/represents the True Religion, you would have to find claims that do not overlap from one religion to the other, set up your DOE, and start gathering data.

Anonymous Michael Maier April 28, 2017 1:10 PM  

As an engineer, I appreciate your noting that engineering is the testable, reliable branch of science.

So where's the testable, reliable evidence for the supernatural?


(Sorry, if this is a troll, I do not recognize the name. I'm reading the comments less and less any more.)

Neither Satan or God want anyone to obtain proof either exists.

Anonymous Matt April 28, 2017 1:13 PM  

I still don't understand how you can say that, for example, the series of experiments culminating in the establishment of Bell's Inequality are not "science." It's new knowledge about the world, valid knowledge about the world, replicable--replicated--and it tells us something important about the structure of reality. However, it's hardly a feat of "engineering," and the technological implications of the fact that local hidden variables do not exist are hardly obvious.

I'm a physicist/engineer with a foot in both worlds, and my specialization is in just this kind of optics. My short answer would be that yes of course, the Bell test experiments are fantastic examples of genuine scientific discovery. It's exactly how science is supposed to work, and exactly how science is supposed to reveal deep truths about the world.

But how can we be assured that those experiments really are what I'm claiming? Well, really the best way is to notice that it satisfies exactly the criteria that Vox proposed - it's been developed into engineering. All the associated devices and technologies that are used in these experiments (photomultipliers with high quantum efficiency, parametric downconverters, frequency-stable lasers, etc, etc) are now solidly tested and commercially available products with uses all over the practical world. The actual quantum optics theory behind Bell is used in sensor design, quantum key distribution, fiber optics, and many other fields of practical endeavor. Additionally, the theory is not esoteric and uncheckable. A solid undergrad math background is all it takes. While (as you note), Apple isn't explicitly selling Bell test devices, pretty much every bit of what was involved in those tests both on the theory and experimental sides is now commercially important.

So that's why physics (at least the non-pot-addled high-energy/string/cosmology subfields) is such a successful science. The feedback loop between it and engineering is very tight.

Blogger Resident Moron™ April 28, 2017 1:17 PM  

Apropos, Interesting resource; http://callingbullshit.org

Blogger tublecane April 28, 2017 1:21 PM  

@34-Did he ever claim his knowledge of/beliefs about the supernatural were scientific?

Anonymous Darth Dharmakīrti April 28, 2017 1:23 PM  

@38

Thank you very much for your reply. Yes, that certainly makes sense. And, as an aside, it's interactions like this (and the fact that Vox has magnetized an audience capable of it) that keep me coming back here.

Blogger Resident Moron™ April 28, 2017 1:24 PM  


What kind of sick bastard fakes a cancer research paper?

The kind whose paycheck depends upon it.

And ALL their paychecks depend on it. The variable is not money nor honesty but simply that some of them are pursuing useful avenues of investigation, sometimes.

Anonymous BBGKB April 28, 2017 1:28 PM  

What kind of sick bastard fakes a cancer research paper?

Let me tell you about the (((guy))) who worked for the VA doing Hep C research for decades accomplishing nothing(with the largest database of Hep C patients in the world), but his private company discovered the cure for Hep C with massive (((overcharging))). The government is pretty much the only one that can afford his prices

Anonymous Dan April 28, 2017 1:43 PM  

Vox wrote: "And we have a word for testable, reliable science. That word is "engineering"."

This is the most uplifting thing I have read all week. Following the science march, I have been feeling sadly convinced that science is dead. Bill Nye, the spiritual leader of the science march and all the 'we f$cking love science groupies' are all militantly anti-science (as his ridiculous sex and gender program showed). They are just SJWs who have been smart enough to figure out that Science! is the way to get paid for their leftist politics.

So I mourned the death of science. This comment reminded me that science is not dead at all. It is thriving far away from those who claim use its name.

Blogger frigger611 April 28, 2017 1:49 PM  

I never see the point with atheist scientists who arrogantly demand proofs of the Divine or Supernatural. Proofs that of course must be discovered by conducting controlled experiments in laboratory settings.

It's like they don't understand that the word "supernatural" is derived from "super" and "natural."

Blogger Jon D. April 28, 2017 1:56 PM  

Haha @33. It was of course met with name calling and unfriending. I am so deeply wounded that I must now rethink my backwards ways and learn to have faith in scientism lest get force choked.

Anonymous basementhomebrewer April 28, 2017 2:04 PM  

Athor Pel wrote:"25. Blogger Jon D. April 28, 2017 12:33 PM

This triggered someone so badly when I linked it I'm being told "you lack of belief does not actually affect anything."

Tell me again about your scientism religion and how it changed your life? lol

"


Tell me I'm not the only one that got an image of Darth Vader uttering the line, "I find your lack of faith disturbing." And then he uses the Force to choke the guy out.



Except with the SJW crowd nothing would happen when he tries to force choke someone. Then he would lob an m-80 or bike lock at your head.

Anonymous Damn Crackers April 28, 2017 2:06 PM  

I used this example in my Pseudoscience course against Scientism, Inc.

Blogger Noah B The Savage Gardener April 28, 2017 2:08 PM  

I've said it before but it bears repeating: a lot of "engineering" is bogus too. This is especially the case where engineering intersects with regulatory compliance.

Blogger James Dixon April 28, 2017 2:08 PM  

> This triggered someone so badly when I linked it I'm being told "you lack of belief does not actually affect anything."

Tell them the same is true about the lack of belief in God.

> Of course, it should be mandatory that all publicly funded science provide access to all raw data in a useful and accessible format, and that any published results/papers be available to the public in full.

The global warming scientists would be immediately disqualified from any future funding.

> So where's the testable, reliable evidence for the supernatural?

Miracles still happen. You're welcome to verify this for yourself with a simple Google search. Each miracle can't be tested individually (except to verify that there is no natural explanation) since they're by definition one time occurrences, but the fact that they occur can be.

Blogger bosscauser April 28, 2017 2:08 PM  

If you've seen one intrenched priesthood you've seen them all!

Gab.ai/GaryCauser

Blogger Duke Norfolk April 28, 2017 2:13 PM  

Resident Moron™ wrote:Apropos, Interesting resource

Interesting, and then I saw this in the FAQ: "Democracy has always relied on a critically-thinking electorate, but never has this been more important than in the current age of false news and international interference in the electoral process via propaganda disseminated over social media."

Ugh. It was so promising.

Blogger kh123 April 28, 2017 2:31 PM  

@49 "It's like they don't understand that the word "supernatural" is derived from "super" and "natural.""

Unsurprisingly, and as quoted from @52 above, this is the same crowd that has etymological issues with the term democracy.

Blogger Peter Jackson April 28, 2017 2:45 PM  

Neither Satan or God want anyone to obtain proof either exists.

Then they are doing a fine job.

I just find it ironic that someone who wants his science to be testable doesn't care if his supernatural beliefs are untestable. And I'm not talking about the testability of various alternative moral codes, I'm talking about the supernatural claims underlying those moral codes.

Blogger Valtandor Nought April 28, 2017 2:58 PM  

Cue Darth Vader voice: "I find your lack of faith disturbing."

Blogger Valtandor Nought April 28, 2017 3:03 PM  

The SJW is merely obliged to call on a different kind of force. Using, ironically, time-honoured and repeatedly tested physical theories around momentum and kinetic energy.

Blogger Valtandor Nought April 28, 2017 3:08 PM  

They seem to fulfil much the same role in a partisan of Science as, "As it is written...".

Blogger Ben Cohen April 28, 2017 3:18 PM  

Why the hate against accountants? Pie in the sky tech guys can't do a budget.

Blogger seeingsights April 28, 2017 3:25 PM  

When Climategate happened, I started to pay more attention to academic studies of climate. Let me tell you, I became way more suspicious of that field. It wasn't so much bogus data though there is that, but questionable methods and reasoning. For example a few years ago I read a paper which claimed a connection between global warming and hurricanes. The methods and reasoning in that paper seemed fishy to me. Cliques exist in peer review.

Blogger Valtandor Nought April 28, 2017 3:42 PM  

I think the point is rather that a claim that "Science disproves God!" is questionable when it's not clear that modern science as actually practised can prove or disprove much of anything.

Maybe you're one of those people who believes (a) that one should only believe a claim if that claim can be shown to be true using the scientific method, and (b) that everyone else basically agrees with you on that point and can be argued with on that basis. If so, I suggest you re-examine your assumptions.

Anonymous basementhomebrewer April 28, 2017 3:42 PM  

Peter Jackson wrote:Neither Satan or God want anyone to obtain proof either exists.

Then they are doing a fine job.

I just find it ironic that someone who wants his science to be testable doesn't care if his supernatural beliefs are untestable. And I'm not talking about the testability of various alternative moral codes, I'm talking about the supernatural claims underlying those moral codes.



Because you are a fool who can't understand the differences in the situation. VD and any believer is fine with faith in unproven things and openly admit it. We have seen enough evidence to get us to the point where we are comfortable with faith closing the gap.

Adherents to the church of "I fucking love science" claim that they have irrefutable proof and evidence of their assertions. They claim that all of their positions are based on logic and rationality. Then when someone dares and questions their premises or asks to see their work the inquisition comes out claiming their questioner is "Anti-Science" or stupid or irrational.

Blogger Francis Parker Yockey April 28, 2017 3:55 PM  

@3

"Curious what percentage of the false papers were written by non-Europeans."

They (of course) don't mention that factor directly, but can't resist a little bit of preemptive excuse-making that gives it away:

"It’s not always the authors providing the reviews. "There is some evidence that so-called third-party language-editing services play a role in manipulating the reviewing process,” said a spokesperson for Springer, the company that published Tumor Biology until this year. Scientists who work in a language other than English may use editing services to polish their papers before submitting to a journal, and some of these services can be unethical and predatory, says Wager."

Anonymous Taarkoth April 28, 2017 4:02 PM  

Michael Maier wrote:Neither Satan or God want anyone to obtain proof either exists.

Don't be stupid. The whole point of miracles is to provide proof of God's power. That Mohammed DIDN'T perform any miracles is one of the main proofs he wasn't a prophet.

James Dixon wrote:Miracles still happen. You're welcome to verify this for yourself with a simple Google search. Each miracle can't be tested individually (except to verify that there is no natural explanation) since they're by definition one time occurrences, but the fact that they occur can be.

Heck, Lourdes alone has provided a laundry list of documented cases.

Blogger Peter Jackson April 28, 2017 4:06 PM  

VD and any believer is fine with faith in unproven things and openly admit it.

How is this any better than those who believe in climate change despite the lack of proof?

Blogger frigger611 April 28, 2017 4:19 PM  

Climate change, such as it exists, is a phenomenon bound by earthly rules; no one claims that it is supernatural.

Blogger James Dixon April 28, 2017 4:36 PM  

> I just find it ironic that someone who wants his science to be testable doesn't care if his supernatural beliefs are untestable.

For Christianity:
How would you test whether the universe was created or not?
How would you test whether someone who died 2000 years ago rose from the dead? If recorded eyewitness testimony isn't good enough, what is?

As already noted, Christianity's claims about human nature are testable. It's record of history is testable, and has held up very well in comparison to other recorded histories.

As for the proof of the supernatural in general you only need to demonstrate the existence of events which have no natural explanation. And those do exist.

Anonymous Imperator April 28, 2017 4:47 PM  

@63 The climate alarmists don't admit that their religion is based on faith. Ever heard the phrase "The science is settled!"?

Anonymous Mr. Rational April 28, 2017 5:10 PM  

Azimus wrote:Peer review itself is a dubious method of verification... in fact it isn't any kind of method at all. There should be independent labs that repeat the experiments and verify results, if they don't exist already.
It's hard to get grants to do that.  But scientists build on the work of others all the time.  If that work turns out to be faulty (even accidentally), it comes out in the wash.

This was demonstrated in a very big way by other researchers' inability to replicate the stimulated pluripotency claimed by Haruko Obokata.  The more earth-shaking the erroneous or fraudulent claim, the more rapidly it's debunked.  Piltdown Man was publicly questioned from the beginning, even if it took years to conclusively rule it a fraud.

kurt9 wrote:If it leads to technological innovation, it is real.
Hogwash.  Xenon tetrafluoride hasn't led to a single innovation that I can find, but it's as real as the nose on your face.  (Apologies if you were born noseless.)

Reality is what doesn't go away when you stop believing in it.  Human ability to find a use for it is irrelevant.

@4  All of them, with 95% certainty.

And no journal editor who wants to stay employed will ever accept a paper from any of them ever again, and nobody will give them a grant.  They're done, finished... unless they want to publish in journals of "baraminology" or the like.  Their fraud might be a resume-padder in those fields, which are themselves fraudulent at the outset.

Anonymous JAG April 28, 2017 5:12 PM  

Peter Jackson wrote:As an engineer, I appreciate your noting that engineering is the testable, reliable branch of science.

So where's the testable, reliable evidence for the supernatural?


Your problem is that you conflate two completely different fields of thought. You may as well ask why math doesn't taste like cheese.

An example of this problem is illustrated greatly by Stephen hawking. There is no doubt that he is brilliant in math and physics, he often makes a complete moron of himself when he attempts to speak on philosophy, often not even realizing the implications of his own favored theory of the multiverse when doing so.

For example, his claims that the multiverse theory gets around the need for a creator, which any child can quickly debunk philosophically be simply questioning how it is that a multiverse can take place at all.

"Random fluctuations in quantum foam," is usually the answer given, which then merely kicks the can, unsuccessfully, down the road because the next question is "how is it that quantum fluctuations exist at all, or even can exist"?

"Well, the universe is net zero energy so it can come from nothing."

"Um, the universe being net zero energy is not the same thing as non existence. A piece paper with the equation of 1+(-1)=0 is a completely different thing than a piece of paper with no equation on it all. Hell, true non existence means that there isn't even a piece of paper for an equation to be written upon, metaphorically speaking, of course."

Blogger SirHamster April 28, 2017 5:53 PM  

Peter Jackson wrote:VD and any believer is fine with faith in unproven things and openly admit it.

How is this any better than those who believe in climate change despite the lack of proof?


Different categories of knowledge use different tools. Know the limitations of your tools. On working with unproven things, no one operates on 100% proven knowledge.

Using scientific methods for areas where it is not suited is incompetence and cargo cultism.

Anonymous a deplorable rubberducky April 28, 2017 6:25 PM  

For science to work there has to be a certain level of virtue among its practitioners. That's especially true in the medical fields, where many experiments and trials simply aren't that realistically feasible for many others to repeat. Action has to happen when fraud and forced results are encountered, that virtue must be enforced by the community.

So it's good that the publication is at least acknowledging the fraud and identifying fraudulent articles that it has published. How unlike the formerly scientific community at M.I.T., who have embraced and gotten behind a climate that promotes and advances fraud and lying. The students, faculty, staff and boosters all got behind Johnathan Gruber, astoundingly.

The journal Tumor Biology is at least taking steps. I file everything coming out of M.I.T. (including resumes) straight into the cylindrical filing cabinet. I won't have that climate of fraud creeping into my lab. No way.

Blogger phunktor April 28, 2017 6:40 PM  

Oh the belief is real enough, but it's a delusion.

Blogger phunktor April 28, 2017 6:44 PM  

"Locality, reality, causality. Choose two.."

Blogger Robert What? April 28, 2017 6:55 PM  

It's beginning to look like Peer Review is utterly worthless. You might as well ask a British Peer in the House of Lords. You'd probably get more diligence. Even when it is not outright fraud it seems to be a case of "you scratch my back ..."

Anonymous I Am Irony, Man April 28, 2017 7:01 PM  

I just find it ironic that someone who wants his drinks to taste like fruit doesn't care if his music tastes like fruit.

Blogger Gospace April 28, 2017 7:59 PM  

Darth Dharmakīrti April 28, 2017 12:14 PM

Let's further stipulate that experimentation-free mathematical noodling like string theory or Bayesian sperginess is, at best, speculative and therefore not empirically grounded as true science must be.


I read once a long time ago that quarks were made up out of thin air just to be bookkeeping devices for all the multiple particles. They weren't supposed to be real, but great for keeping track of particle properties. Then, "SHAZAM!", it turns out they were real. My theory on that is that God is a practical joker. Why not? He saw the theory, realized it wouldn't change any of the rules he had set the universe up with, and therefore said: "Let there be quarks!" And there were, and they were good.

Blogger JP April 28, 2017 8:23 PM  

What's hilarious is that the promoted comment on the article is a long passive-aggressive tract defending "science" by saying the journalists who wrote the article are lazy, stupid, or deceptive.

Apparently Ars cares more about the reputation of vague, unreproducible "science" than its own reputation for truthful/reliable reporting. And *that* is convergence in action.

Blogger JP April 28, 2017 8:28 PM  

Reproduced in full in case they delete it:

PROMOTED COMMENTS

gungrave Ars Centurion
jump to post
jooced wrote:
The U.S. EPA and Dept of Science should take note of this. This one example is but one of many of scientific fraud. EPA and Dept of Science: you wonder why too many people are skeptical of your work? 1. You are affiliated with the U.S. Government which has shown time and again how it cannot be trusted. 2. You do not hold your own to the highest standards -and- when there is an issue you are too slow to report it and/or out the fraudster.

This is on the scientific community - pure, plain, and simple.



Sigh, it is clear that 68 comments later some people still chose to spew their own nonsense without reading other comments first or having a basic understanding of the scope of this issue. Seriously, don't feel that you are now somehow justified in not believing in science because of anecdotes like this.

I really hate to reiterate the same point over and over, but this particular issue is exactly like what the other reader Veritas super omens stated: a three-year-old running her tricycle into the curb. It does not mean we need to stop all motorvehicles on the road.

What's happening with this particular journal is frankly not even worth reporting. No respectable tumor biologist will ever cite anything from this journal and no health care policy will ever be made based on anything from this journal. I don't like to criticize Ars writers because they are certainly much better at scientific writing than I am, but in this case, this article could've used more background research on if this journal is actually of significant importance in the cancer field. Get some numbers on how many retractions or fraud cases have been discovered in high impact journals, what percentages they represent, and whether those articles made significant claims that affected patient care.

Here is another analogy. Would you halt the entire federal government if the mayor of some small town in the most remote region of America is accused of cheating in his election? This is exactly that.

There are lots of issues that we should be worrying out concerning biomedical research and education. I'd be glad to raise some of those topics for discussion.

Blogger phunktor April 28, 2017 8:35 PM  

Logic fail. It was not asserted that not useful implies not real.

Anonymous 6184 April 28, 2017 8:39 PM  

I like the link to Calling Bullshit. As an engineer myself, while I absolutely agree with the premise, I find it deliciously ironic that Carl Bergstrom is an evolutionary biologist...one of the absolute bastions of scientism, bullshit, and just-so stories and Jevin West is has a CV with touches of bullshit: he is apparently a informatics/statistics guy, who's resume at first glance looks like "BS, MS, PhD in Biology with a Physics Postdoc", but in reality is the vague "in Department of Biology" and "in Department of Physics". I suppose in these gents' case, detecting a bullshitter may be a case of "it takes one to know one"

Blogger phunktor April 28, 2017 8:59 PM  

I've thought for some time that He's making it up, if not in real time, then imaginary time. Maybe we're here to fill in the details.

Blogger SirHamster April 28, 2017 9:18 PM  

phunktor wrote:I've thought for some time that He's making it up, if not in real time, then imaginary time. Maybe we're here to fill in the details.

Where our beliefs and words would have creative power. Sheds new light on importance of banning witchcraft and evil thoughts.

Blogger Peter Parker April 28, 2017 9:31 PM  

Having done some bench and clinical research years ago as a requirement for medical subspecialty training, coupled with the constant "We found 'x' to be true in our statistically woefully underpowered study, so more research is needed...", it is rather frustrating to have groupthink handicapped medical specialists drone on endlesslessly about their obsequious devotion to so-called "evidenced based medical practice" despite the frequent practical inaccuracies of so much of the existent "evidence". There are a number of reasons for this problem.

1. Too many of my fellow physicians believe themselves to be smarter than they actually are, (myself included) simply because they are sufficiently capable at memorizing and regurgitating on tests to have graduated medical school.

2. Protocol thinking (aka 'cookbook medicine') hamstrings treatment plan development when faced with the well known phenomenon of "patients not reading the textbook", and having the audacity not to respond to the physician's protocol-based medical therapy.

3. The level of societal litigiousness over potential medical malpractice leads hospitals to insist on slavish submission to protocols.

4. Consideration of different genetic/racial biological responses to specific medications is too often ignored when devising medical interventions (i.e., hypertension medication choices)

5. The imposition a decade or so ago of the resident 80 hour work week and reduced in-house call schedule without a lengthening of residency years has decreased the experience level of graduating residents, to include reducing the ability to parse through medical articles to differentiate pseudoscientific crap (SSRI use in pregnancy increases infant RDS incidence) versus reliable prospective data showing C-section delivery without maternal labor increases infant RDS irrespective of SSRI use).

One has only to review the history of medicine to see numerous instances where expert consensus was utter hogwash. See the thousand years it took to admit humans did not have a 5 lobed liver, the hundreds of years it took to stop treating fever with bloodletting, and the ridicule heaped upon the physician who proved that bacterial infection with helicobacter pylori was the cause (rather than stress) of the majority of gastric ulcers.

Any "scientific finding" that cannot be reliably reproduced is bollocks.

Blogger James Dixon April 28, 2017 9:59 PM  

> One has only to review the history of medicine to see numerous instances where expert consensus was utter hogwash.

In that regard: http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/business/biotech/sd-me-salt-diet-20170425-story.html

Blogger Peter Parker April 28, 2017 10:03 PM  

Having done some bench and clinical research years ago as a requirement for medical subspecialty training, coupled with the constant "We found 'x' to be true in our statistically woefully underpowered study, so more research is needed...", it is rather frustrating to have groupthink handicapped medical specialists drone on endlesslessly about their obsequious devotion to so-called "evidenced based medical practice" despite the frequent practical inaccuracies of so much of the existent "evidence". There are a number of reasons for this problem.

1. Too many of my fellow physicians believe themselves to be smarter than they actually are, (myself included) simply because they are sufficiently capable at memorizing and regurgitating on tests to have graduated medical school.

2. Protocol thinking (aka 'cookbook medicine') hamstrings treatment plan development when faced with the well known phenomenon of "patients not reading the textbook", and having the audacity not to respond to the physician's protocol-based medical therapy.

3. The level of societal litigiousness over potential medical malpractice leads hospitals to insist on slavish submission to protocols.

4. Consideration of different genetic/racial biological responses to specific medications is too often ignored when devising medical interventions (i.e., hypertension medication choices)

5. The imposition a decade or so ago of the resident 80 hour work week and reduced in-house call schedule without a lengthening of residency years has decreased the experience level of graduating residents, to include reducing the ability to parse through medical articles to differentiate pseudoscientific crap (SSRI use in pregnancy increases infant RDS incidence) versus reliable prospective data showing C-section delivery without maternal labor increases infant RDS irrespective of SSRI use).

One has only to review the history of medicine to see numerous instances where expert consensus was utter hogwash. See the thousand years it took to admit humans did not have a 5 lobed liver, the hundreds of years it took to stop treating fever with bloodletting, and the ridicule heaped upon the physician who proved that bacterial infection with helicobacter pylori was the cause (rather than stress) of the majority of gastric ulcers.

Any "scientific finding" that cannot be reliably reproduced is bollocks.

Blogger Kona Commuter April 28, 2017 10:36 PM  

I used to believe that endemic corruption was limited to African, Eastern European, South American and SE Asian nations. However nowadays I believe its infected the entire globe.

The British Empire succeeded in large part due to the whole society believing in fair play and public service. "That's not Cricket" used to mean something within Commonwealth Nations.

It's time for a reset across the board. It's coming and there's nothing anyone can do to stop it.

Anonymous A Most Deplorable Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Cents April 29, 2017 12:23 AM  

Science is no more "self-correcting" than accounting.

In accounting everything ultimately ties to cash. The same is true in science, but in a different way.

Anonymous Mr. Rational April 29, 2017 12:39 AM  

seeingsights wrote:For example a few years ago I read a paper which claimed a connection between global warming and hurricanes.
And why not?  Hurricanes (and the thunderstorms which produce tornadoes) are basically heat engines.

The extreme geographical size and intensity of super typhoon Haiyan was due to the similarly extreme height and cold temperature of the tropopause combined with all the hot water piled up near the Phillipines by intensified trade winds; the greater your ΔT, the more a heat engine has to work with.

Imperator wrote:@63 The climate alarmists don't admit that their religion is based on faith.
This is projection every bit as bad as the refusal to believe that microorganisms cause diptheria and measles.

We've got iron-clad evidence in the existence of downwelling IR emissions from the atmosphere and their measured change over time (the amount and spectrum can be measured to greater accuracy than it can be calculated from models).  Denialists go from handwaving all the way to refusal to admit that what was measured starting with Tyndall in the 1860's even exists.

Gospace wrote:I read once a long time ago that quarks were made up out of thin air just to be bookkeeping devices for all the multiple particles. They weren't supposed to be real, but great for keeping track of particle properties. Then, "SHAZAM!", it turns out they were real.
You don't know much about science history; the same happened with positrons and neutrinos, and something very similar with the stoichiometry of chemistry.  But what happened with quarks did NOT happen with the competing bookkeeping system, "partons".  Neither did it happen with phlogiston.

A fascination such as yours suggests susceptibility to numerology and other pseudoscience.  Just because something can be described accurately with numbers doesn't mean it IS the numbers.

My theory on that is that God is a practical joker.
Why was the quark accounting scheme accurate in the first place, then?  Why not partons?

Blogger Jose April 29, 2017 12:40 AM  

Good Gauss!

Engineering is not science; engineering solves a completely different class of problems: science is about "what/why of reality" engineering is about "how can we solve this practical problem."

Physics works pretty well. That's why another science (Chemistry) and four engineering variants (Electrical, Mechanical, Chemical, Civil, in decreasing order of intelligence and personal hygiene of those engineers) are built on it. Biology and Geology work well enough to base genetic therapy and oil exploration on them. Psychology works (stifled giggle) psychology works (suppressed laughter) psycholo... (uncontrollable guffaws) sorry, moving on.

Bill Nye the "my name rhymes with anything that ends in Guy" is not a scientist, has never been a scientist, and as far as I can tell went insane about 20 years ago. Other people who are always "speaking in the name of science" but shouldn't include Neil "Kardashian of science" Tyson, Richard "stopped doing science in 1970s" Dawkins, Sam "reincarnation might be possible" Harris, and people with degrees in "science journalism."

Peer review stopped around the first quarter of the 20th Century, being replaced by pre-publication anonymous veto. Peer review was what Newton got: he published his paper, and his peers reviewed it with their reputations on the line if their reviews were wrong (just like Newton's reputation was on the line). What we have now is a system where conformity is enforced in the top journals and payment of fees gets pubs in non-top journals.

As for the fraud, I'd never be so politically incorrect as to suggest looking at the authors' names and draw conclusions from that. An old-style management consultant might say that incentives change behavior and cultural constraints are heterogeneous around the world, but that's not acceptable in polite society anymore.

As my Boy Scout good deed of the year (I was never a boy scout), here's a good source for the non-STEM part of academe:

https://twitter.com/RealPeerReview

Blogger Lud VanB April 29, 2017 1:02 AM  

Supernaturalism is not a different way of knowing things...its merely a way of inventing answers based of feelings instead of facts.

Blogger Gospace April 29, 2017 2:30 AM  

88. Mr. Rational April 29, 2017 12:39 AM
Gospace wrote:
I read once a long time ago that quarks were made up out of thin air just to be bookkeeping devices for all the multiple particles. They weren't supposed to be real, but great for keeping track of particle properties. Then, "SHAZAM!", it turns out they were real.

You don't know much about science history; the same happened with positrons and neutrinos, and something very similar with the stoichiometry of chemistry. But what happened with quarks did NOT happen with the competing bookkeeping system, "partons". Neither did it happen with phlogiston.


Neutrinos and positrons, anti-particles in general, were posited as real, just needing to be proved. The were never thought to be "just bookkeeping" Never heard or partons. Are they similar to the darkon theory of light? Phlogiston, like many other older theories, was disproved as more knowledge was obtained. Like the ether in which light propagated as a wave. Disproved by the Michelson-Morley experiment designed to prove its existence. Other bookkeeping systems besides quarks had contradictions. Quarks didn't. Don't know if the other bookkeeping systems were thought to be real or just bookkeeping devices. Quarks, according to the story, were just bookkeeping. Weren't supposed to be real. And it turns out they were.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash April 29, 2017 2:57 AM  

@Mr Rational. The mechanism of CO2 as a greenhouse gas simply nopt strong enough to produce the predicted effects. The models all depend on a multiplier effect of the increased CO2 causing another gas, with a much higer greenhouse effect, normally water vapor, to increase as well. In other words, they depend on a linkage which has not been shown to exist. Here's a chart of Atmospheric CO2 vs Temperature over time. Please note the lack of correlation between the two.
Anthropogenic global climate warming is simply a phantasm. Whatever effect CO2 actually has is so small as to be lost in the noise. The multipliers don't, the negative feedback loops, like increased cloud formation from the greater water vapor in the air, are discounted and the entire movement is yet another frantic attempt to implement socialism by scaring people.

The models the Global Warming Myth depends on for their doomsday scenarios are wrong. they are proven wrong by actual events, and clowns like you think if we just tweak the fudge factors by the right amount we'll have a useful predictor. An incredibly oversimplified model that doesn't work doesn't work and can't provide useful results.

But by God, you know what downwelling radiation is, so you're smarter.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash April 29, 2017 3:06 AM  

Gospace wrote:Neutrinos and positrons, anti-particles in general, were posited as real, just needing to be proved.
Nutrinos in particular were invented literally as a bookkeeping device. At the time, a property called "spin" was attributed to Leptons, which determined which direction they would go when the particle broke down due to impact or decay. It was posited that this "spin" was conserved, but was fond not to do so in the case of a neutron decaying into a proton and an electron. Since Conservation of Spin was neatly symmetrical and useful in interpreting the results of cloud chamber experiments, the nutrino was invented as a particle with the sole attribute of 1/2 unit of spin. It made the equations balance and even made interpreting the experimental results easier, so it was kept around, but it was literally decades before anyone looked seriously to find one.

Partially, of course, that was because the nutrino is so weakly interacting, the only hope of detecting one was to catch it hitting a lepton dead-center.

Nutrinos, at least, were entirely a bookkeeping device at the beginning.

Anonymous Ominous Cowherd April 29, 2017 4:49 AM  

Peter Jackson wrote:So where's the testable, reliable evidence for the supernatural?

I was going to ask ``What part of supernatural don't you understand?'' but then I realized the answer is ``All of the parts.'' Supernatural is neither repeatable nor testable. In fact, it isn't natural!

JAG wrote:"Random fluctuations in quantum foam," is usually the answer given, which then merely kicks the can, unsuccessfully, down the road because the next question is ...

Who created the quantum foam? It's obviously turtles all the way down.

Snidely Whiplash wrote:The models the Global Warming Myth depends on for their doomsday scenarios are wrong. they are proven wrong by actual events, and clowns like you think ..

Those clowns don't, won't, think. Atheists aren't rational. A rational man would at least understand Pascal's wager. An atheist desperately pretends God isn't real, and hates God for being real.

Blogger Lud VanB April 29, 2017 4:55 AM  

" I was going to ask ``What part of supernatural don't you understand?'' but then I realized the answer is ``All of the parts.'' Supernatural is neither repeatable nor testable. In fact, it isn't natural!"

which makes the supernatural an unknowable by definition and as such a feeling based device to invent the answers you like. Thus its a useless pap to the intellectually honest.

Blogger wreckage April 29, 2017 9:30 AM  

"which makes the supernatural an unknowable by definition and as such a feeling based device to invent the answers you like. Thus its a useless pap to the intellectually honest."

Intellectual rigour begins with acknowledging the limits of knowledge in general, and the particularly pathetic limitations of one's personal knowledge in particular.

You don't need to accept supernatural arguments of any kind to do this, I'm just pointing out that you are not, in fact, being intellectually honest when you say that the limits of knowledge are not fit to be considered.

I am sorry if you find that upsetting.

Anonymous Pennywise April 29, 2017 10:45 AM  

JP, thread winner on this one!

"Get some numbers on how many retractions or fraud cases have been discovered in high impact journals, what percentages they represent, and whether those articles made significant claims that affected patient care."

Apparently, the journal "Tumor Biology" is not even in the Top 50 for its respective field. Note that this publication advertises "rapid but rigorous peer review, and quick decision times", which in and of itself raises a red flag.

http://www.scimagojr.com/journalrank.php?category=1306

Again, one has to review ALL of the journals in a respective field, find out at the number of cases that a research paper was retracted for each journal, and summarize the similarities as to how and why they were retracted by way of a comparison. Then we can know to what extent is "most science fake science".

Because for that PARTICULAR publication, that assessment is accurate.

Blogger Robert Coble April 29, 2017 11:15 AM  

Stephen Hawking/Leonard Mlodinow: The Grand Design

Lawrence M. Krauss: A Universe from Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather than Nothing

Philosophy is dead; only "science" gives every possible answer to every possible question. Scientism, much?!?

Why is there something rather than nothing? Why, the universe can and did create itself out of "nothing."

Of course, there is the usual obfuscation/rationalization about exactly what "nothing" really IS. So I guess they are in good company: it all depends on the meaning of the word "IS". None of them seem to understand that "there is an unbridgeable gap between something and "nothing." Nothing is NOT some special privileged variation of something.

Humorously, all three authors, as well as a host of others including Little Dick Dawkins, seem to have missed the recanting by Alfred Jules Ayer of the "doctrine" of logical positivism, or logical empiricism - which he formulated. "Scientism" is DEAD, declares Dr. Ayer. Apparently not. . .

It is always amusing to see demands for the PHYSICAL evidence for a NON-PHYSICAL God. Apparently, category errors aren't covered in STEM classes. Hammer, nail. . .

If you want to see a good philosophical case (I dare not write "proof" in this regard because some jackass will immediately demand to see the "PHYSICAL evidence"), read Dr. Robert J. Spitzer's New Proofs for the Existence of God: Contributions of Contemporary Physics and Philosophy. It is as cautious in its conclusions as it is thought-provoking.

The intellectually dishonest will dismiss the arguments out of hand without bothering to read them, based on the Genetic Fallacy: Dr. Spitzer is a Jesuit. HORRORS!

If you really want physical evidence for a non-physical First Cause, look at the physical universe. It is a miracle (a one-time event that cannot be repeated and cannot be explained by "science"), it's physical, and its existence cannot be explained away or dismissed with "the universe just is" and certainly not with "it created itself out of NOTHING." The theory of the Big Bang puts paid to the notion of the external always existing physical universe.

Please don't bother bloviating using Bertrand Russel's breezy (and stupid) dismissal so favored among atheist scientismists: "If God created the universe, then who created God?" It would demonstrate that you do not grasp the philosophical argument for a First Cause and why there is no infinite regress of causes.

Blogger Robert Coble April 29, 2017 11:26 AM  

Oh, rats: I failed to plug Vox's book The Irrational Atheist. Great reading! The Euthyphro dialog between Socrates and Vox is hilarious!

Blogger Snidely Whiplash April 29, 2017 2:30 PM  

Pennywise wrote:Again, one has to review ALL of the journals in a respective field, find out at the number of cases that a research paper was retracted for each journal, and summarize the similarities as to how and why they were retracted by way of a comparison. Then we can know to what extent is "most science fake science".

Because for that PARTICULAR publication, that assessment is accurate.

Really, Not All Science Is Like That! He Knows A Good One!

Scientific fraud is endemic, not exogenous. The procedures, incentives and structures of science, as now practiced, encourage and reward this behavior.

Think Dietary salt, fat and carbs.
Think global warmening.
Think about what seems every single study in behavioral psychology.

Only physics seems relatively immune, and that's mostly because the cutting edge of physics consists almost entirely of non-testable, and hence non-scientific conjecture.

Blogger Jose April 29, 2017 7:41 PM  

Snidely Whiplash wrote:Really, Not All Science Is Like That! He Knows A Good One!

Moderate agnostics like me have been chastised by militant anti-religious atheists asserting that creationists are anti-science dolts who cherry-pick poorly researched popular articles to make fallacious anti-progress arguments born of ignorance and fear.

Comment threads like this show how much those militant atheists are off-base. And that's a truthful statement.

Anonymous Pennywise April 29, 2017 9:07 PM  

Snidely, scientific fraud is assuredly being committed, from race realism to R/K selection theory to certain studies in the categories you mentioned. But, if you want to prove systemic scientific fraud in those specific areas exist, rather than rely squarely on your confirmation bias, then you must employ the process as outlined by JP and reiterated by me.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash April 29, 2017 10:41 PM  

And if you want to prove that such fraud is not being committed except in certain specified areas, you nee to dig up cases where replication is actually being done, where scientists conduct experiments to prove themselves wrong, and where the data and analysis programs are readily available to confirm or refute the results. You have a confirmation bias to the goodness and validity of science that is no longer justified. Your pretence of objectivity is simply silly.

If you want to assert any special status for science as a mode of thought or the basis for policy, then you have to address the issues raised, rather than simply re-asserting the validity of "science.

Blogger James Dixon April 29, 2017 11:01 PM  

> Here's a chart of Atmospheric CO2 vs Temperature over time.

Thank you. I've been looking for something like that.

> Supernatural is neither repeatable nor testable. In fact, it isn't natural!

Yes. But the fact that supernatural events occur is in fact a testable hypothesis.

> ...which makes the supernatural an unknowable by definition...

No. It merely makes it something we don't understand.

> It is always amusing to see demands for the PHYSICAL evidence for a NON-PHYSICAL God.

And even when physical evidence is provided (admitted two thousand years old, but with more supporting eyewitness testimony than almost any equivalent event of that time), they reject it.

Anonymous Mr. Rational April 30, 2017 12:24 AM  

Gospace wrote:Neutrinos and positrons, anti-particles in general, were posited as real, just needing to be proved. The were never thought to be "just bookkeeping"
The CERN history of particle physics has this to say:

Dirac's equation appeared in his paper The quantum theory of the electron, received by the journal Proceedings of the Royal Society A on 2 January 1928. It won Dirac the Nobel prize in physics in 1933.

But the equation posed a problem: just as the equation x2=4 can have two possible solutions (x=2 or x=-2), so Dirac's equation could have two solutions, one for an electron with positive energy, and one for an electron with negative energy. But classical physics (and common sense) dictated that the energy of a particle must always be a positive number.

Dirac interpreted the equation to mean that for every particle there exists a corresponding antiparticle, exactly matching the particle but with opposite charge. For the electron there should be an "antielectron" identical in every way but with a positive electric charge.

This is another one of those cases where the "convenient bookkeeping" equations turned out to describe reality that had not yet been discovered.  Neutrinos were invisible but postulated to account for the missing energy and momentum in beta decay; more bookkeeping, based on the hypothesis that conservation of energy and momentum still held.

Never heard or partons.
I've not kept up with this, and it shows.  Apparently quarks and partons were slightly different mathematical descriptions of the same thing.  I had no idea that Feynmann was involved, what I recall was from a short reference in Science News which I read in a junior high school chemistry class.  All these years later and I'm still learning things.

Anonymous Mr. Rational April 30, 2017 12:28 AM  

Widely Headgash wrote:The mechanism of CO2 as a greenhouse gas simply nopt [sic] strong enough to produce the predicted effects. The models all depend on a multiplier effect of the increased CO2 causing another gas, with a much higer greenhouse effect, normally water vapor, to increase as well.
And that's exactly what happens.  Have you ever read a steam table or psychrometric table?  Water vapor pressure increases steeply with temperature.

In other words, they depend on a linkage which has not been shown to exist.
Ye gods, are you really that stupid?  Look at the geographic and annual concentrations of water vapor.  The upper limit tracks temperature with extreme accuracy.  The vapor pressure of liquid water goes up about 7% per degree C.  The downwelling IR from the stratosphere comes almost entirely from gases other than water (including a good bit of O3, now seriously endangered), and THAT substantially determines the temperature at the tropopause.

Know what happens if you take the CO2 and other non-condensible greenhouse gases out?  "... all of the non-condensing greenhouse gases and aerosols were zeroed out, and the global climate model was run forward in time to see what would happen to the greenhouse effect. Without the sustaining support by the non-condensing greenhouse gases, Earth’s greenhouse effect collapsed as water vapor quickly precipitated from the atmosphere, plunging the model Earth into an icebound state -- a clear demonstration that water vapor, although contributing 50 percent of the total greenhouse warming, acts as a feedback process, and as such, cannot by itself uphold the Earth's greenhouse effect."

Here's a chart of Atmospheric CO2 vs Temperature over time.
I note that it doesn't account for a number of important factors including (a) distribution of the global landmass, (b) increases in the solar constant over time, and (c) finer time scales than perhaps 10 million years (way too smooth).  There was a reasonably good relationship over the Carboniferous, though.

Anthropogenic global climate warming is simply a phantasm. Whatever effect CO2 actually has is so small as to be lost in the noise. The multipliers don't, the negative feedback loops, like increased cloud formation from the greater water vapor in the air, are discounted
Wrong.  You want it to be lost in the noise (and methane, which is smaller yet) but it isn't.  It's one of the major forcing functions for the water-feedback loop which determines temperature over the short term (CO2 helps drive CO2 over the long term, and Milankovic cycles drive both).

Without human intervention, CO2 is added by volcanic action and removed by weathering.  Weathering increases with temperature, which helps put a cap on CO2.

The models the Global Warming Myth depends on for their doomsday scenarios are wrong. they are proven wrong by actual events
They can't be proven wrong by events because they don't predict events.  Remember all the talk about hurricanes not proving climate models correct?  Only the accumulation of statistics can do that.

But by God, you know what downwelling radiation is, so you're smarter.
You didn't even know what it was until I hammered it into your head, so yes, goddammit, I am.

Anonymous Mr. Rational April 30, 2017 12:29 AM  

Ominous Cowherd wrote:An atheist desperately pretends God isn't real, and hates God for being real.
Wrong.  I live my life like your god isn't real, because I'm certain it isn't.  I hate you when you get in my face for refusing to accept your dogma as unquestionable truth.  You are not bright enough to understand the difference.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash April 30, 2017 1:16 AM  

Where do the climate models account for increased cloud formation due to the increase water vapor in the air?

Hint: they don't. It's a poorly understood mechanism and a negative feedback, which would reduce the desired predicted effect, so it's ignored.

Where do the climate models account for the differing albedo and trnaspiration cycles caused by increase foliage due to CO2?

Hint: they don't. It's a well understood mechanism but a negative feedback, which would reduce the desired predicted effect, so it's ignored.

Anonymous Mr. Rational April 30, 2017 9:36 AM  

Widely Headgash wrote:Where do the climate models account for increased cloud formation due to the increase water vapor in the air?

Hint: they don't.

Whenever I see something like this my thoughts run along the lines of "ye gods, this stuff is already fully incorporated into the models for cloud cover and precipitation in day-to-day weather forecasts.  How can he possibly be so stupid as to..."

And then I stop myself, because the incontrovertible evidence of the stupidity and willful, aggressive pig-ignorance is right there in my face.

Where do the climate models account for the differing albedo and trnaspiration cycles caused by increase foliage
I threw "Where do the climate models account for the differing albedo and transpiration cycles caused by increase foliage" into my search bar.  I got a pile of results including this, this, this and this.

If you wanted to know, you'd know.  Willful, aggressive pig-ignorance.

Blogger James Dixon April 30, 2017 9:44 AM  

> Wrong. I live my life like your god isn't real, because I'm certain it isn't.

And why exactly should anyone else care what you're certain about?

> I hate you when you get in my face for refusing to accept your dogma as unquestionable truth.

Read the first sentence of The Irrational Atheist.

Blogger James Dixon April 30, 2017 9:57 AM  

> this stuff is already fully incorporated into the models for cloud cover and precipitation in day-to-day weather forecasts

Oh, and the global warming folks used the same models? Because I hate to tell you this, but the day to day models don't scale to even weekly forecasts.

> I threw "Where do the climate models account for the differing albedo and transpiration cycles caused by increase foliage" into my search bar.

You still don't understand that once it's been demonstrated that people are lying to me I'm not going to believe anything else that comes from them, do you? I don't care what data or theories you show me from them because they're completely discredited. Next thing I know you'll be wanting me to take financial advice from Bernie Madoff and Jon Corzine.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash April 30, 2017 11:19 AM  

Mr. Rational wrote:this stuff is already fully incorporated into the models for cloud cover and precipitation in day-to-day weather forecasts. 
Which are not climate models. Climate, we are all reminded every time a global warming conference is cancelled due to blizzard, is not weather. The climate models assume that average global cloud formation, and the time of day of such formation, which is particularly important in the tropics, will remain unchanged as the quantity of water in the atmosphere goes up.
Of the papers you link, the 1st three are simply studies of how forests affect weather. A one of them examines what the regional model does when you replace the North American forest with savannah. That has literally nothing to do with reality, it's simply playing with a model and pretending that the model is reality. The last paper does in fact address one of the issue partly. It, again, just takes the computer climate model, tweaks a couple of variables and reaches a conclusion, as if the model were the reality. What's more, it assumes the only effect on vegetation due to increased CO2 is increased transpiration due to increased water supply.
All of which is not the point I raised.
But you don't care whether it addresses the issue or even applies. I am challenging your dogma, so I must be cast down.
Freaking zealot.

Anonymous Pennywise April 30, 2017 12:16 PM  

"And if you want to prove that such fraud is not being committed except in certain specified areas, you nee to dig up cases where replication is actually being done, where scientists conduct experiments to prove themselves wrong, and where the data and analysis programs are readily available to confirm or refute the results."

Which is being done.

"You have a confirmation bias to the goodness and validity of science that is no longer justified. Your pretence of objectivity is simply silly."

YOU asserted that I have this of pristine view of science. Is there fraud committed in the scientific community? Of course. Is it to the level of fraud that you and others believe? Prove it by the process outlined above.

"If you want to assert any special status for science as a mode of thought or the basis for policy, then you have to address the issues raised, rather than simply re-asserting the validity of "science.""

Again, YOU assigned me as me saying that I believe science has "special status" and thus scrutiny is unduly wanted. I never made the claim nor implied it.

Clearly, you are projecting like an SJW. It is most unbecoming of a man.

Blogger Wayne April 30, 2017 12:30 PM  

The fool has said in his heart, "There is no God."

Blogger B.J. May 01, 2017 11:34 AM  

Well even real Peer review isn't science, they're just complaining someone is muscling in on their racket.

Peer review needs to end now.

Anonymous Mr. Rational May 04, 2017 2:47 AM  

James Dixon wrote:You still don't understand that once it's been demonstrated that people are lying to me I'm not going to believe anything else that comes from them, do you? I don't care what data or theories you show me from them because they're completely discredited.
I kept coming back to this, shaking my head and going off for days because I had no idea how to respond to such blind refusal to accept facts.

You remind me of the people who refused to accept that second-hand smoke and diesel emissions were dangerous.  Well, guess what?  It is now proven that nanoparticles DO go into the lungs, DO cross into blood and DO accumulate in blood-vessel walls.  All of the epidemiological evidence that air pollutants cause cardiac illness and death now has a physical basis.

You can't deny this any more.  When I get through with my head-shaking, I'm going to finish collecting my thoughts (already 75% written) and rebut most of your assertions.  Simple denial is not a sufficient response.

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts