ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2018 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Tuesday, May 21, 2019

The four horsemen of bad science

A scientist addresses the irreproducibility problem presently plaguing what passes for professional "science":
I think that, in two decades, we will look back on the past 60 years — particularly in biomedical science — and marvel at how much time and money has been wasted on flawed research. How can that be? We know how to formulate and test hypotheses in controlled experiments. We can account for unwanted variation with statistical techniques. We appreciate the need to replicate observations.

Yet many researchers persist in working in a way almost guaranteed not to deliver meaningful results. They ride with what I refer to as the four horsemen of the reproducibility apocalypse: publication bias, low statistical power, P-value hacking and HARKing (hypothesizing after results are known). My generation and the one before us have done little to rein these in.

In 1975, psychologist Anthony Greenwald noted that science is prejudiced against null hypotheses; we even refer to sound work supporting such conclusions as ‘failed experiments’. This prejudice leads to publication bias: researchers are less likely to write up studies that show no effect, and journal editors are less likely to accept them. Consequently, no one can learn from them, and researchers waste time and resources on repeating experiments, redundantly.
It's fascinating to see how science has not only demonstrated itself to be utterly useless as a device to adjudicate ethics, morals, or philosophy, but has actually corrupted itself in attempting to replace Christian ethics and moral philosophy.

Labels: ,

62 Comments:

Blogger Doug Cranmer May 21, 2019 11:21 AM  

I worked for a few years in biomedical research with medical doctors. I quit in disgust at the end. They absolutely are not scientists and have little actual scientific training.

I could only describe their research set up as a racket and skimming operation. They were good at playing the funding game and that was the real goal of the operation. And status points.

Genuine technical discussions were beyond them and they looked at computers as magical. Computers just produce the results and you only have to hire someone to type in the code.

My single datum of experience but to this day I will not donate to medical research.

Blogger David Ray Milton May 21, 2019 11:22 AM  

That is fascinating. And compound that last paragraph with the institutional pressure to get published in journals, mix in a little Machiavellian dishonesty, and it becomes to easy to understand why so many scientists may be tipping the scales.

Blogger Sherlock May 21, 2019 11:45 AM  

I work in the mental health field. I dare say it's worse here; personal feelings and false religion is peddled as scientific fact. I don't use social science studies, but rather concrete philosophical and Christian truths, in my practice.

Blogger Dr Caveman May 21, 2019 11:45 AM  

There are many incentives that drive shoddy science...
Grant funding and assistant professor positions in the life sciences are incredibly scarce. We regularly get 100s of applications for a single position.
This means that scientists *must* publish in top tier journals that favor sexy hot topics over solid science. And projects in life sciences often take years. So the temptation to put your thumb on the scales is very high.
Universities don't mind either. They're happy when big papers and grants flow in and will actively try to hush things up if their staff gets caught falsifying results.
And that happens rarely because experiments in life sciences are often hard and expensive (unlike in psychology) and currently there is no reward in spending years reproducing someone else's work.
Being in life sciences also means: undergrad for a few years, to the tune of $50k/yr, grad school for 5-7 years, at a $25k/yr stipend, one or two postdocs of up to three years each, making $45k/yr. By then you'll be in your mid-late 30s, neck deep in debt, having probably started a family who depend on you getting tenure, which requires a big sexy paper or three.

Lot of temptation to resist...

Blogger Yordan Yordanov May 21, 2019 11:54 AM  

I disagree with her predictions. In two decades we'd look back and wonder how people could make such accurate science, compared to what we'll have then.

Blogger Tars Tarkas May 21, 2019 11:58 AM  

The Alternative Hypothesis did a video on this subject and answered a lot of the objections raised about reproducibility.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u1jsWrQu7CQ
Sean Last also did one:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fSXYhnrwjQE

Both of them put reproducibility into context. While 60% is better than 40%, 40% is better than random, which may be closer to 0%
Just imagine if we had cancer treatments that turned a 100% mortality rate into a 60% mortality rate.
I thought both of these videos made some very good points.

Blogger Nate May 21, 2019 12:00 PM  

scientists have stopped chasing science... and instead are chasing government money. Chasing money is fine... because in the past chasing money meant actually inventing something that people wanted. Meaning your invention did something.

Today?

Today you're chasing government grants. so chasing money means not actually producing anything or even doing science at all... but rather writing good sciency sounding proposals that support the narrative

Blogger Snidely Whiplash May 21, 2019 12:04 PM  

I work with a fellow who was until last year a working biochemist. We got into a discussion of Science! and he was literally incapable of understanding the scientific method. He insisted that it was not only possible to prove a hypothesis correct, but that it was the purpose of the scientific method, that scientist regularly did so.
When I cited Bacon and Popper, he did not know who Francis Bacon was.
The only conclusion I can come to is that scientists are not very smart and their education is woefully deficient.

Blogger kurt9 May 21, 2019 12:09 PM  

Nate wrote:scientists have stopped chasing science... and instead are chasing government money. Chasing money is fine... because in the past chasing money meant actually inventing something that people wanted. Meaning your invention did something.

Today?

Today you're chasing government grants. so chasing money means not actually producing anything or even doing science at all... but rather writing good sciency sounding proposals that support the narrative



Yep. I have a friend who "played the game" (did a lot of SBIR stuff in the 80's and 90's) and he had this exact same comment about it as you. There is an incredible amount of fraud as well as shody experimental technique, much of it government funded R&D. My friend believed (he is now deceased) that essentially all government funding of science should be eliminated.

Contrary to what you may think, SBIR grants are fairly political and highly dependent on connections. I know a guy who was part of a research group doing SBIR work on behest of a manager who did essentially nothing but apply for the grants. The guys doing the real work decided to go out on their own and apply in their own right. Guess what? They got declined and the group broke up.

Blogger kurt9 May 21, 2019 12:14 PM  

All of the "soft" fields are nearly 100% irreproducible. Much of the NASA/space stuff is no good. probably 80-90% of biomedical research (and especially nearly all cancer work) is bogus. Interestingly, privately funded efforts such as Aubrey de Grey's SENS Foundation is demonstrating real work, as is other privately funded work (mostly in anti-aging life extension). The reason is simply. Privately funded work is done by those who actually want to accomplish their objective and thus are willing to put their money and asses on the line to make it happen. This is not true for government funded R&D.

BTW, climate science is to science as rap is to music.

Blogger Balam May 21, 2019 12:15 PM  

It is a wonder to me that so much time and money is wasted on useless scientody while there's so much low hanging engineering fruit to be had. Of course it's because of convergence from hostile forces, as defined on the blog, which keeps institutions from performing their basic tasks.

Supposedly Yao Ming, the really tall Chinese basketball player, was selectively bred by government order from a tall dad and tall mom and pushed into basketball. If the Chinese had the basic idea like 50 years ago AND it gave results why is the prevailing zeitgeist about equalism? (rhetorical question, if you're on this blog you know why)

I have to ask if the Chinese aren't taking the top 50 highest IQ individuals and forcibly impregnating 1000s of women with their sperm (or the strongest individuals, the fastest, etc). Imagine if the U.S. had a program where if you take 200+ IQ sperm for your artificial insemination you get a million dollars towards yourself and raising the child.

The US Spent 450 billion on science R&D in 2013. Half of that (taking away money from the 50% unreproducable work) would have paid for 200,000 children of Tesla or Einstein, Arnold Schwarzenegger or Dolph Lundgren, Trump or whoever you get the point. The Genghis Khan effect, where one man's genes shaped the face of the continent and start spreading on their own, would pay dividends very quickly.

Blogger sammibandit May 21, 2019 12:28 PM  

I worked in pop health surveillance. It was like working in Winston Smith's job. Send data into the unknown, get back instructions to change questions to suit desired data. Repeat. 4 years of this till the contract ran out.

Blogger Jason May 21, 2019 12:30 PM  

Science used to drive God out of our society, now become a mockery; useless and corrupt. Science conducted by godless men who have no reason not to lie if it suits their personal benefit and no interest in Truth, as they have already denied Him. It is almost as if you need, as a rule, a God fearing society to keep everyone honest, even the atheists. As soon as God is kicked out, those who were honest just to keep up with those whose honesty flowed from their faith no longer feel any need to pretend.

Blogger Warunicorn May 21, 2019 12:39 PM  

B-b-but, they're scientists!1!! So sciencey, even! They wouldn't lie to us, would they?/??//?

On a more serious note, I feel bad for the true scientists that just want to study; they've got to feel defeated in all this, being surrounded by idiots who have an agenda.

Blogger Jason May 21, 2019 12:41 PM  

No skin in the science game. No real repercussions for worthless work. No incentives from the government to actually deliver quality results. Government does little to nothing right. Why? They have zero incentive. Taleb and Sowell gave me the keys to understand so much just by looking at who has skin in the game and what are the incentives in any given system. The system is set up from the top to produce garbage via the incentives in place, as many have noted here. And surprise, the private work, where everyone involved is risking their livelihood and reputation, actually gets results.

Blogger nbfdmd May 21, 2019 12:44 PM  

I think it's useful and easy to separate out the science that's based on rock solid foundations of mathematics (this would be particle physics, chemistry, most of astronomy) from the stuff that sort of exists in the world of experiments only, or even worse, modeling. This would be things like climate science, a big chunk of biology, and pretty much all of the fields softer than those ones.

So I would argue that tossing out "all of science" is throwing the baby out with the bath water. For example, I trust Leonard Susskind when he talks about his stuff. I trust chemists when they say that they were able to develop a new compound with X properties. To not trust these things is essentially Flat Earther stuff, as far as I'm concerned.

Again, to be clear, I'm talking about hard science, not the fluff like climate science or medicine.

Blogger Johnny May 21, 2019 12:47 PM  

Way back when science was a great cause, and an eminently worthy one. But to quote Eric Hoffer, “Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and turns into a racket.” We are in the racket stage.

Blogger Cinco May 21, 2019 12:56 PM  

“ It is almost as if you need, as a rule, a God fearing society to keep everyone honest, even the atheists. As soon as God is kicked out, those who were honest just to keep up with those whose honesty flowed from their faith no longer feel any need to pretend.”

This is almost the same conclusion that Stefan Molyneux came to. It is arguably a correct conclusion too, as all of recorded history has yet to produce a secular version of ethics/morality that makes sense. At the end of the day if there is no God, then it’s a purely Darwinian quest for survival and the propagation of one’s genes. May the best liar win, the best murderer win, the best lecher win, etc. No, anyone who wants to live in that world just wants to stew in their own sin and not leave the world a better place for their children, which is why so many people today have no children and spend their free time perusing Tinder, Bumble, and Plenty of Fish.

Blogger Weak May 21, 2019 12:57 PM  

We have a winner. You nailed it Yordan.

Blogger Rob Boss May 21, 2019 1:12 PM  

If you guys haven't checked out WM Briggs, you should. He's been writing about bad statistics and the problems of p-values for a couple years now, and is very good at explaining this sort of stuff

Blogger Doktor Jeep May 21, 2019 1:37 PM  

They gave us 57 Genders.
We raised them flat earth.

Blogger Nathan May 21, 2019 1:43 PM  

Chesterton has a funny passage in Everlasting Man where he outlines how pagan cultures begin to worship demons when they begin to look for "no nonsense" solutions for their problems - essentially they lose the sense of wonder. A variety of bad actors have drained wonder from the life blood of science, so naturally they begin to worship the prince of lies.

Blogger Nate73 May 21, 2019 1:53 PM  

I never understood the bias against publishing negative results. Isn't the point of science to do experiments and use the failures as a guide to what doesn't work? A failed experiment should in theory be as valuable as a successful one.

Blogger Ariadne Umbrella May 21, 2019 2:04 PM  

I was a tech at a drug research company. Every test subject was the finest specimen possible- height/weight proportional, no diseases, perfect blood pressure, perfect heart EKGs. When they would fail some section of a drug screen- adverse reaction of some sort or another- they would be let go. The final 100 subjects- 900 let go- would be the ones cited in publication.

I don't take drugs that are new to market because we really do not have any idea how they work on sick people. Or people with imperfect BMI, or heart problems, or slight fevers, at any age.

Blogger Shimshon May 21, 2019 2:10 PM  

Since the government claims to rely on so much science, it should assert ownership over the term "peer review," define what it means (in ways that address issues like HARKing), and then require all science utilized in pursuit of government be peer reviewed according to its standards.

There is precedent for this in all sorts of ways. In Israel, government regulates use of the word "kosher". A restaurant cannot describe itself as kosher unless it complies with the law (which in the present day is to adhere to standards of the various government-run rabbinical offices). Imperfect as the system is, it does work, even if poorly, and it would insane (for us) to let just anyone use the word in any way one wants vis a vis food.

Blogger binks webelf May 21, 2019 2:12 PM  

I recall all the billions poured into U.S. fetal stem-cell research, and the celebrity advocacy (such as by Parkinson's sufferer Michael J. Fox) that this was the way forward, and no expense or effort should be spared.

Such public claims went on for several years-- perhaps as long as the "research" money held up-- ironically in direct opposition to the successful science being done with adult stem-cell studies.

Perhaps the Frankenstein-like Planned Parenthood profiteering over fetal body-parts & cells had something to do with this. Perhaps it was just the fine old human tradition of getting while the getting was good.

Blogger Balancing forces May 21, 2019 2:18 PM  

They absolutely do practice eugenics. There is a good American renaissance video describing the institution china has in place to do it.
We practice eugenics here in the west with plants and animals basically everything but people bc das raciss

Blogger KPKinSunnyPhiladelphia May 21, 2019 2:20 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger KPKinSunnyPhiladelphia May 21, 2019 2:23 PM  

Very good article, and spot on.

Yet, as she notes, there is some very good science happening. Genetics, and especially ancient population genetics, are uncovering amazing insights. Those disciplines have high level applied math undergirding their methods and insights, so power problems and causality errors are less of an issue.

She slams, and rightly so, the biological sciences, but the best research there is taking a highly mechanistic approach that focuses on understanding biological processes rather than traditional early stage hypothesis testing. This method is the reason we have had such huge leaps in immunology, for examples. We need to know how things work before we can test how we can leverage those processes.

She didn't mention physics, and there researchers still follow the time honored sequence of theoretical principle-hypothesis testing with follow on experimental testing (though the experiments now, as with gravitational waves, require armies of physicists and are VERY expensive!).

Right now there are huge experiments going on in particle physics about matter/anti-matter asymmetry with competing theories lining up their experiments.

Physics owns up to its failures -- one of the few disciplines that do so, although that may be a by-product of the huge cost and visibility of its experiments. The days of the Curies or Michelson-Morley working out of sight in their small labs is over.

Blogger Jim the Curmudgeon May 21, 2019 2:23 PM  

One element of this that cannot be discussed is the growing number of Indian and Chinese scientists. Anyone who has taught at university knows that Asian students cheat like mad. A UCal study even backs this up, showing asians are 9x more likely to cheat. I've personally witnessed them pass exam papers around in teams while in final exams, each person filling in one answer before handing it to the next like an assembly line. The USA expels > 10,000 Chinese a year for cheating, but it is the tip of the iceberg.

At one of my universities they actually cancelled a woman's graduate degree in some biomed field because she faked her research results. The problem was that they were relied upon by 100s of other research teams. Chinese female.

If you have a population of students that have succeeded by cheating their way through undergraduate programs, do we suddenly think ther is some form of 'magic dirt' in grad school that will turn them into honest researchers?

No, they cheat in research as well. In math and electrical engineering it is hard to do, but in sciences that rely heavily on statistics.... prime territory for rigging data and inferences.

Blogger Balancing forces May 21, 2019 2:24 PM  

Its my view that science is in decline because of the student loan scam. They made university purely a business instead of a meritocracy and diminished the value of education/degrees. Anyone willing to pay the fee,put in time and write a few reports for a degree can be a "scientist" without having the actual aptitude for discovery.

Blogger Ingemar May 21, 2019 2:25 PM  

If science was a frontier back then, it is a city now, and we're entering the "Democratic mayor fleeces everyone's pension funds while Chinese land grabs causes COL to become unaffordable for ordinary person" phase of its life cycle.

Blogger Johnny May 21, 2019 3:05 PM  

Nate73 wrote:I never understood the bias against publishing negative results. Isn't the point of science to do experiments and use the failures as a guide to what doesn't work? A failed experiment should in theory be as valuable as a successful one.

The oversight you are making is thinking that people are motivated by the ideology of their profession. Maybe they are at first, but once things mature the behavior you get will be what somebody else is willing to pay for.

Like being a cop or a plumber or a doctor or anybody else, you can only practice you profession if somebody else hires you. The customer, the government, whoever. In time it all just comes down to money because those who view it that way stay employed.

If negative results don't produce funds, then you don't muck about with negative results.

Blogger CS May 21, 2019 3:20 PM  

Today, for most participants, scientific research is not a vocation but a career. Careers are advanced by publication frequency and eye-catching results, not profundity, integrity and seriously hard work. Hence the endless production of scientific BS, especially in commercially related, politically useful, or newsworthy fields, e.g., drug and cancer research, IQ-ism, and climate-related studies.

And publication of the most dubious material is facilitated by commercial publishers of scholarly journals who need more pages to print to justify ever increasing journal subscription prices.

The universities are also central to the problem since the overhead they charge on research grants is a vital part of their ever expanding income.

Blogger Cloudswrest May 21, 2019 3:37 PM  

Some recent high profile examples of bogus science. And if you dissent you're ostracized. And if you're involved professionally, can, and probably will lose your professional license.

It's becoming patently obvious to those on the Dissident Right that the cholesterol hypothesis is completely bogus. Granted there is a problem if you have familial hypercholesterolemia, with TC numbers > 350, but for normal people cholesterol is not the issue. The issue is primarily insulin resistance.

Another example is the widespread belief that cancer is a nuclear genetic disease. This picture encapsulates a "smoking gun" empirical rebuttal to that belief. A performed, and multiply reproduced experiment, blowing away the accepted wisdom on cancer.
https://www.frontiersin.org/files/Articles/146764/fcell-03-00043-HTML/image_m/fcell-03-00043-g003.jpg
But the mainstream culture doesn't care.

Blogger Matamoros May 21, 2019 3:46 PM  

#33 "The oversight you are making is thinking that people are motivated by the ideology of their profession."

A friend heard an M.D. in a lecture state, "Until you've killed a thousand people you won't be a good physician."

M.D.s are bound by treatment protocols, good or bad, and throw out their idealism in favor of the big bucks.

If you or I did something and it didn't work after 3-4 tries, we'd do something else. Not M.D.s.

Blogger Matamoros May 21, 2019 3:51 PM  

@29 "Physics owns up to its failures"

No it doesn't. It just keeps throwing money at it until it can develop a new theory in line with the old theory.

Aether is a fact that physics still denies, though science going back before Einsteins' phony science have proven it.

Same with heloio vs. geocentrism. It has never been conclusively proven that the earth moves. Research shows that it is stationary. They interpret the results as the earth moving.

Blogger justaguy May 21, 2019 3:55 PM  

I think that the main reason for the decay of science in the US was stated early in the comments, the chasing of grant money, careerism, lack of statistical background etc. One point though-- as several studies have shown, the smart students don't stay in academia only the midwits. The smartest leave and find useful ways to use their skills and knowledge.

Of course medicine is still an art, which is why, although we can surgically replace organs, cure many bacterial infections, and generally live longer than 100 years ago-- we still can't even agree on what is the right diet or what leads to the largest non-violent causes of death (heart attack, stroke, cancer). Our PC prevents honest analysis of genetics and population against these vectors but we highly profitable pharmaceutical companies and a wide variety of ED drugs!

Blogger Tars Tarkas May 21, 2019 4:05 PM  

Jim the Curmudgeon wrote:One element of this that cannot be discussed is the growing number of Indian and Chinese scientists. Anyone who has taught at university knows that Asian students cheat like mad. A UCal study even backs this up, showing asians are 9x more likely to cheat.

This is not surprising when you look at their societies. Indians have had access to America for 2 decades and they have made our telephones near useless with their endless scams.
The Chinese are shameless in their level of theft. They even go as far as to make cheap copies of European towns!

Blogger Edward Isaacs May 21, 2019 4:08 PM  

Reads like a veiled plea to those who fund the studies to be stricter about standards. I can't see the sunny and optimistic tone as sincere, the reasoning isn't there. But if you don't take that tone you're a weirdo outcast science hater denier bigot, etc. so she had to do what she had to do.

Blogger kurt9 May 21, 2019 4:10 PM  

Another pet peeve of mine is this notion from the 70's of how the hippies saved physics (e.g. theoretical physics). Let's see here. All of the most recent technological innovations of physics - semiconductors, lasers, etc., even stuff like Bose Einstein Condensate, are all products of early 20th century physics. Given that it has been nearly 50 years since the hippies supposedly saved physics, one would expect some technological developments out of such. So, where are these technological innovations?

Blogger OneWingedShark May 21, 2019 4:28 PM  

kurt9 wrote:Given that it has been nearly 50 years since the hippies supposedly saved physics, one would expect some technological developments out of such. So, where are these technological innovations?
Do vaping, "securities derivatives", and offshoring count? /s

Blogger Cloudswrest May 21, 2019 4:44 PM  

kurt9 wrote:...are all products of early 20th century physics.

Indeed. As far as anything that has any societal effect, there has been no discoveries in fundamental physics since the early 20th century.

17th century - Newton-mechanics.
19th century - Electricty.
Fin de siècle - Thermodynamics-refrigeration, internal combustion engine.
Early 20th century - Understanding of the atom. Nuclear power, atomic bombs.
Since early 20th century - Nothing.

Blogger RedJack May 21, 2019 4:47 PM  

Chinese do not view cheating as bad. Cheating the round eyes is viewed as good.

Have some great Han engineers as vendors, but I learned to check their work. The culture is such that they will lie to you rather than say it doesn't work.

And the Indians.. Well I got a rather quick crash course on the caste system.

Blogger exfarmkid May 21, 2019 5:10 PM  

Nate73: "I never understood the bias against publishing negative results."

Simple self-interest. Eating be good.

Blogger Avalanche May 21, 2019 5:17 PM  

@11 "...200+ IQ sperm for your artificial insemination you get a million dollars towards yourself and raising the child."

Who would grow up to be edumacated at MLK School, then attend Sharpton U. where she-he-it will major in Gender Studies and Race Relations AND Transgender Adjustment Therapy, and finally get a job at McDonald's paying minimum wage of $140 (NOT a typo) an hour...

Let not the govt put its slimy corrupting fingers into your reproduction system!

Blogger God Emperor Memes May 21, 2019 5:39 PM  

And then women become your rulers, and children, your oppressors.

Blogger God Emperor Memes May 21, 2019 5:42 PM  

I have two brothers with Muh Science Degrees. They are both completely incapable of independent thought and believe that Science™ is infallible. They worship Climate Change as if it were a religion, with Algore as Pope.

Blogger kurt9 May 21, 2019 6:00 PM  

Cloudswrest wrote:

Indeed. As far as anything that has any societal effect, there has been no discoveries in fundamental physics since the early 20th century.


Its worse than this. Recently there has been a spat of articles about the lack of any recent discoveries in physics and how all of the currently favored theories - string theory, supersymetry, and what not - may all be wrong. Other than the Higgs, the LHC has not found any of the other subatomic particles predicted by supersymetry. String theory is, as of yet, entirely untestable. Its becoming recognized by those in the field that theoretical physics is in trouble.

Blogger doctrev May 21, 2019 6:15 PM  

At first you wonder about why so many more Americans talk about Game of Thrones than issues involving science. But when you realize how many important scientific issues are governed entirely by fraud, from pharma addiction to corporate shilling to climate hoaxes, there really is no discussion. There are only so many ways to say "yes, it's obviously a giant scam, next topic."

Blogger Don't Call Me Len May 21, 2019 6:20 PM  

@11 - Maybe the CHinese should have focused a bit of this putative program on developing a tall person who didn't have feet made of china.

Humans often make terrible reproductive choices. They're very likely to make even more terrible decisions when they try their grimy little paws at genetic "engineering".

Blogger Dave Dave May 21, 2019 6:25 PM  

In Melbourne University, students doing a science course are required to justify their hypotheses beyond "I think it will work this way" which has led to most students going back to first principles and making as few assumptions as possible. This kills the creative side of science because everything they do is "proving" what we already know. In order for scientists to find new ideas they have to make lots of assumptions. General relativity makes so many assumptions that at every step of the process you could question and challenge such a leap, yet it is readily accepted as true. Science cannot create. Science cannot predict. It is now a useless method of supporting what we already figured out 30 years ago.

Blogger Pierre May 21, 2019 6:25 PM  

He insisted that it was not only possible to prove a hypothesis correct, but that it was the purpose of the scientific method.

The scientific method is a formalized process to force gammas spergs to admit they're wrong from experimental evidence. That's all there is to it, and of course they manage to get it wrong, because gammas will turn it into a method to prove they're right.









Blogger JovianStorm May 21, 2019 6:58 PM  

I'm a biomedical scientist (PhD professor etc) and it's rough. We've been denied adequate funding and time on the non-tenured side for so long that you almost have to fudge things just to secure your job and not worry about being homeless.

It also doesn't help that Scientody cultists expect us to know everything and hype up even the tiny findings to create very very unrealistic expectations of our work.

Couple that to the push for diversity in grad schools, where you watch the diversity admits do nothing and get their degrees, and it's basically a converged system producing the trash you expect converged systems to produce.

It's why i left the USA.

Blogger English Tom May 21, 2019 7:24 PM  

@Kurt9

Man what's wrong with you? Hasn't science proven that men can become women? Surely this is great progress!

Blogger SciVo May 21, 2019 8:09 PM  

Yordan Yordanov wrote:I disagree with her predictions. In two decades we'd look back and wonder how people could make such accurate science, compared to what we'll have then.

I reject your disagreement. The SocJus cult's pretense to authority is largely premised on the quality of our technocracy, which is to say our experts, which is to say our sleazy, know-nothing snake-oil salesmen.

As such, the disgusting deceit of our well-credentialed pseudo-scientists will be an absolutely critical point in as many Presidential elections as it takes to crush the corrupt establishment that they prop up.

It cannot take over 15 years, let alone 20, because the SocJus cult's house of cards will collapse with the USD. When their levers of power turn impotent, they will just be another small group of strident weirdos.

They couldn't snow the Australians in their recent elections; and if anything, America's irrational lab-coat fetish continues to shrink.

Blogger SciVo May 21, 2019 8:45 PM  

Nathan wrote:A variety of bad actors have drained wonder from the life blood of science, so naturally they begin to worship the prince of lies.

Relevant: Starfucker - Medicine (Alan Watts via indie dance pop)

Blogger cecilhenry May 21, 2019 9:03 PM  

I'll just leave this here:

#SJWScience

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D7IV_DuXsAAQZHe.jpg:large

Blogger Azure Amaranthine May 21, 2019 9:13 PM  

"It's becoming patently obvious to those on the Dissident Right that the cholesterol hypothesis is completely bogus. Granted there is a problem if you have familial hypercholesterolemia, with TC numbers > 350, but for normal people cholesterol is not the issue. The issue is primarily insulin resistance."

Becoming? I remember being 13 years old, walking through a store with my parents, and listening to some supposed professional opine about LDL and HDL "cholesterol" over the store broadcast system, knowing myself from my homeschool biology book that both of those things are proteins while the professional very clearly didn't.

"ZOMF, don't eat any cholesterol!" "You realize that our cell membranes are mostly cholesterol... right?"

Blogger kurt9 May 21, 2019 11:33 PM  

English Tom wrote:@Kurt9

Man what's wrong with you? Hasn't science proven that men can become women? Surely this is great progress!


He-she wannabe
Body and soul just don't agree
Thare's an answer
Got to go for a Tijuana tunkn'roll
He she done got....a zipper job

Blogger Steve Samson May 22, 2019 3:34 AM  

You do practice eugenics, just badly. You split the million dollars up over time and give it to the lowest-IQ segment of the population.

Blogger wahr01 May 23, 2019 3:31 AM  

This is the result of the GI bill and the corruption it invited through an open front door.

Massive infusions of government cash with no accountability or financial repercussions for failure to live up to purpose has allowed these "institutions of science" to become utterly perverted, from the mundane fraud-for-dollars to to the ideologically-motivated subversion of "social justice curriculum".

The knock-on effect of "every job requires a degree" has enslaved several generations now, all so the boomers could have "free stuff".

The silents should have died in WWII because they failed utterly at parenting.

Post a Comment

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

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts