How reliable is "science"

You've just found the penis-shaped door to freedom. GET ON YOUR FUCKING FEET. Turn the tables on your masters. Light the entire world on fire. The time for sitting there like a little bitch is OVER.
Forum rules
This section is open to the public. Feel free to post questions, criticisms or comments. Thank you.
Post Reply
User avatar
Professor
Dean of Beatdowns
Posts: 9976
Joined: Sat May 15, 2010 10:34 am
Contact:

Re: How reliable is "science"

Post by Professor » Sat Feb 09, 2013 4:50 pm

False Memories of Fabricated Political Events
January 16, 2013

Steven J. Frenda
University of California, Irvine - Department of Psychology and Social Behavior

Eric D. Knowles
University of California, Irvine - Department of Psychology and Social Behavior

William Saletan
The Slate Group

Elizabeth F. Loftus
University of California, Irvine - Department of Psychology and Social Behavior


Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 49, 2013
UC Irvine School of Law Research Paper No. 2013-87

Abstract:
In the largest false memory study to date, 5,269 participants were asked about their memories for three true and one of five fabricated political events. Each fabricated event was accompanied by a photographic image purportedly depicting that event. Approximately half the participants falsely remembered that the false event happened, with 27% remembering that they saw the events happen on the news. Political orientation appeared to influence the formation of false memories, with conservatives more likely to falsely remember seeing Barack Obama shaking hands with the president of Iran, and liberals more likely to remember George W. Bush vacationing with a baseball celebrity during the Hurricane Katrina disaster. A follow-up study supported the explanation that events are more easily implanted in memory when they are congruent with a person's preexisting attitudes and evaluations, in part because attitude-congruent false events promote feelings of recognition and familiarity, which in turn interfere with source attributions.
social interaction is an interruption.

shape or be shaped.

User avatar
Lazy Artist
Small boy from Nigeria
Posts: 5
Joined: Mon Mar 04, 2013 4:22 pm
Location: Northwest Florida

Re: How reliable is "science"

Post by Lazy Artist » Sat Mar 09, 2013 3:30 pm

Wow. Everything needs to be questioned and tested. We would be wise to be aware of our own limitations and natural biases. Narcissism is a powerful enemy.
:blind:
"Whoever rebukes a man will afterward find more favor
than he who flatters with his tongue."
Proverbs 28:23

User avatar
Professor
Dean of Beatdowns
Posts: 9976
Joined: Sat May 15, 2010 10:34 am
Contact:

Re: How reliable is "science"

Post by Professor » Wed Apr 03, 2013 10:42 am

The end of men? Expert predicts males will be extinct in five million years... and the process has already started!
Leading Australian expert says 'inherent fragility' of the male sex chromosome will lead to male demise. Says the research is 'very bad news' for all men
2 April 2013

Men are living on borrowed time, according to a leading female scientist. Professor Jenny Graves even claims the male of the species is heading for extinction. And chaps, the bad news doesn’t end there, because the process may have already started.
Who let this stupid bitch out of the kitchen? :?:

Image
social interaction is an interruption.

shape or be shaped.

User avatar
Professor
Dean of Beatdowns
Posts: 9976
Joined: Sat May 15, 2010 10:34 am
Contact:

Re: How reliable is "science"

Post by Professor » Sat Apr 06, 2013 2:45 am

This is an example of what stupid bitches are now passing off as 'science':
Who Is Willing to Sacrifice Ethical Values for Money and Social Status?
Gender Differences in Reactions to Ethical Compromises
Jessica A. Kennedy1⇑
Laura J. Kray1
1Haas School of Business, University of California, Berkeley, CA, USA
Jessica A. Kennedy, University of Pennsylvania, 600 Jon M. Huntsman Hall, 3730 Walnut St., Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA. Email: kennedyj@wharton.upenn.edu
Abstract

Women select into business school at a lower rate than men and are underrepresented in high-ranking positions in business organizations. We examined gender differences in reactions to ethical compromises as one possible explanation for these disparities. In Study 1, when reading decisions that compromised ethical values for social status and monetary gains, women reported feeling more moral outrage and perceived less business sense in the decisions than men. In Study 2, we established a causal relationship between aversion to ethical compromises and disinterest in business careers by manipulating the presence of ethical compromises in job descriptions. As hypothesized, an interaction between gender and presence of ethical compromises emerged. Only when jobs involved making ethical compromises did women report less interest in the jobs than men. Women’s moral reservations mediated these effects. In Study 3, we found that women implicitly associated business with immorality more than men did.
Image
social interaction is an interruption.

shape or be shaped.

User avatar
Professor
Dean of Beatdowns
Posts: 9976
Joined: Sat May 15, 2010 10:34 am
Contact:

Re: How reliable is "science"

Post by Professor » Sun May 12, 2013 9:05 am

Psychiatrists under fire in mental health battle
British Psychological Society to launch attack on rival profession, casting doubt on biomedical model of mental illness
Saturday 11 May 2013

There is no scientific evidence that psychiatric diagnoses such as schizophrenia and bipolar disorder are valid or useful, according to the leading body representing Britain's clinical psychologists.

In a groundbreaking move that has already prompted a fierce backlash from psychiatrists, the British Psychological Society's division of clinical psychology (DCP) will on Monday issue a statement declaring that, given the lack of evidence, it is time for a "paradigm shift" in how the issues of mental health are understood. The statement effectively casts doubt on psychiatry's predominantly biomedical model of mental distress – the idea that people are suffering from illnesses that are treatable by doctors using drugs. The DCP said its decision to speak out "reflects fundamental concerns about the development, personal impact and core assumptions of the (diagnosis) systems", used by psychiatry.

Dr Lucy Johnstone, a consultant clinical psychologist who helped draw up the DCP's statement, said it was unhelpful to see mental health issues as illnesses with biological causes.

"On the contrary, there is now overwhelming evidence that people break down as a result of a complex mix of social and psychological circumstances – bereavement and loss, poverty and discrimination, trauma and abuse," Johnstone said. The provocative statement by the DCP has been timed to come out shortly before the release of DSM-5, the fifth edition of the American Psychiatry Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders.

The manual has been attacked for expanding the range of mental health issues that are classified as disorders. For example, the fifth edition of the book, the first for two decades, will classify manifestations of grief, temper tantrums and worrying about physical ill-health as the mental illnesses of major depressive disorder, disruptive mood dysregulation disorder and somatic symptom disorder, respectively.

Some of the manual's omissions are just as controversial as the manual's inclusions. The term "Asperger's disorder" will not appear in the new manual, and instead its symptoms will come under the newly added "autism spectrum disorder".

The DSM is used in a number of countries to varying degrees. Britain uses an alternative manual, the International Classification of Diseases (ICD) published by the World Health Organisation, but the DSM is still hugely influential – and controversial.

The writer Oliver James, who trained as a clinical psychologist, welcomed the DCP's decision to speak out against psychiatric diagnosis and stressed the need to move away from a biomedical model of mental distress to one that examined societal and personal factors.

Writing in today's Observer, James declares: "We need fundamental changes in how our society is organised to give parents the best chance of meeting the needs of children and to prevent the amount of adult adversity."
social interaction is an interruption.

shape or be shaped.

User avatar
A-Team
Hall Monitor
Posts: 572
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2011 9:51 pm
Location: Berkeley, CA

Re: How reliable is "science"

Post by A-Team » Sat May 18, 2013 1:46 pm

Inventor of ADHD's deathbed confession 'ADHD is a fictitious disease'

Saturday, 18 May 2013 10:54

Image

'The alarmed critics of the Ritalin disaster are now getting support from an entirely different side. The German weekly Der Spiegel quoted in its cover story on 2 February 2012 the US American psychiatrist Leon Eisenberg, born in 1922 as the son of Russian Jewish immigrants, who was the “scientific father of ADHD” and who said at the age of 87, seven months before his death in his last interview: “ADHD is a prime example of a fictitious disease”

Since 1968, however, some 40 years, Leon Eisenberg’s “disease” haunted the diagnostic and statistical manuals, first as “hyperkinetic reaction of childhood”, now called “ADHD”. The use of ADHD medications in Germany rose in only eighteen years from 34 kg (in 1993) to a record of no less than 1760 kg (in 2011) – which is a 51-fold increase in sales! In the United States every tenth boy among ten year-olds already swallows an ADHD medication on a daily basis. With an increasing tendency.'
[b][color=#FF0000]I'm sick of training with strangers[/color][/b]

[color=#FF0000]The only guys who are good at "self-improvement" are the ones who don't do it by themselves[/color]

Rug Sweeperddfd

Re: How reliable is "science"

Post by Rug Sweeperddfd » Tue Jun 25, 2013 3:59 pm

The manual has been attacked for expanding the range of mental health issues that are classified as disorders. For example, the fifth edition of the book, the first for two decades, will classify manifestations of grief, temper tantrums and worrying about physical ill-health as the mental illnesses of major depressive disorder, disruptive mood dysregulation disorder and somatic symptom disorder, respectively.
I don't know. Temper tantrums are going to be called 'disruptive mood dysregulation disorder'? I can't say, "She threw a temper tantrum"? I have to say she has a disorder? These new descriptions are getting out of control.
Some of the manual's omissions are just as controversial as the manual's inclusions. The term "Asperger's disorder" will not appear in the new manual, and instead its symptoms will come under the newly added "autism spectrum disorder".
This is startling. Someone who thought they had Aspergers disorder, and was getting 'treatment' for it, will now learn that he has something else. When I see shifts like this one, it makes me wonder about science. Because the 6th edition of the DSM might shift the disorder around again. I don't know if I would base important health decisions on something as shifting as the DSM.
The writer Oliver James, who trained as a clinical psychologist, welcomed the DCP's decision to speak out against psychiatric diagnosis and stressed the need to move away from a biomedical model of mental distress to one that examined societal and personal factors.
I like the idea of looking at societal factors and social factors in treating mental 'illness'. How many males don't have male friends? How many males can't get a date? The divorce rate is sky high, and whenever I hear someone describe their divorce they describe it as 'very stressful'. It would be enough to make anyone 'crazy'.

User avatar
Last Emperor
Small boy from Nigeria
Posts: 0
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2013 3:03 pm

Re: How reliable is "science"

Post by Last Emperor » Tue Jul 09, 2013 10:13 pm

Modern science has made people mentally lazy and unable to think with their own heads. Its not possible to talk to people about an issue unless you bring them one hundred different bs lab studies.

User avatar
Professor
Dean of Beatdowns
Posts: 9976
Joined: Sat May 15, 2010 10:34 am
Contact:

Re: How reliable is "science"

Post by Professor » Tue Aug 13, 2013 10:42 am

Psychiatrist who damned hundreds as 'unfit parents' faces GMC probe

Dr George Hibbert could be disbarred over his conclusions that hundreds of parents had ‘personality disorders’
Shocking suggestions he distorted the assessments to fit the view of social services
17 March 2012

A leading psychiatrist faces extraordinary claims he deliberately misdiagnosed parents with mental disorders – decisions which meant their children were taken away from them. Dr George Hibbert faces being disbarred over his conclusions that hundreds had ‘personality disorders’ after assessing them at his private family centre.
He was paid hundreds of thousands of pounds by social services for the reports which tore children from their parents. He is now being investigated over shocking suggestions he distorted the assessments to fit the view of social services.

In one case, he is alleged to have wrongly diagnosed a ‘caring’ new mother – named only as Miss A – with bipolar disorder because her local authority wanted the baby adopted.

After being confronted with this allegation, Dr Hibbert offered to surrender his licence to practise as a doctor rather than face a General Medical Council inquiry. But his request has been rejected by the GMC which says there are still ‘unresolved concerns regarding his fitness to practise’. He will now face a full fitness to practise hearing.

John Hemming MP, who has raised concerns about Dr Hibbert in Parliament, described the claims as shocking. ‘Much of the decision making in care proceedings rests on reports from experts such as Dr Hibbert,’ he told Parliament. He added that supposedly independent experts such as Dr Hibbert, 59, were often little more than ‘the hired gun of the local authority’. The lack of transparency over such experts was leading to ‘thousands of miscarriages of justice in care proceedings’.

Earlier this week, a study for the Family Justice Council revealed how life-changing decisions about the care of children are routinely being made on the basis of flawed evidence. A fifth of ‘experts’ who advise the family courts are unqualified.
social interaction is an interruption.

shape or be shaped.

User avatar
Dick Van Dyke
Hall Monitor
Posts: 1614
Joined: Thu Feb 16, 2012 11:59 pm

Re: How reliable is "science"

Post by Dick Van Dyke » Thu Sep 19, 2013 9:17 pm

World's top climate scientists told to 'cover up' the fact that the Earth's temperature hasn't risen for the last 15 years
19 September 2013

Scientists working on the most authoritative study on climate change were urged to cover up the fact that the world’s temperature hasn’t risen for the last 15 years, it is claimed.

A leaked copy of a United Nations report, compiled by hundreds of scientists, shows politicians in Belgium, Germany, Hungary and the United States raised concerns about the final draft.

Published next week, it is expected to address the fact that 1998 was the hottest year on record and world temperatures have not yet exceeded it, which scientists have so far struggled to explain.

The report is the result of six years’ work by UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which is seen as the world authority on the extent of climate change and what is causing it – on which governments including Britain’s base their green policies.

Concerns: Scientists have been urged to cover up the fact that the Earth's temperature hasn't risen for the last 15 years amid fears it would provide ammunition for deniers of man-made climate change

But leaked documents seen by the Associated Press, yesterday revealed deep concerns among politicians about a lack of global warming over the past few years.

Germany called for the references to the slowdown in warming to be deleted, saying looking at a time span of just 10 or 15 years was ‘misleading’ and they should focus on decades or centuries.

The UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has changed its tune after issuing stern warnings about climate change for years

Hungary worried the report would provide ammunition for deniers of man-made climate change.

Belgium objected to using 1998 as a starting year for statistics, as it was exceptionally warm and makes the graph look flat - and suggested using 1999 or 2000 instead to give a more upward-pointing curve.

The United States delegation even weighed in, urging the authors of the report to explain away the lack of warming using the ‘leading hypothesis’ among scientists that the lower warming is down to more heat being absorbed by the ocean – which has got hotter.

The last IPCC ‘assessment report’ was published in 2007 and has been the subject of huge controversy after it had to correct the embarrassing claim that the Himalayas would melt by 2035.

It was then engulfed in the ‘Climategate’ scandal surrounding leaked emails allegedly showing scientists involved in it trying to manipulate their data to make it look more convincing – although several inquiries found no wrongdoing.

The latest report, which runs to 2,000 pages, will be shown to representatives from all 195 governments next week at a meeting in Stockholm, who can discuss alterations they want to make.

But since it was issued to governments in June, they have raised hundreds of objections about the 20-page summary for policymakers, which sums up the findings of the scientists.

What it says will inform renewable energy policies and how much consumers and businesses will pay for them.

The report is expected to say the rate of warming between 1998 and 2012 was about half of the average rate since 1951 – and put this down to natural variations such as the El Nino and La Nina ocean cycles and the cooling effects of volcanoes.

A leaked copy of the United Nations report, compiled by hundreds of scientists, shows politicians in Belgium, Germany, Hungary and the United States have raised concerns about the final draft. Above, the United Nations headquarters building in New York

A German climate scientist - Stefan Rahmstorf, who reviewed the chapter on sea levels - yesterday admitted it was possible the report’s authors were feeling under pressure to address the slowdown in warming due to the ‘public debate’ around the issue.

The draft report, which is not new research but a synthesis of all the work being done by scientists around the world, is likely to be highly disputed at the three-day meeting.

It will make the case that humans are causing global warming with carbon emissions even more strongly upgrading it from ‘very likely’ in 2007 to ‘extremely likely’ it is manmade.

But scientists are under pressure to explain why the warming has not exceeded 1998 levels although the decade 2000-2010 was the hottest on record.

Alden Meyer, of the Union of Concerned Scientists based in Washington, said yesterday: ‘I think to not address it would be a problem because then you basically have the denialists saying: ‘Look the IPCC is silent on this issue.’

Jonathan Lynn, a spokesman for the IPCC said yesterday: ‘This is the culmination of four years’ work by hundreds of scientists, where governments get a chance to ensure the summary for policymakers is clear and concise in a dialogue with the scientists who wrote it, and have the opportunity to raise any topics they think should be highlighted.’
coffee's for closers.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests