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
Info
Dean of Beatdowns
Posts: 10159
Joined: Sat May 15, 2010 10:34 am
Contact:

Re: How reliable is "science"

Post by Info » Mon Mar 30, 2015 3:09 am

social interaction is an interruption.

shape or be shaped.

User avatar
Info
Dean of Beatdowns
Posts: 10159
Joined: Sat May 15, 2010 10:34 am
Contact:

Re: How reliable is "science"

Post by Info » Tue Mar 31, 2015 10:29 am

social interaction is an interruption.

shape or be shaped.

User avatar
Info
Dean of Beatdowns
Posts: 10159
Joined: Sat May 15, 2010 10:34 am
Contact:

Re: How reliable is "science"

Post by Info » Mon Apr 20, 2015 10:23 am

social interaction is an interruption.

shape or be shaped.

User avatar
Info
Dean of Beatdowns
Posts: 10159
Joined: Sat May 15, 2010 10:34 am
Contact:

Re: How reliable is "science"

Post by Info » Wed May 20, 2015 12:29 pm

The Extent and Consequences of P-Hacking in Science

P-hacking is a practice where researchers analyze their data multiple times or in multiple ways until they get the desired result, for example, a p-value < 0.05. This paper shows that p-hacking is rampant in science.
social interaction is an interruption.

shape or be shaped.

User avatar
Info
Dean of Beatdowns
Posts: 10159
Joined: Sat May 15, 2010 10:34 am
Contact:

Re: How reliable is "science"

Post by Info » Tue Jul 21, 2015 2:30 pm

Physicians testified for tobacco companies against plaintiffs with cancer, Stanford study finds
7-18-2015

Otolaryngologists have repeatedly testified, on behalf of the tobacco industry, that heavy smoking did not cause the cancer in cases of dying patients suing for damages, according to a study by a Stanford University School of Medicine researcher.

Robert Jackler, MD, professor and chair of otolaryngology-head and neck surgery, said he was was shocked by the degree to which these physicians were willing to testify against a dying plaintiff, to deny them fair trials. These physicians cited in the study as a "pool of experts willing to say over and over again that smoking didn't cause cancer."

The study was published online July 17 in Laryngoscope.

Jackler, who holds the Edward C. and Amy H. Sewall Professorship in Otorhinolaryngology, conducted a year and a half of research, which included reading through thousands of pages of publicly available, expert-witness depositions and trial testimony. He then reviewed the scientific literature to see if testimony by expert witnesses for the tobacco industry was supported by evidence. Jackler said that a physician serving as expert has an ethical obligation to interpret the scientific data in a fair and balanced manner. The literature, he found, repeatedly repudiated the testimony.

The study reports that six board-certified otolaryngologists were paid by one or more of the tobacco companies R.J. Reynolds, Phillip Morris and Lorillard to serve as expert witnesses. These physicians gave testimony that indicated a multiplicity of environmental factors, ranging from exposure to cleaning solvents to the consumption of salted fish to the use of mouthwash, were more likely to have caused the plaintiff's head and neck cancers than years of heavy smoking. The cases occurred between 2009 and 2014. One physician said he was paid $100,000 to testify in a single case. Another admitted that her opinion was written by tobacco company lawyers and then approved by her. Still another rejected reports from the Surgeon General as authoritative sources. Together, the six otolaryngologists in this study helped to defend the tobacco industry in more than 50 cases.

"Evidence shows that this testimony, which was remarkably similar across cases, was part of a defense strategy shaped by tobacco's law firms," the study said. "By highlighting an exhaustive list of potential risk factors, such as alcohol, diesel fumes, machinery fluid, salted fish, reflux of stomach acid, mouthwash and even urban living, they created doubt in the minds of the jurors as to the role of smoking in the plaintiff's cancer."

"The addictiveness of nicotine, the dangers of tobacco and the track record of industry deception and misconduct are considered factual in subsequent trials," the study said. "This has resulted in thousands of individual Engle progeny cases. Because the cases primarily focused on whether tobacco caused the plaintiff's diseases, expert testimony was crucial."
social interaction is an interruption.

shape or be shaped.

User avatar
Info
Dean of Beatdowns
Posts: 10159
Joined: Sat May 15, 2010 10:34 am
Contact:

Re: How reliable is "science"

Post by Info » Mon Aug 10, 2015 9:56 am

social interaction is an interruption.

shape or be shaped.

User avatar
Info
Dean of Beatdowns
Posts: 10159
Joined: Sat May 15, 2010 10:34 am
Contact:

Re: How reliable is "science"

Post by Info » Sat Aug 15, 2015 9:40 am

Just six corporations control the flow of scientific information, a new study in Canada reveals. Since the 1970’s scientific journals have been controlled by the same few companies.

Researchers looked at scientific literature published between 1973 – 2013 and found that companies ACS, Reed Elsevier, Sage, Taylor & Francis, Springer, Wiley-Blackwell controlled nearly every single one.

Naturalnews.com reports:

Many smaller publishers have been absorbed into larger ones, for instance, and academic research groups have become increasingly beholden to the interests of these major publishers, which tend to favor large industries like pharmaceuticals and vaccines.

Much of the independence that was once cherished within the scientific community, in other words, has gone by the wayside as these major publishers have taken control and now dictate what types of content get published. The result is a publishing oligopoly in which scientists are muzzled by and overarching trend toward politically correct, and industry-favoring, “science.”
social interaction is an interruption.

shape or be shaped.

User avatar
Info
Dean of Beatdowns
Posts: 10159
Joined: Sat May 15, 2010 10:34 am
Contact:

Re: How reliable is "science"

Post by Info » Tue Aug 18, 2015 2:52 pm

social interaction is an interruption.

shape or be shaped.

User avatar
Info
Dean of Beatdowns
Posts: 10159
Joined: Sat May 15, 2010 10:34 am
Contact:

Re: How reliable is "science"

Post by Info » Tue Aug 18, 2015 2:53 pm

social interaction is an interruption.

shape or be shaped.

User avatar
Info
Dean of Beatdowns
Posts: 10159
Joined: Sat May 15, 2010 10:34 am
Contact:

Re: How reliable is "science"

Post by Info » Thu Aug 27, 2015 7:36 pm

Scientists discover that psychology is bullshit by replicating 100 recent psychology experiments. Most of them failed.

bonus:
John Ioannidis has dedicated his life to quantifying how science is broken
February 16, 2015

Medical research is in bad shape. Fraud, bias, sloppiness, and inefficiency are everywhere, and we now have studies that quantify the size of the problem.

We know that about $200 billion — or the equivalent of 85 percent of global spending on research — is routinely wasted on poorly designed and redundant studies. We know that as much as 30 percent of the most influential original medical research papers later turn out to be wrong or exaggerated. We also know that a lot of medical evidence is contradictory and unreliable, such as those studies that purport to show that just about every food we eat either causes or prevents cancer.

What all this means, says Stanford University professor Dr. John Ioannidis, is that most published research findings are false.
social interaction is an interruption.

shape or be shaped.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest