Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics > #534352 > unrolled thread

Science Isn’t Broken

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  Science Isn’t Broken Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-11-21 07:57 -0600
    Re: Science Isn’t Broken dvus <dven1@adelphia.net> - 2015-11-21 09:24 -0500
      Re: Science Isn't Broken Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2015-11-22 15:23 -0800
    Re: Science Isn’t Broken benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-11-21 14:13 -0500
    Re: Science Isn't Broken "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-11-21 11:50 -0800
      Re: Science Isn't Broken benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-11-21 16:34 -0500
      Re: Science Isn't Broken Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2015-11-21 14:46 -0800

#534352 — Science Isn’t Broken

Science Isn’t Broken
> http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/science-isnt-broken/

> If you follow the headlines, your confidence in science may have
> taken a hit lately.

> Peer review? More like self-review. An investigation in November
> uncovered a scam in which researchers were rubber-stamping their own
> work, circumventing peer review at five high-profile publishers.
>
> Scientific journals? Not exactly a badge of legitimacy, given that
> the International Journal of Advanced Computer Technology recently
> accepted for publication a paper titled “Get Me Off Your Fucking
> Mailing List,” whose text was nothing more than those seven words,
> repeated over and over for 10 pages. Two other journals allowed an
> engineer posing as Maggie Simpson and Edna Krabappel to publish a
> paper, “Fuzzy, Homogeneous Configurations.”
>
> Revolutionary findings? Possibly fabricated. In May, a couple of
> University of California, Berkeley, grad students discovered
> irregularities in Michael LaCour’s influential paper suggesting that
> an in-person conversation with a gay person could change how people
> felt about same-sex marriage. The journal Science retracted the paper
> shortly after, when LaCour’s co-author could find no record of the
> data.
>
> Taken together, headlines like these might suggest that science is a
> shady enterprise that spits out a bunch of dressed-up nonsense. But
> I’ve spent months investigating the problems hounding science, and
> I’ve learned that the headline-grabbing cases of misconduct and fraud
> are mere distractions. The state of our science is strong, but it’s
> plagued by a universal problem: Science is hard — really fucking
> hard.
>

-- 

sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and physics-related social issues.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#534366

On 11/21/2015 8:57 AM, Sam Wormley wrote:
> Science Isn’t Broken
>> http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/science-isnt-broken/
>
>> If you follow the headlines, your confidence in science may have
>> taken a hit lately.
>
>> Peer review? More like self-review. An investigation in November
>> uncovered a scam in which researchers were rubber-stamping their own
>> work, circumventing peer review at five high-profile publishers.
>>
>> Scientific journals? Not exactly a badge of legitimacy, given that
>> the International Journal of Advanced Computer Technology recently
>> accepted for publication a paper titled “Get Me Off Your Fucking
>> Mailing List,” whose text was nothing more than those seven words,
>> repeated over and over for 10 pages. Two other journals allowed an
>> engineer posing as Maggie Simpson and Edna Krabappel to publish a
>> paper, “Fuzzy, Homogeneous Configurations.”
>>
>> Revolutionary findings? Possibly fabricated. In May, a couple of
>> University of California, Berkeley, grad students discovered
>> irregularities in Michael LaCour’s influential paper suggesting that
>> an in-person conversation with a gay person could change how people
>> felt about same-sex marriage. The journal Science retracted the paper
>> shortly after, when LaCour’s co-author could find no record of the
>> data.
>>
>> Taken together, headlines like these might suggest that science is a
>> shady enterprise that spits out a bunch of dressed-up nonsense. But
>> I’ve spent months investigating the problems hounding science, and
>> I’ve learned that the headline-grabbing cases of misconduct and fraud
>> are mere distractions. The state of our science is strong, but it’s
>> plagued by a universal problem: Science is hard — really fucking
>> hard.

Someone should apply these principles to the findings of some climate 
scientists.

-- 
dvus

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#534633 — Re: Science Isn't Broken

On Saturday, November 21, 2015 at 6:24:44 AM UTC-8, dvus wrote:
> On 11/21/2015 8:57 AM, Sam Wormley wrote:
> > Science Isn't Broken
> >> http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/science-isnt-broken/
> >
> >> If you follow the headlines, your confidence in science may have
> >> taken a hit lately.
> >
> >> Peer review? More like self-review. An investigation in November
> >> uncovered a scam in which researchers were rubber-stamping their own
> >> work, circumventing peer review at five high-profile publishers.
> >>
> >> Scientific journals? Not exactly a badge of legitimacy, given that
> >> the International Journal of Advanced Computer Technology recently
> >> accepted for publication a paper titled "Get Me Off Your Fucking
> >> Mailing List," whose text was nothing more than those seven words,
> >> repeated over and over for 10 pages. Two other journals allowed an
> >> engineer posing as Maggie Simpson and Edna Krabappel to publish a
> >> paper, "Fuzzy, Homogeneous Configurations."
> >>
> >> Revolutionary findings? Possibly fabricated. In May, a couple of
> >> University of California, Berkeley, grad students discovered
> >> irregularities in Michael LaCour's influential paper suggesting that
> >> an in-person conversation with a gay person could change how people
> >> felt about same-sex marriage. The journal Science retracted the paper
> >> shortly after, when LaCour's co-author could find no record of the
> >> data.
> >>
> >> Taken together, headlines like these might suggest that science is a
> >> shady enterprise that spits out a bunch of dressed-up nonsense. But
> >> I've spent months investigating the problems hounding science, and
> >> I've learned that the headline-grabbing cases of misconduct and fraud
> >> are mere distractions. The state of our science is strong, but it's
> >> plagued by a universal problem: Science is hard -- really fucking
> >> hard.
> 
> Someone should apply these principles to the findings of some climate 
> scientists.
> 
> -- 
> dvus


Yeah, I wish someone would "peer review" Al Gore!

Double-A

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#534387

On 11/21/2015 08:57 AM, Sam Wormley wrote:
> Science Isn’t Broken
>> http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/science-isnt-broken/
>
>> If you follow the headlines, your confidence in science may have
>> taken a hit lately.
>
>> Peer review? More like self-review. An investigation in November
>> uncovered a scam in which researchers were rubber-stamping their own
>> work, circumventing peer review at five high-profile publishers.
>>
>> Scientific journals? Not exactly a badge of legitimacy, given that
>> the International Journal of Advanced Computer Technology recently
>> accepted for publication a paper titled “Get Me Off Your Fucking
>> Mailing List,” whose text was nothing more than those seven words,
>> repeated over and over for 10 pages. Two other journals allowed an
>> engineer posing as Maggie Simpson and Edna Krabappel to publish a
>> paper, “Fuzzy, Homogeneous Configurations.”
>>
>> Revolutionary findings? Possibly fabricated. In May, a couple of
>> University of California, Berkeley, grad students discovered
>> irregularities in Michael LaCour’s influential paper suggesting that
>> an in-person conversation with a gay person could change how people
>> felt about same-sex marriage. The journal Science retracted the paper
>> shortly after, when LaCour’s co-author could find no record of the
>> data.
>>
>> Taken together, headlines like these might suggest that science is a
>> shady enterprise that spits out a bunch of dressed-up nonsense. But
>> I’ve spent months investigating the problems hounding science, and
>> I’ve learned that the headline-grabbing cases of misconduct and fraud
>> are mere distractions. The state of our science is strong, but it’s
>> plagued by a universal problem: Science is hard — really fucking
>> hard.

"Science spitting out a bunch of dressed-up nonsense?" Say it ain't so 
Sammy!  Why don't you link your favorite cartoonists to prove that 
science is alive and well and doing great! Anyone who thinks that 
certain people are using the public's respect for science to promote a 
political agenda (like say a trillion dollar a year energy tax) are 
simply deniers. And they are all insane. We have no need to listen to 
the insane.

You tell-em Sam.

-- 

       ___           ___           ___            ___
      /\  \         /\  \         /\__\          /\  \
     /::\  \       /::\  \       /::|  |         \:\  \
    /:/\:\  \     /:/\:\  \     /:|:|  |     ___ /::\__\
   /::\~\:\__\   /::\~\:\  \   /:/|:|  |__  /\  /:/\/__/
  /:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/  /
  \:\~\:\/:/  / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/  /  \::/  /
   \:\ \::/  /   \:\ \:\__\       |:/:/  /    \/__/
    \:\/:/  /     \:\ \/__/       |::/  /
     \::/__/       \:\__\         /:/  /
      ~~            \/__/         \/__/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#534399 — Re: Science Isn't Broken

On Saturday, November 21, 2015 at 5:57:50 AM UTC-8, Sam Wormley wrote:
> Science Isn't Broken
> > http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/science-isnt-broken/
> 
> > If you follow the headlines, your confidence in science may have
> > taken a hit lately.
> 
> > Peer review? More like self-review. An investigation in November
> > uncovered a scam in which researchers were rubber-stamping their own
> > work, circumventing peer review at five high-profile publishers.
> >
> > Scientific journals? Not exactly a badge of legitimacy, given that
> > the International Journal of Advanced Computer Technology recently
> > accepted for publication a paper titled "Get Me Off Your Fucking
> > Mailing List," whose text was nothing more than those seven words,
> > repeated over and over for 10 pages. Two other journals allowed an
> > engineer posing as Maggie Simpson and Edna Krabappel to publish a
> > paper, "Fuzzy, Homogeneous Configurations."
> >
> > Revolutionary findings? Possibly fabricated. In May, a couple of
> > University of California, Berkeley, grad students discovered
> > irregularities in Michael LaCour's influential paper suggesting that
> > an in-person conversation with a gay person could change how people
> > felt about same-sex marriage. The journal Science retracted the paper
> > shortly after, when LaCour's co-author could find no record of the
> > data.
> >
> > Taken together, headlines like these might suggest that science is a
> > shady enterprise that spits out a bunch of dressed-up nonsense. But
> > I've spent months investigating the problems hounding science, and
> > I've learned that the headline-grabbing cases of misconduct and fraud
> > are mere distractions. The state of our science is strong, but it's
> > plagued by a universal problem: Science is hard -- really fucking
> > hard.
> >
> 
> -- 
> 
> sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
> to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
> community, and physics-related social issues.


This is definitely a "philosophical" approach 
to physics, a technically analytic philsophy 
for a mathematical logic for a mathematical 
physics with science as philosophically justified 
in the technically analytic.  So, this is definitely 
a scientific approach.



"Harvard theoretical physicist Lisa Randall 
suggests dark matter fills the "gap between 
our limited observations and the many barely 
perceived phenomena that permeate our reality," 
in her book "Dark Matter and the Dinosaurs." 
Dark matter exerts a detectable gravitational force 
on objects, but, despite our observations of this force, 
we don't precisely know what causes it."
-- http://www.idsnews.com/article/2015/11/column-the-empathy-of-physics

No, those are "black holes" not "dark matter".

Well, that's very Islamic to submit to "God's Will", 
but there is no hubris in saying "what it is".  So, 
one might say that it's not Islamic to say what God says.
And, no one thus need submit to another's moral telling, 
while, in life and of the immutable laws as we really live 
them, one can defend their scientific viewpoint against 
secular idiocratism.

Still, you should have good morals and ethics, because 
that's the humane thing to do, but, in terms of science, 
pure science, one need not let others bring their hubristic 
prayers into it.

Then for whatever you believe in God for yourself and as 
how you may identify that's how it is, but, all the major 
religions give outs for the non-secular pursuit of science.

Or, "anybody who dictates what God says 
isn't humble enough to say so."

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#534419 — Re: Science Isn't Broken

On 11/21/2015 02:50 PM, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> On Saturday, November 21, 2015 at 5:57:50 AM UTC-8, Sam Wormley wrote:
>> Science Isn't Broken
>>> http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/science-isnt-broken/
>>
>>> If you follow the headlines, your confidence in science may have
>>> taken a hit lately.
>>
>>> Peer review? More like self-review. An investigation in November
>>> uncovered a scam in which researchers were rubber-stamping their own
>>> work, circumventing peer review at five high-profile publishers.
>>>
>>> Scientific journals? Not exactly a badge of legitimacy, given that
>>> the International Journal of Advanced Computer Technology recently
>>> accepted for publication a paper titled "Get Me Off Your Fucking
>>> Mailing List," whose text was nothing more than those seven words,
>>> repeated over and over for 10 pages. Two other journals allowed an
>>> engineer posing as Maggie Simpson and Edna Krabappel to publish a
>>> paper, "Fuzzy, Homogeneous Configurations."
>>>
>>> Revolutionary findings? Possibly fabricated. In May, a couple of
>>> University of California, Berkeley, grad students discovered
>>> irregularities in Michael LaCour's influential paper suggesting that
>>> an in-person conversation with a gay person could change how people
>>> felt about same-sex marriage. The journal Science retracted the paper
>>> shortly after, when LaCour's co-author could find no record of the
>>> data.
>>>
>>> Taken together, headlines like these might suggest that science is a
>>> shady enterprise that spits out a bunch of dressed-up nonsense. But
>>> I've spent months investigating the problems hounding science, and
>>> I've learned that the headline-grabbing cases of misconduct and fraud
>>> are mere distractions. The state of our science is strong, but it's
>>> plagued by a universal problem: Science is hard -- really fucking
>>> hard.
>>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
>> to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
>> community, and physics-related social issues.
>
>
> This is definitely a "philosophical" approach
> to physics, a technically analytic philsophy
> for a mathematical logic for a mathematical
> physics with science as philosophically justified
> in the technically analytic.  So, this is definitely
> a scientific approach.
>
>
>
> "Harvard theoretical physicist Lisa Randall
> suggests dark matter fills the "gap between
> our limited observations and the many barely
> perceived phenomena that permeate our reality,"
> in her book "Dark Matter and the Dinosaurs."
> Dark matter exerts a detectable gravitational force
> on objects, but, despite our observations of this force,
> we don't precisely know what causes it."
> -- http://www.idsnews.com/article/2015/11/column-the-empathy-of-physics
>
> No, those are "black holes" not "dark matter".
>
> Well, that's very Islamic to submit to "God's Will",
> but there is no hubris in saying "what it is".  So,
> one might say that it's not Islamic to say what God says.
> And, no one thus need submit to another's moral telling,
> while, in life and of the immutable laws as we really live
> them, one can defend their scientific viewpoint against
> secular idiocratism.
>
> Still, you should have good morals and ethics, because
> that's the humane thing to do, but, in terms of science,
> pure science, one need not let others bring their hubristic
> prayers into it.
>
> Then for whatever you believe in God for yourself and as
> how you may identify that's how it is, but, all the major
> religions give outs for the non-secular pursuit of science.
>
> Or, "anybody who dictates what God says
> isn't humble enough to say so."
>
Since God comprised all things in the universe as well as all laws 
governing them, it is clear that "God's will" is the laws of physics and 
what have you that all things operate under. Man knows a little bit 
about "God's will" but obviously not everything.

-- 

       ___           ___           ___            ___
      /\  \         /\  \         /\__\          /\  \
     /::\  \       /::\  \       /::|  |         \:\  \
    /:/\:\  \     /:/\:\  \     /:|:|  |     ___ /::\__\
   /::\~\:\__\   /::\~\:\  \   /:/|:|  |__  /\  /:/\/__/
  /:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/  /
  \:\~\:\/:/  / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/  /  \::/  /
   \:\ \::/  /   \:\ \:\__\       |:/:/  /    \/__/
    \:\/:/  /     \:\ \/__/       |::/  /
     \::/__/       \:\__\         /:/  /
      ~~            \/__/         \/__/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#534436 — Re: Science Isn't Broken

On Saturday, November 21, 2015 at 2:50:12 PM UTC-5, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> On Saturday, November 21, 2015 at 5:57:50 AM UTC-8, Sam Wormley wrote:
> > Science Isn't Broken
> > > http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/science-isnt-broken/
> > 
> > > If you follow the headlines, your confidence in science may have
> > > taken a hit lately.
> > 
> > > Peer review? More like self-review. An investigation in November
> > > uncovered a scam in which researchers were rubber-stamping their own
> > > work, circumventing peer review at five high-profile publishers.
> > >
> > > Scientific journals? Not exactly a badge of legitimacy, given that
> > > the International Journal of Advanced Computer Technology recently
> > > accepted for publication a paper titled "Get Me Off Your Fucking
> > > Mailing List," whose text was nothing more than those seven words,
> > > repeated over and over for 10 pages. Two other journals allowed an
> > > engineer posing as Maggie Simpson and Edna Krabappel to publish a
> > > paper, "Fuzzy, Homogeneous Configurations."
> > >
> > > Revolutionary findings? Possibly fabricated. In May, a couple of
> > > University of California, Berkeley, grad students discovered
> > > irregularities in Michael LaCour's influential paper suggesting that
> > > an in-person conversation with a gay person could change how people
> > > felt about same-sex marriage. The journal Science retracted the paper
> > > shortly after, when LaCour's co-author could find no record of the
> > > data.
> > >
> > > Taken together, headlines like these might suggest that science is a
> > > shady enterprise that spits out a bunch of dressed-up nonsense. But
> > > I've spent months investigating the problems hounding science, and
> > > I've learned that the headline-grabbing cases of misconduct and fraud
> > > are mere distractions. The state of our science is strong, but it's
> > > plagued by a universal problem: Science is hard -- really fucking
> > > hard.

The state of our Union is strong too... political speak, PoliticalSpeak@#.

> > -- 
> > 
> > sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
> > to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
> > community, and physics-related social issues.
> 
> This is definitely a "philosophical" approach 
> to physics, a technically analytic philsophy 
> for a mathematical logic for a mathematical 
> physics with science as philosophically justified 
> in the technically analytic.  So, this is definitely 
> a scientific approach.

Really?! I will have to dwell upon it.

> "Harvard theoretical physicist Lisa Randall 
> suggests dark matter fills the "gap between 
> our limited observations and the many barely 
> perceived phenomena that permeate our reality," 
> in her book "Dark Matter and the Dinosaurs." 
> Dark matter exerts a detectable gravitational force 
> on objects, but, despite our observations of this force, 
> we don't precisely know what causes it."
> -- http://www.idsnews.com/article/2015/11/column-the-empathy-of-physics

We we WE really don't know anything, it's all a bunch of BS.
Ask Steve Martin, an actual philosophy major turned comedian.
Either that, or a comedian who could only get a degree in ...youKnow.

> No, those are "black holes" not "dark matter".

in the dark
informal the workers have been kept completely in the dark about the
course and progress of negotiations: unaware, ignorant, incognizant,
oblivious, uninformed, unenlightened, unacquainted, unconversant.

> Well, that's very Islamic to submit to "God's Will", 
> but there is no hubris in saying "what it is".  So, 
> one might say that it's not Islamic to say what God says.
> And, no one thus need submit to another's moral telling, 
> while, in life and of the immutable laws as we really live 
> them, one can defend their scientific viewpoint against 
> secular idiocratism.

Nowhere is idiocratism (5 results (0.36 seconds)), secular or
otherwise, a currently accepted word. Curiously peculiar.

> Still, you should have good morals and ethics, because 
> that's the humane thing to do, but, in terms of science, 
> pure science, one need not let others bring their hubristic 
> prayers into it.

Praise be to Allah, God, and G-d UnNamed Ones. WaheGuru...

> Then for whatever you believe in God for yourself and as 
> how you may identify that's how it is, but, all the major 
> religions give outs for the non-secular pursuit of science.

Secular, non-secular, circular, linear, ..., off on a tangent I?

> Or, "anybody who dictates what God says 
> isn't humble enough to say so."

Peace peace PEACE, despite this strong unionized state of Science(s).

-- Mahipal "IPMM... list of things they're thinking, just not saying."

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web