Is Science Bullsh*t? John Oliver Explains The Corruption Behind Scientific Studies

THAT'S the real title, folks.

From: COLLECTIVE EVOLUTION
Alanna Ketler
15 June 2016
SCIENTIFIC STUDIES
.
www.collective-evolution.com...#-john-oliver-explains-the-corruption-behind-scientific-studies/
.
.

Every day we are flooded with the newest that science has to offer. From morning talk shows and late night news to our social media feeds, it seems like there is a study to prove just about anything. I don’t know how many times I’ve come across a study that proves one thing and then another that proves the exact opposite. In such a climate, how are we ever expected to find out the truth and differentiate the facts from the bull#?
.
But the problem doesn’t lie within the scientific method itself, but rather the way the scientific community operates.
.
. . .
.
Reasons For Misleading Studies
On factor at play here is money. Scientists are often paid to publish specific studies with specific outcomes, based on the vested interests that are funding the studies. Basically, if a company wants a certain result, they can pay a scientist to find that outcome by any means necessary — even if those means include sacrificing the very integrity of the study.
.
. . .
.
Conducting a study in this way, with an outcome already predetermined, is known as P-Hacking. It involves collecting a large amount of variables and then tinkering with the data until you are able to find something that counts as statistically significant, but could essentially be completely meaningless. Making this predetermined conclusion appear as if it came about from a real scientific method of evaluation can be achieved by various means, such as using small sample sizes, relying on studies only performed on mice or rats to conclude ‘proof’ of something in relation to humans, and blatant data manipulation — including, excluding, or rearranging it to support the presupposition of any scientist.
.
And scientists get away with this all the time. Most people hear about a study only by reading a headline or watching the news, not bothering to look into the details to find out for themselves whether a legitimate method was used or not. The average person wouldn’t be able to tell even if they did do this extra research.
.
. . .
.
How To Navigate Through The [BS]
.
. . .
.
Here are some things you can do to determine if a study has been properly conducted:
• Find out, if possible, who is funding the study
• Look at their method of testing
• Look at the sample size
• Were the subjects humans?
• What was the duration of the study?
• Does the outcome match up with the headline or title?
• Was the study a double-blind study?
• Has the study been replicated with the same results?
• Think critically
.
. . .
.

.
I find this a great article with lots of clarity and accuracy.
.
I hope the scientific minded among us can approach it with a scientific mind and scientific objectivity vs with RELIGIOUS FERVOR AND HOSTILITY.
.
This is a problem WITHIN SCIENCE.
.
It is NOT the problem of traditional religion.
.
It is a problem OF SCIENCE in that it is inherently rooted in the SCIENTIFIC ESTABLISHMENT.
.
Religion cannot mandate a fix for this problem.
.
Blaming religion will not fix this problem.
.
It is a SCIENTIFIC ESTABLISHMENT PROBLEM that requires that institution/set of institutions to fix it.
.
Trouble is, they are peopled by . . . uhhhh . . . people. Therefore, it is highly unlikely to ever be fixed in our lifetimes.
.

a reply to: BO XIAN

The piece is largely on incompetent science reporting in the media, yet you managed to spin it as "is science bull#?" And "corruption behind achieve"?

Sure, no agenda here. None at all /s

a reply to: GetHyped

I'm curious what percentage of the article you read.

It doesn't appear that you read more than 15 words of it.

The title was taken exactly from the article--AS REQUIRED ON ATS!

Sheesh.

a reply to: BO XIAN

Sell fantasies and keep religion out.. Seems to be the common factor..
I wonder who?

Just to OT
Even Captain America think they are full of h#s***, welcome to Hydra Bo

a reply to: BO XIAN

einsteins gr is a case in point

Soooo


Isn't that actually a problem with the scientific method itself?

If the method can be tinkered with to produce a desired outcome, then how is the scientific method even sound?

a reply to: BO XIAN

Popper and Kuhn explained it, set a goal and cloud it with partial goals..

originally posted by: Chickensalad
Isn't that actually a problem with the scientific method itself?

From the source, "the problem doesn’t lie within the scientific method itself".

The scientific method is meant to be replicated, but

What’s worse, these studies are almost never replicated to prove their efficacy. Scientists aren’t paid to replicate studies, so they have little incentive to do so. This means all sorts of claims can be made and they will be taken at face value. In reality, if the studies were conducted again by neutral scientists, a different outcome altogether might emerge. Think about it: Are you more likely to trust a study that was conducted once, or a study that was conducted multiple times, with different variables and across a broad sampling of the population?

The scientists who produce these misleading results are not neutral. Again from the source, "if the studies were conducted again by neutral scientists".

Oh man, looks like they'll have to abandon science and go back to religious texts from centuries past!



Take that Science!

a reply to: desert

How then can they even be called a scientific study if the 'scientists' aren't actually following the scientific method?

a reply to: Chickensalad

The OP is talking about "epidimiology". This particular branch of science is not scientific at all. It is the art of observation combined with statistical analysis.

Epidimiology was not supposed to be used to provide proof of causation. It was meant to provide whether or not there is a correlation between A and B.

If a correlation was found that had a strong enough association, scientists would then remove themselves to the laboratory and try to find causation.

This article isn't the only one.

www.collective-evolution.com...

“The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness.” (source)

I have been closely watching tobacco studies since about 2005. It is honestly shocking what the government, and their sock puppet charities/foundations etc get away with saying. They have mindset that it is ok to lie because its for a good cause. And lie they do....ad infinitum...without end.

When climate change people accuse people who don't believe in AGW of being like people who don't believe that smoking causes lung cancer, I am flattered. Not only am I smart enough to have seen through the bull# propaganda related to second hand smoke and even active smoking, I can apply the same reasoning skills to AGW!

Once you have seen the machinations of the "big lie'", it is impossible to unsee it!

Tired of Control Freaks

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

Thanks! I'll give that article a read too.

Great explanation.

a reply to: Lysergic

Perhaps you could consider offering a more on-topic post, next time.

We already know your religious perspective.

originally posted by: BO XIAN
.
This is a problem WITHIN SCIENCE.
.
It is NOT the problem of traditional religion.
.
It is a problem OF SCIENCE in that it is inherently rooted in the SCIENTIFIC ESTABLISHMENT.

You're first point is correct, but your third is not...

This is a problem WITHIN SCIENCE, but it is not a problem OF SCIENCE -- at least it is not a problem of the scientific when that method is properly administered as it should be.

It may be true that there are people who subvert the scientific method to meet their own agenda. However, the scientific method itself is still viable, purposeful, and effective when appropriately conducted.

There may be bad apples among the community of scientists following the scientific method, but those bad apples do not negate the entire scientific method, nor the entire scientific community. The baby should not be thrown out with the bathwater.

a reply to: BO XIAN

The video has absolutely nothing to do with the ludicrous anti-science agenda of the god-awful source you posted.

Is is too much to ask people to exercise some due diligence regarding fact checking before posting such nonsense?

a reply to: Chickensalad

Yes, certain "studies" are "bullsh*t". They are NOT done with credible methods.

Scientists are often paid to publish specific studies with specific outcomes, based on the vested interests that are funding the studies. Basically, if a company wants a certain result, they can pay a scientist to find that outcome by any means necessary — even if those means include sacrificing the very integrity of the study.

These types of bullsh*t studies are like chaff, meant to hide the agenda, distract us. How many people nowadays would think critically, question who/what is behind the "study"?

a reply to: BO XIAN

Science is completely useless now, I only concede to your religious based beliefs.

Religion 1, Science 0.

a reply to: BO XIAN

With all due respect, citing "Collecting Evolution" as a credible source of...well, anything...is dubious at best.

a reply to: Leonidas

The information provided in the article stands well on its own.

Anyone with a shred of fair-mindedness and reasonably extensive experience in the Scientific Community would know the absolute truth and validity of most all the assertions made in that article.

That is so much the case . . . that I consider folks dismissing such facts

to be

in wholesale RELIGIOUS OF SCIENTISM DENIAL.

originally posted by: Leonidas
a reply to: BO XIAN

With all due respect, citing "Collecting Evolution" as a credible source of...well, anything...is dubious at best.

Is sad that the standards for this forum have dropped so low that sites like listverse.com and collective-evolution.com get a free pass.

I know this is a conspiracy website where claims are often not exactly grounded in fact, but even by pop science forum standards, this forum used to be pretty decent. Now the front page is flooded with all sorts of pseudoscientific, anti-intellectual woo woo.