It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

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

page: 3
31
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 02:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Well to be fair money power is the issue. The agenda of making kids dumb and gullible suits any political party just fine.

These fabricated results are an issue if money power corruption. Especially companies that spend millions researching a drug they need sales to Ballance spending.

If you use the stats from the nejm and gov websites we are talking 1/3 of the expirements we retested couldn't find the results given in the peer reviewed paper. In a literary review it was even worse 1/2.

Basically half the drugs out there could be total B.S.


That ain't science that's capitalism directing science for propaganda.




posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 02:17 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Where did I say

ALL

science is flawed?

Your biases are screaming . . . again.



posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 02:17 PM
link   
The problem is not with the scientific method -- which, for the most part, IS what science is. The scientific method is what defines science.

The problem is with the way some people have misused that method. However, those people who cheat the scientific method don't define science.



posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 02:20 PM
link   
BEARS REPEATING and remembering . . . with emphasis:


originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Well to be fair money power is the issue. The agenda of making kids dumb and gullible suits any political party just fine.
.
These fabricated results are an issue if money power corruption. Especially companies that spend millions researching a drug they need sales to Ballance spending.
.
If you use the stats from the nejm and gov websites we are talking 1/3 of the expirements we retested couldn't find the results given in the peer reviewed paper. In a literary review it was even worse 1/2.

Basically half the drugs out there could be total B.S.
.
That ain't science that's capitalism directing science for propaganda
.


That's been my rough guesstimate . . . on the figures. I knew it was shockingly high.



posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 02:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: BO XIAN
a reply to: Greggers

I'll alert on such posts.

Folks even PRETENDING to value truth and honest dialogue should be able to remain ON TOPIC for the length of a thread.

That is, IF, they are not awash in their emotional religious vigor fresh from their heart-felt prayers to Darwin, or Dawkins or Carl Sagan or whomever they are praying to these days.

The topic is the mangling of the scientific method and its results with corrupt skullduggery & nonsense.


I'm glad you'll report it. That will be great. The difficulty is that creationists tend to think that the failure of scientists to recognize the C-14 dating of dinosaur bones is on topic.

I will say nothing further on the topic unless it's broached.




edit on 16-6-2016 by Greggers because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 02:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: BO XIAN
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Where did I say

ALL

science is flawed?

Your biases are screaming . . . again.


Your title says it loud and clear.



posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 02:23 PM
link   
a reply to: BO XIAN

I have read so much scientific research that my eyes are going buggy. I learned I need an even better monitor.

Half the scientific research is in direct opposition of the other research but if you examine the parameters and how the research was structured, you can see the reason it does not match sometimes.

Double blind just means the same results are obtained using identical parameters. It does not mean the evidence is relevant to anything or can be used in anything other than the exact reason it was collected.

People quote evidence that is not relevant to the application all the time, even in highly notable journal entries. But still around half of the interpretations are pretty close to right, some being cut with occams razor to make them fit consensus of the science. The other half the time the interpretations are misapplied based on the way the evidence was gathered .

I got used to it, it used to bug me that so much of it was being misapplied but now I just think of it as normal, you just have to look at the evidence yourself to make sure it is saying what it is said to say.



posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 02:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: Krazysh0t
That ain't science that's capitalism directing science for propaganda.

The climate change and evolution debates are more than enough evidence of this.



posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 02:25 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

TO YOU . . .with your RELIGION OF SCIENTISM SCREAMING BIASES AND FAITH! . . . and your seeming terror that your sacred cows are going to get gored. LOL.

Evidently we have very different dictionaries.

Nice dodge, however.

edit on 16/6/2016 by BO XIAN because: added



posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 02:26 PM
link   
a reply to: BO XIAN
I think one of the worst practices forced on the community is peer review. This is the boys club that is the scientific communities hammer that they hit non scientists with. ie. if it's a scientific paper it MUST be peer reviewed or the scientific community WILL NOT accept any findings.
You can even say "oh, but you must be a scientist to understand the terminology". No you don't.
I couldn't even guess at what processes and technologies have been lost because 1. they were not scientists that discovered them and 2 in consequence the scientific community would not even look at the evidence and sometimes actively go about trying to bury it.
As for skewed results the tobacco/lung cancer review is if not misleading but outright lying. Example.
100 years ago virtually all males, and some females, smoked tobacco. Yet till the late 1960s there was not a proliferation of lung cancer deaths (and that includes if you want to say consumption instead of cancer). Yet according to cause and affect there should have been.
It is the same with bad "life style" that's been blamed for enumerable deaths. There have been obese people for hundreds of years, also bad diets and such but it's only been in the last 50 years that the reason for deaths have been attributed to these causes.
Now what really changed in the late 1960s that would account for more cancers and other afflictions that have plagued humanity for the last 60 years? Is it the change of tobacco additives? No, that doesn't account for the proliferation of cancer deaths as there have been more non smokers dying. I think it's food additives, but only my oppinion.
Please accept my appologies if I've gone off topic slightly.



posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 02:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: rickymouse
a reply to: BO XIAN

I have read so much scientific research that my eyes are going buggy. I learned I need an even better monitor.

Half the scientific research is in direct opposition of the other research but if you examine the parameters and how the research was structured, you can see the reason it does not match sometimes.

Double blind just means the same results are obtained using identical parameters. It does not mean the evidence is relevant to anything or can be used in anything other than the exact reason it was collected.

People quote evidence that is not relevant to the application all the time, even in highly notable journal entries. But still around half of the interpretations are pretty close to right, some being cut with occams razor to make them fit consensus of the science. The other half the time the interpretations are misapplied based on the way the evidence was gathered .

I got used to it, it used to bug me that so much of it was being misapplied but now I just think of it as normal, you just have to look at the evidence yourself to make sure it is saying what it is said to say.





You've hit the nail on the head. There are a few things we can do to weed through the nonsense:

1) Don't get your science from the media. Read the studies directly. If you didn't read the study, you simply don't know what it says.

2) Be familiar with the general topic and other studies on the topic, and what they say, before drawing conclusions.

This careful, calculated approach eliminates much of the problem.



posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 02:27 PM
link   
Double Post.
edit on 16-6-2016 by Greggers because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 02:28 PM
link   
a reply to: rickymouse

Absolutely.

That was one thing that was taught early on in my PhD progarm--CHECK THE DESIGN OF THE EXPERIMENT/SURVEY, whatever.

Check the interpretation. Check the math. Check the sponsors and their affiliations. Sometimes even check the reviewers.

Thanks for your exceedingly wise and well informed words. They are a stark contrast to the naysayers' RELIGIOUS wailing hereon.



posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 02:31 PM
link   
a reply to: crayzeed

I think you make worthy points.

Peer review is a problem in some respects. I don't know what better system could replace it.

I suppose with the net . . . throw it on the net and watch the pro and con folks go at it?

LOL.



posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 02:32 PM
link   
a reply to: BO XIAN

My wife is a research professor.

It goes even deeper. It's harder and harder to find critical thinkers needed for labwork and research.

Having the internet able to answer all your questions is good in terms of the result but apparently studies are showing is altering the ability for humans to solve physical problems.

Meaning we are getting really good at following directions but very bad at here is object A and Object B study them and report their relationship and ability. Design an expirement to find results.

It's ironic that the equiptment needed to go deeper into subjects is making less people able to think deep enough to use it for its potential. Of coarse still plenty of smart people but as a whole universities are having issues finding good research grad students.

Man corrupted spirituality with most religions as well. I find most of the popular religious opinion to be false as well. When you try and recreate the expirement it doesn't hold up. Thats why the most religious parts of the country are also the poorest, violent, racist etc.

The devil's in the detail. So get you reading glasses out cause it's possibly a hose job.



posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 02:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: BO XIAN
a reply to: Krazysh0t

TO YOU . . .with your RELIGION OF SCIENTISM SCREAMING BIASES AND FAITH!

Perfect. Now you've confirmed my hypothesis. I knew you couldn't keep from attacking science with your little slurs. It's obvious that despite your deliberate coyness with this thread your ulterior intentions were to attack science as a whole and now you've just given yourself away. Good job.

PS: Caps lock lol. Way to show that you are losing a handle on your side of the conversation.
edit on 16-6-2016 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 02:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

Uhhhhhhhhhhh . . . perhaps it's a linguistic issue . . .

Saying (A) that something is "an inherent problem in the SCIENTIFIC ESTABLISHMENT"

is NOT EQUAL TO

(B) saying that the entire scientific method is negated wholesale. Sheesh.

Sigh.

I THOUGHT you folks were better at set theory etc. "A" above is NOT EQUAL to "B"

I didn't realize that the Religion of Scientism blinders were REALLLLLLY THAT clouding of simple truths.

I'm beginning to wonder if it's possible to have a genuine dialogue with some of these scientism religionists.



posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 02:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Those are nothing compaired to selling the public drugs everyday that don't work and creating studies to falsely your results.

All the climate change solutions being proposed are utter BS.

Greenhouse gases are a fraction of the environmental disaster we are are creating. They are just basically the gun control equivalent to try and solve a massive problem. Number one the folding of habitats and it's chain reaction in addition to weather change and warming. The political solutions are only that. In some cases like carbon trade actually be competition manipulation. Political corruption is controlling innovation so peoples artifact solutions to some problems are completely stifled.



posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 02:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

You're not any better mind reader than you are some other things.

You are WRONG . . . as in . . . W R O N G.

I'd be very happy IF science cleaned its own house and offered to the public strictly kosher, well designed, well interpreted, well reported solid science. I actually love science.

It is your fantasy about me that's full of that other stinking pile of falsehoods about me.



posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 02:42 PM
link   
a reply to: BO XIANAh, but they wont do that as it would lead to piracy of proposed patents.
You must know where there is new inovations (where a patented product or process could earn billions) secrecy is at the top of the agenda. That's why the public never hear of any scientific finding of any study till after the event.



new topics

top topics



 
31
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join