The Cellar  

Go Back   The Cellar > Main > Technology

Technology Computing, programming, science, electronics, telecommunications, etc.

Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 02-19-2019, 04:04 PM   #16
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 19,596
Absolutely. False information can be extremely damaging in any context.

But I think it's actually unhelpful for the writers of the dog rape paper to act like the journal should have been suspicious purely based on the subject matter. Actual evidence often is counterintuitive. The paper cited documentation of over 1800 observed fucking/fighting incidents--data the journal didn't ask for, and they should have--but you are deluding yourself if you think a huge percentage of "hard science" studies aren't based on far less data relating to far more unexpected correlations.

The journal should be asking for proof of every study's data. The importance of this statement is weakened by the authors acting like the mere subject of dog rape is too hilarious for anyone to study.
My book
My spirit animal
Clodfobble is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-19-2019, 04:35 PM   #17
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Dystopia
Posts: 12,779
My layman's understanding of popular science is that everyone wants to get grants by producing *headline-grabbing study results, but nobody wants to shell out for additional studies to verify results.

*ETA: it's not actually the scientists' fault that pop sci writers write non sequitur headlines
There's a level of facility that everyone needs to accomplish, and from there
it's a matter of deciding for yourself how important ultra-facility is to your
expression. ... I found, like Joseph Campbell said, if you just follow whatever
gives you a little joy or excitement or awe, then you're on the right track.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Terry Bozzio
Flint is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-19-2019, 08:54 PM   #18
Read? I only know how to write.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 11,459
Originally Posted by Flint View Post
My layman's understanding of popular science is that everyone wants to get grants by producing *headline-grabbing study results, but nobody wants to shell out for additional studies to verify results.
All depends on the science. Psychology has always been a form of blood-letting since most conclusions were only on subjective observation. Only recently has that science finally had some tools to actually quantify conclusions.

In another famous incident, Schon did research in organic transistors in a location that anyone with science knowledge knows (because so many products that made America great in the 1980, 90s and 2000 were developed there in the 1940, 50s, 60s and 70s).

Schon was making claims beyond what anyone else was able to accomplish. At one point, his name was appearing in a paper every eight days. But with all science that is truly quantitative, his data quickly and eventually exposed him. He had been faking it all along. It is a famous story.

The reason why he was exposed also must be learned. Those damning details are so important - and not found in soundbyte conclusions.

Organic transistors were then and are still an essential technology. His junk science seriously undermined progress. In part, because so many tried (wasted time and money) trying to reproduce his results without success.

Fraud in science based in perspective (numbers) is quickly discovered. Other science (ie psychology) does not have (yet) those necessary tools. So fraud is so much easier.

And then is another problem. So many only believe a first thing they are told. Limbaugh, Hannity, Ingalls, etc live on those who are most easily manipulated and deceived (brainwashed). Since their emotions replace honest and logical thought.

Jenny McCarthy demonstrates another who is an enemy of mankind. Even when autism (from MMR) science was well proven as a fraud, people such as Jenny McCarthy continued to do so much harm to children, in particular, and mankind, in general. Because so many adults are still (think like) children (even with big tits and blond hair). And because so many others would believe her only because she has big tits and blond hair.

We saw same with Saddam's WMDs. Facts with numbers clearly stated it did not exist. Some were so brainwashed as to even believe that lie long after the President (George Jr) admitted they did not exist.

Other problem with fraud (and discussed in that youtube video) is how entrenched some can be once emotions justify a conclusion. Making those fraudulent (and very subjective) papers to be easily believed. Entrenchment into lies is so much easier when science is based in too must subjective (qualitative) reasoning and not in quantitative (numeric) reasoning.

Last edited by tw; 02-19-2019 at 09:01 PM.
tw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-19-2019, 09:06 PM   #19
Radical Centrist
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Cottage of Prussia
Posts: 30,827
The fake papers were actually about softer sciences than Psych. From the authors' essay on their study:

We spent that time writing academic papers and publishing them in respected peer-reviewed journals associated with fields of scholarship loosely known as "cultural studies" or "identity studies" (for example, gender studies) or "critical theory" because it is rooted in that postmodern brand of "theory" which arose in the late sixties.
So, to nail it down, they were addressing the respected journals that covered the fakest, softest sciences.
Undertoad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-20-2019, 02:41 AM   #20
The future is unwritten
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 68,925
If somebody tells me somebody has proven A + B = C in quantum physics, I'll accept it because:
1 - I have no idea what quantum physics entails.
2 - It doesn't affect me that I know of.

Then somebody tells me that it's not true, A + B actually = G, I'll accept it because of the same two reasons.

But somebody tells me all this yes/no round and round research is being funded with my tax money... now wait a god damn minute!
So I look to Limbaugh, Hannity, and FOX to keep me informed. Oh, and twitter too.
Tony Montana, Tony Soprano, Walter White, Frank Underwood, and Donald Trump.
xoxoxoBruce is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-20-2019, 10:46 AM   #21
Read? I only know how to write.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 11,459
It explains why Huawei has now replaced America as the new world leader in advanced telecommunications. EVen the Bell Labs where so much of this wsa once done is now owned by Nokia.

Research in the 80s, 90s, and 2000 that would have been creating products today was stifled back then by cost concerns. By the same thought processes that also killed seven Challenger astronauts.

We are watching this problem getting worse since so many Americans are only educated in cost controls instead of how to learn facts and how the world really works. Slowly things that once made America great are being driven overseas by extremists who know only from their feelings - who do not know how to think - who ironically also love Trump lies.

It never ceases to amaze that so many foolishly believe a blackout will damage electronics - now that emotions and observation replace knowledge.

We know the future for today's kids is quantum physics. But that is too hard - it cost too much (originally $8 billion). So even that technology must go overseas where people better understand what is necessary to know something.

Everyone was taught fundamental concepts such as a hypothesis and experimental evidence. With greater frequency and instead, knowledge is now proven only by observation, emotion (Jenny McCarthy), talk show hosts, and insults.

Inability to think logically is why Saddam had WMDs, why a defense budget is now two thirds of the American expenditures due tp wars that will never end, why the national debt has now exceed (for the first time) the debt in WWII, and why so many did not even learn from Vietnam.

So many do not even understand why global warming is happening. Put $30 of gasoline in a car. How much actually moves that car. Maybe $4. Rest is wasted as heat, noise, and pollution. Already many eyes have just glazed over due to numbers. Numbers are hard because 'Barbie' said so. So the emotional would rather ignore it.

Junk science reasoning explains all those symptoms.
tw is offline   Reply With Quote

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:34 AM.

Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.