*Vegas » Today, 11:27 am » wrote: ↑
This is bad. This is why it's difficult to take claims seriously about the science progressives cite about climate change, Covid, the vaccines, or any other hoax they come up with. It didn't used to be easy to fabricate data. At one time, the peer reviews were so strict and rigorous that it would be rare the papers would make it through the first time of a review. There was always some mistake in the sample size, the math, or the methods used. They sent the work back to the researchers to redo whatever they failed on. This was normal. Now these papers just slide right through.
In my line of work, I am responsible to write up literature reviews for researchers. However, this is making it very hard to do our job. We rely on their work to write up their findings. If their work is fraudulent or careless, then our work is useless.
https://www.theguardian.com/science/202 ... isis-point
There has only been one small change. In the past, papers were reviewed for methodology and accuracy.
Now they are reviewed for correctness of outcome.
"Because I SAY I am" is fallacy, not science
You cannot betray me - only yourself, to me.
Who cuts off your dick is not your friend
An opinion you won't defend is not yours. It's someone else's.
Humanity's Law of the Jungle: Survival NOT of the fittest, but of the tribe.
When peeing in the pool, stand on the edge.
Only religions declare heresy; only lies require protection.
If gender is not sex, why should a gender claim change what sex you shower with?