Liberal Forum

*Vegas » Today, 11:27 am » wrote: ↑

Today, 11:27 am

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

Leading Science Mag Endorses Harris, Damaging Only Itself

 Scientific American debuted in 1845. It is the oldest continually published magazine in the United States. Alas, its current editorial staff has spent most of the past decade obliterating whatever remained of the sterling reputation the publication had built up for more than a century. On Sept. 16, Scientific American did a very un-scientific thing. It formally endorsed Kamala Harris for president. The endorsement is only the second in the magazine’s 179-year history, the editors stressed, as if to emphasize the extraordinary seriousness of its action. Guess who was the first? No, it wasn’t William McKinley.

Enemy of Democracy, Enemy of Science

 “Vote for Kamala Harris to Support Science, Health and the Environment,” the editorial’s headline read. If the idea was to put a scholarly veneer on the Harris campaign, it failed miserably. The editors wallowed in the same inflammatory language Americans can easily find – or ignore – across the big-box media spectrum.
 With appropriate vagueness, Harris was praised for “relying on science, solid evidence and the willingness to learn from experience.” Her support for “reproductive rights” was hailed, stretching the definition of science beyond rationality. And, of course, Harris was touted for treating “the climate crisis as the emergency it is.”
 Trump, meanwhile, “endangers public health and safety and rejects evidence, preferring instead nonsensical conspiracy fantasies,” the magazine asserted. “He fills positions in federal science and other agencies with unqualified ideologues. He goads people into hate and division, and he inspires extremists at state and local levels to pass laws that disrupt education and make it harder to earn a living.”
 It’s rather astonishing that the “experts” trotted out to parrot this familiar narrative in the name of their particular profession still don’t understand the consequences of their actions. When science becomes indistinguishable from the shrillest voices on CNN or MSNBC, who is being hurt here?

Cont...