Liberal Forum

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. 

Last year, 10,000 sham papers had to be retracted by academic journals, but experts think this is just the tip of the iceberg. Tens of thousands of bogus research papers are being published in journals in an international scandal that is worsening every year, scientists have warned. Medical research is being compromised, drug development hindered and promising academic research jeopardised thanks to a global wave of sham science that is sweeping laboratories and universities.Last year the annual number of papers retracted by research journals topped 10,000 for the first time. Most analysts believe the figure is only the tip of an iceberg of scientific fraud.“The situation has become appalling,” said Professor Dorothy Bishop of Oxford University. “The level of publishing of fraudulent papers is creating serious problems for science. In many fields it is becoming difficult to build up a cumulative approach to a subject, because we lack a solid foundation of trustworthy findings. And it’s getting worse and worse.” The startling rise in the publication of sham science papers has its roots in China, where young doctors and scientists seeking promotion were required to have published scientific papers. Shadow organisations – known as “paper mills” – began to supply fabricated work for publication in journals there.The practice has since spread to India, Iran, Russia, former Soviet Union states and eastern Europe, with paper mills supplying ­fabricated studies to more and more journals as increasing numbers of young ­scientists try to boost their careers by claiming false research experience. In some cases, journal editors have been bribed to accept articles, while paper mills have managed to establish their own agents as guest editors who then allow reams of ­falsified work to be published.

https://www.theguardian.com/science/202 ... isis-point

*Vegas » 29 Sep 2024, 11:27 am » wrote: ↑

29 Sep 2024, 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

I gave up shaming assholes here for claiming "proof" when they cited peer reviewed papers and such.
That was actually a few years ago.
Peer reviews were dubious then and, as you say, have become basically useless now.

Morons can be impressed by some "Who will fact check the fact-checkers?" article written recently.
That's the trailer trash level of this issue.

Peer reviewing process went to **** under the radar long ago.
I have seen it close up myself just like you.
 

DeezerShoove » 29 Sep 2024, 11:36 am » wrote: ↑

29 Sep 2024, 11:36 am

I gave up shaming assholes here for claiming "proof" when they cited peer reviewed papers and such.
That was actually a few years ago.
Peer reviews were dubious then and, as you say, have become basically useless now.

Morons can be impressed by some "Who will fact check the fact-checkers?" article written recently.
That's the trailer trash level of this issue.

Peer reviewing process went to **** under the radar long ago.
I have seen it close up myself just like you.

There are a few reasons for why it has gone downhill. One big one is that researchers, in universities, are so pressured to publish a certain number of papers a year, that they just write so they can meet their quota. Quantity over quality. 

*Vegas » 29 Sep 2024, 11:39 am » wrote: ↑

29 Sep 2024, 11:39 am

There are a few reasons for why it has gone downhill. One big one is that researchers, in universities, are so pressured to publish a certain number of papers a year, that they just write so they can meet their quota. Quantity over quality.

I read papers for profs on occasion.
Some educated, intelligent people need dummies like me to read before submission because they write like ****.   

...and you're right about that "publish or perish" crap.

Another aspect that is even uglier is PC being very alive and well. One of my last experiences was finding a full professor was not granted tenure due to her political bent. She fought back enough to realize she was battling her own history. She's good at what she does, years of experience, no career mishaps, etc. Even being a woman should have helped her be a shoo-in.
Conservative leanings did her in. She said **** it and will retire soon.

Universities are complete ****.

DeezerShoove » 29 Sep 2024, 11:57 am » wrote: ↑

29 Sep 2024, 11:57 am

I read papers for profs on occasion.
Some educated, intelligent people need dummies like me to read before submission because they write like ****.   

...and you're right about that "publish or perish" crap.

Another aspect that is even uglier is PC being very alive and well. One of my last experiences was finding a full professor was not granted tenure due to her political bent. She fought back enough to realize she was battling her own history. She's good at what she does, years of experience, no career mishaps, etc. Even being a woman should have helped her be a shoo-in.
Conservative leanings did her in. She said **** it and will retire soon.

Universities are complete ****.

Most of my work is in the sciences and math. So it's a little better. However, the humanities side of universities is pretty much useless. They are about activism, not education. 

*Vegas » 29 Sep 2024, 11:27 am » wrote: ↑

29 Sep 2024, 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

The Guardian is grubbing for $ as usual!      
 

Beakman » 29 Sep 2024, 12:40 pm » wrote: ↑

29 Sep 2024, 12:40 pm

The Guardian is grubbing for $ as usual!    

yeah....all the lies don't add up to all the lies do they?  Any braindead idiot knows that...right?...and just because of all the hoaxes doesn't mean they are pulling another fast one now does it?   Any braindead idiot knows that....right?

*Vegas » 29 Sep 2024, 11:27 am » wrote: ↑

29 Sep 2024, 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

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. 
 

DeezerShoove » 29 Sep 2024, 11:36 am » wrote: ↑

29 Sep 2024, 11:36 am

I gave up shaming assholes here for claiming "proof" when they cited peer reviewed papers and such.
That was actually a few years ago.
Peer reviews were dubious then and, as you say, have become basically useless now.

Morons can be impressed by some "Who will fact check the fact-checkers?" article written recently.
That's the trailer trash level of this issue.

Peer reviewing process went to **** under the radar long ago.
I have seen it close up myself just like you.

In 2020 the Lancet - the gold standard of Peer Review - published an editorial insisting that anyone who even suggested covid leaked from a lab was an anti-science conspiracy theorist. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanc ... 9/fulltext

In 2022, the Lancet could no longer deny the conflict of interest in the position it took, as one of the writers had been working at the wuhan institute at the time of the lab leak. The Lancet apologized and published an editorial at metaphorical gunpoint stating that certainly the lab leak theory was an avenue that rightly merited scrutiny - the Lancet's previous intellectual thuggery notwithstanding. https://www.timeshighereducation.com/ne ... eak-letter

The Lancet remains the most credible and esteemed journal in the western world. It simply no longer has the same respect - from anyone. It no longer has the same cachet, the same shiny inviolability, the same "last and final word" stature. Quoting a paper published in the Lancet is no longer and nevermore akin to playing a trump card. The Lancet was the last line of defense for pure science - and while it still deals in real science, it is now known to traffic as well in pseudo-science and political claptrap and propaganda. The name it once had was as easy to throw away as it will be impossible to reestablish. 

 
 

DeezerShoove » 29 Sep 2024, 11:57 am » wrote: ↑

29 Sep 2024, 11:57 am

I read papers for profs on occasion.
Some educated, intelligent people need dummies like me to read before submission because they write like ****.   

...and you're right about that "publish or perish" crap.

Another aspect that is even uglier is PC being very alive and well. One of my last experiences was finding a full professor was not granted tenure due to her political bent. She fought back enough to realize she was battling her own history. She's good at what she does, years of experience, no career mishaps, etc. Even being a woman should have helped her be a shoo-in.
Conservative leanings did her in. She said **** it and will retire soon.

Universities are complete ****.

They are nothing more or less than Satanic priesthoods. 
 

Cannonpointer » 29 Sep 2024, 5:52 pm » wrote: ↑

29 Sep 2024, 5:52 pm

In 2020 the Lancet - the gold standard of Peer Review - published an editorial insisting that anyone who even suggested covid leaked from a lab was an anti-science conspiracy theorist. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanc ... 9/fulltext

In 2022, the Lancet could no longer deny the conflict of interest in the position it took, as one of the writers had been working at the wuhan institute at the time of the lab leak. The Lancet apologized and published an editorial at metaphorical gunpoint stating that certainly the lab leak theory was an avenue that rightly merited scrutiny - the Lancet's previous intellectual thuggery notwithstanding. https://www.timeshighereducation.com/ne ... eak-letter

The Lancet remains the most credible and esteemed journal in the western world. It simply no longer has the same respect - from anyone. It no longer has the same cachet, the same shiny inviolability, the same "last and final word" stature. Quoting the Lancet is no longer and nevermore akin to playing a trump card. The Lancet was the last line of defense for pure science - and while it still deals in real science, it is now known to traffic as well in pseudo-science and political claptrap and propaganda. The name it once had was as easy to throw away as it will be impossible to reestablish.

Here is a post that I wish every single person at Lancet, the CDC and every other American was required to read.   
 

*Vegas » 29 Sep 2024, 11:27 am » wrote: ↑

29 Sep 2024, 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...
 

Scientific Mandate to Resolve Political Issues

 Some progressives are starting to catch on. Dominant media organ The Atlantic piled on against Trump and politely scolded Scientific American for its gesture, correctly surmising that “[t]he magazine’s endorsement of a candidate undermines trust in expertise.”Scientific American, however, adamantly refuses to understand that regular Americans are not going to “trust the science” when its proponents clearly reveal themselves to be promoting a nakedly partisan political agenda.
 In October 2020, as the magazine was busy endorsing Joe Biden – yes, that was the first in its long history  – it published an opinion piece by four credentialed authors who steadfastly declared, “Yes, science is political.”
 The piece argued there is an urgent need for science professionals to steer the general public on political issues of the day. “As scientists, we’re trained to think of the broader impacts of our research; as citizens, we should make those thoughts concrete with our votes,” the writers stated. “We have been trained [to] think critically, analyze large amounts of data and come up with potential solutions to the problems we discover. We can use these same skills to analyze policy, and we must, because doing so promotes an informed citizenry.”

https://www.libertynation.com/leading-s ... ndorsement+
 
 

ROG62 » 29 Sep 2024, 10:47 pm » wrote: ↑

29 Sep 2024, 10:47 pm

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...

FIFY Rog
 

*Vegas » 29 Sep 2024, 11:27 am » wrote: ↑

29 Sep 2024, 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

The rise and fall of peer review

Why the greatest scientific experiment in history failed, and why that's a great thing 

https://www.experimental-history.com/p/ ... eer-review

It's an excellent critique ......
 

What happened to the 97% of all scientists are global warmers?....was it just another Pedophile Progressive hoax?....I heard that the poles haven't had ice since 2012....Are the polar bears all dead yet?....what happened to the 'Man Behind The Curtain?"...is he now the "Man In A Dress?"......


Are there any other Pedophile progressive "Drive By Accusations and Predictions" I should be terrified about?

This is the Bizarre Astroturf world that the Pedophile Progressives are creating

JohnEdgarSlowHorses » 30 Sep 2024, 6:03 am » wrote: ↑

30 Sep 2024, 6:03 am

FIFY Rog

what are you implying, Igor?
 
 

nefarious101 » 30 Sep 2024, 8:01 am » wrote: ↑

30 Sep 2024, 8:01 am

What happened to the 97% of all scientists are global warmers?....was it just another Pedophile Progressive hoax?....I heard that the poles haven't had ice since 2012....Are the polar bears all dead yet?....what happened to the 'Man Behind The Curtain?"...is he now the "Man In A Dress?"......

Are there any other Pedophile progressive "Drive By Accusations and Predictions" I should be terrified about?

This is the Bizarre Astroturf world that the Pedophile Progressives are creating

 

MurKKKA --------

Global ***

FULL MODE EMPIRE of GENDER-TARDS