%>
Banjo Hangout Logo
Banjo Hangout Logo

Premier Sponsors

236
Banjo Lovers Online


Page: 1  2   Last Page (2) 

Oct 2, 2022 - 1:06:41 AM
like this
1308 posts since 1/31/2011

I found the topic on peer review that got locked down for politics interesting. I do architectural peer reviews and have them done on our team. They aren't just scientific.

Running through some of those links a searchable scientific retraction database by Retraction Watch was given. I entered "cancer" in the subject field and the results appear pretty lopsided. Very heavy in one demographic from the bit I looked at. Cultural pressure to succeed, lack of oversight or both? 

Trying to keep this from being locked. 

http://retractiondatabase.org/RetractionSearch.aspx

Edited by - Disco Kid on 10/02/2022 01:08:13

Oct 2, 2022 - 1:28:23 AM

Bill Rogers (Moderator)

USA

26468 posts since 6/25/2005

Since you didn’t start with a political/religious link, it should be fine.

Oct 2, 2022 - 1:32:12 AM
likes this

2158 posts since 11/17/2018

Oct 2, 2022 - 5:19:30 AM

STUD

USA

36746 posts since 3/5/2008
Online Now

nan nan'ah boo boo....

Oct 2, 2022 - 5:39:41 AM

Buddur

USA

3370 posts since 10/23/2004

Probably a magnitude more authors than those who peer review and verify reliable data. And I can imagine it is more difficult to verify data which may take more time than it did to originally generate the data. And with the internet it's much easier to get papers out there even before peer review. There has always been people who blow smoke up other's arses and now it so much easier to do so, even professionally, unfortunately.

Oct 2, 2022 - 5:49:31 AM
likes this

banjoy

USA

10600 posts since 7/1/2006

We live in a capitalist society where money infects / is injected into everything. Money has its own rules.

So for me, when discussing or trying to understand any topic at all, that has to be the backdrop on which everything else is understood, or written to. For example, there is music, then there is the business of music.

Same goes for science which is not exempt. There is science, then there is the business of science. They're not the same thing but sometimes they correlate.

I'm sure these things can be scientifically measured ... then retracted smiley

My two cents. It's always about money, even cheap opinions like mine cheeky

Edited by - banjoy on 10/02/2022 05:50:59

Oct 2, 2022 - 6:02:49 AM
Players Union Member

rinemb

USA

14975 posts since 5/24/2005

I suppose there has never really been, absolute pure non-biased "peer review" in greater part? But, it has lost some esteem. At least in my brain.
One reason...The "hockey stick" phenomenon. Take a slight measurable trend, then sensationalize it, anyway you can, with any figures and calculations you might shamelessly put forward...and you can create fame, money, prestige, and tv time. My impression is that hockey stick is seen in many disciplines nowadays. Scientists, market analysts, economists, leaders of all sorts, etc. The "scarier" the better.
Brad

Oct 2, 2022 - 7:57:31 AM
like this

2549 posts since 2/4/2013
Online Now

Of course we are talking about less than four in 10,000 and about half of these are described as reasonable retraction. Although such facts won't get in the way of unreasonable conclusions.

Edited by - GrahamHawker on 10/02/2022 07:58:34

Oct 2, 2022 - 9:27:07 AM
likes this

4304 posts since 4/29/2012

The key sentence in the article referenced above is "Much of the rise appears to reflect improved oversight at a growing number of journals.". But if the artist formerly known as Figmo is being told by his controllers to propagate internet nonsense designed to erode popular trust in science to advantage climate change deniers, vax dissenters and other dangerous fruitloops I wish he's do it somewhere other than here. Self-policing of scientists seems to be much more effective than the self-policing of bankers, or industrial polluters favoured by the de-regulation crowd.

Oct 2, 2022 - 9:47:10 AM

Owen

Canada

11891 posts since 6/5/2011
Online Now

Tongue-in-cheek [maybe], I kinda like(d)  our P.M. calling guys like me that saw/see things differently from him, "... a small minority with unacceptable views."   I think I'm gonna have to cogitate a bit on "dangerous fruitloops" .... but it does have catchy ring (?) to it.  wink

Edited by - Owen on 10/02/2022 09:54:11

Oct 2, 2022 - 11:14:58 AM
likes this
Players Union Member

banjo bill-e

Tuvalu

12584 posts since 2/22/2007

Owen, about those who see things differently, the question has now become: "how long are we going tolerate these people?"

Oct 2, 2022 - 11:20:03 AM
likes this

doryman

USA

1257 posts since 11/26/2012

Banjo players pontificating about hockey sticks and peer review. There's two minutes of my life I won't ever get back.

Oct 2, 2022 - 12:50:01 PM

chuckv97

Canada

66978 posts since 10/5/2013

Methinks our P.M. was referring to the subversives behind the unmentionable trucker convoy dealing with the unmentionable issue at the time. Russellonians drilling TIM’s daily were under his radar.

Edited by - chuckv97 on 10/02/2022 12:50:30

Oct 2, 2022 - 12:54:37 PM

chuckv97

Canada

66978 posts since 10/5/2013

quote:
Originally posted by banjo bill-e

Owen, about those who see things differently, the question has now become: "how long are we going tolerate these people?"


A few weeks to let them make their point,,, then were booted out of our nation's capital to restore order.

Edited by - chuckv97 on 10/02/2022 12:55:00

Oct 2, 2022 - 12:55:55 PM

2158 posts since 11/17/2018

quote:
Originally posted by GrahamHawker

Of course we are talking about less than four in 10,000 and about half of these are described as reasonable retraction. Although such facts won't get in the way of unreasonable conclusions.


Exactly.

Oct 2, 2022 - 7:05:05 PM
like this

59678 posts since 12/14/2005

Fun thing about science vs anti-science.

The ANTI-science crowd (including my personal faves, the Flat Earthers) claim that all the science guys & gals are involved in an enormous conspiracy to keep people ignorant of the FACTS.

But in the real world of science, if somebody can prove another scientist WRONG, they get awarded.
And if you can prove a scientific THEORY wrong, you get a Nobel Prize.

Of course, in real science, "Theory" means "The BEST explanation we've got, to fit the FACTS that we've discovered."
Like GERM theory of disease, or the Theory of GRAVITY.

In less rigorous conversations, "theory" often means "only a guess".

Would you step off the edge of a cliff, because GRAVITY is "just a theory"?
Or eat something out of a medical waste container, because GERM THEORY is" just a theory"?

Oct 3, 2022 - 5:28:57 AM
Players Union Member

rinemb

USA

14975 posts since 5/24/2005

Mike asks: "Would you step off the edge of a cliff, because GRAVITY is "just a theory"?
Or eat something out of a medical waste container, because GERM THEORY is" just a theory"?"
Even I will agree with those theories! Brad

Oct 3, 2022 - 9:46:57 AM
like this

kww

USA

1861 posts since 6/21/2008

quote:
Originally posted by mike gregory

Fun thing about science vs anti-science.

The ANTI-science crowd (including my personal faves, the Flat Earthers) claim that all the science guys & gals are involved in an enormous conspiracy to keep people ignorant of the FACTS.

But in the real world of science, if somebody can prove another scientist WRONG, they get awarded.
And if you can prove a scientific THEORY wrong, you get a Nobel Prize.

Of course, in real science, "Theory" means "The BEST explanation we've got, to fit the FACTS that we've discovered."
Like GERM theory of disease, or the Theory of GRAVITY.

In less rigorous conversations, "theory" often means "only a guess".

Would you step off the edge of a cliff, because GRAVITY is "just a theory"?
Or eat something out of a medical waste container, because GERM THEORY is" just a theory"?


My favourite has always been that scientists are in some massive conspiracy to deny the existence of God. Can you imagine the rewards and prizes that would be heaped on any scientist that could provide evidence of the existence of gods?

Oct 3, 2022 - 10:12:55 AM

Tommy5

USA

4122 posts since 2/22/2009

Sometimes the consequences of denying science can have tragic results. There are at least 80 people in a Florida that ignored the scientific evidence that an cat 4 hurricane was headed there way and then ignored officials that begged them to leave.

Oct 3, 2022 - 12:11:30 PM
likes this

chuckv97

Canada

66978 posts since 10/5/2013

Chris Columbus didn’t believe the conventional scientific wisdom of the day and sailed west to go east….. (even though there was some evidence/information/hearsay floating around of Viking settlements in the past on the east coast of the future Canada)

Edited by - chuckv97 on 10/03/2022 12:12:01

Oct 3, 2022 - 2:16:13 PM
likes this

Tommy5

USA

4122 posts since 2/22/2009

quote:
Originally posted by chuckv97

Chris Columbus didn’t believe the conventional scientific wisdom of the day and sailed west to go east….. (even though there was some evidence/information/hearsay floating around of Viking settlements in the past on the east coast of the future Canada)


 More Columbus propaganda. Actually the scientific consensus of the time was correct and Columbus was wrong. All educated Europeans at the time thought the world was round. The Greeks had figured the circumference of the earth at about 24k miles ,very close to the real figure. When Columbus tried to sell his idea to the Spanish King the King gave the details to his navigators and they rejected Columbus because  Columbus   claimed the earth was about 1/3 smaller then it really is and figured China was thousands of miles closer to Europe then it really was. The  experts said Columbus would never make it to Asia because he would run out of food and water. Columbus finally got funding anyway, accidentally discovered the North and South America , yes the Vikings had a settlement in Eastern Canada , but ran afoul of the local population and were eliminated, their discoveries lead to nothing.  Columbus , another historic personality that goes from hero to zero depending on your POV.

Oct 3, 2022 - 4:33:50 PM
like this
Players Union Member

rinemb

USA

14975 posts since 5/24/2005

quote:
Originally posted by kww
quote:
Originally posted by mike gregory

Fun thing about science vs anti-science.

The ANTI-science crowd (including my personal faves, the Flat Earthers) claim that all the science guys & gals are involved in an enormous conspiracy to keep people ignorant of the FACTS.

But in the real world of science, if somebody can prove another scientist WRONG, they get awarded.
And if you can prove a scientific THEORY wrong, you get a Nobel Prize.

Of course, in real science, "Theory" means "The BEST explanation we've got, to fit the FACTS that we've discovered."
Like GERM theory of disease, or the Theory of GRAVITY.

In less rigorous conversations, "theory" often means "only a guess".

Would you step off the edge of a cliff, because GRAVITY is "just a theory"?
Or eat something out of a medical waste container, because GERM THEORY is" just a theory"?


My favourite has always been that scientists are in some massive conspiracy to deny the existence of God. Can you imagine the rewards and prizes that would be heaped on any scientist that could provide evidence of the existence of gods?


I think it's ok to have "faith" for what may exist.  In my faith house we have many scientists and doctors etc.  including geologists like me- who don't believe the earth is only 25,000 years old +/-.  As long as those with faith of G do not harm or pursecute others that believe in other things I am fine.  If I heard an unexplained voice tell me to jump off of a cliff, I doubt I would jump.  But, I do know someone who did, in a sense! Brad

Oct 3, 2022 - 7:04 PM
likes this
Players Union Member

banjo bill-e

Tuvalu

12584 posts since 2/22/2007

dorryman----" There's two minutes of my life I won't ever get back.--"

As opposed to all of those other minutes of your life which you DID get back? I never got a single second back, ever!

Oct 3, 2022 - 7:07:06 PM
likes this

chuckv97

Canada

66978 posts since 10/5/2013

There’s a clumsy pitch I made to a blonde beauty in 1972 that I’d like to have back…..

Oct 3, 2022 - 7:14:58 PM
likes this
Players Union Member

banjo bill-e

Tuvalu

12584 posts since 2/22/2007

One does not step off of cliff due to either instinct, intuition, or common sense, nothing to do with science or theories. All animals know better than to step off that cliff without any need for science, and humans were not walking off cliffs willy-nilly before "science" was a thing. So when "science" tells you that it due to a force called "gravity" that will pull you to your death if you step off that cliff, you do not resist that because it aligns with you already "knew" to be true.

But that is not the issue with those called "anti-science" today, because what they are resisting that "science" is telling them is true is something that goes *against* what they already believe to be true. And the layman, without specialized knowledge, is basically told to take this on "faith", and to do that which seems wrong to do and to accept that which goes against what they believe. The authorities have lost credibility, and "science" has only itself to blame, because so many, who should know better, have sacrificed long term, irreplaceable integrity with very short-sighted social, financial, and political considerations.

Oct 3, 2022 - 7:20 PM
likes this

chuckv97

Canada

66978 posts since 10/5/2013

Pure science’s credibility should be kept separate from a few unethical scientists. But unfortunately some of the public makes up their mind to throw the baby out with the dirty bath water.

Page: 1  2   Last Page (2) 

Hide these ads: join the Players Union!

Hangout Network Help

View All Topics  |  View Categories

0.3125