5 ms·

Anti-science types keep holding this up as some kind of 'gotcha' or as a waste, but in the end it shows that the scientific method and the scientific establishm

Anti-science types keep holding this up as some kind of 'gotcha' or as a waste, but in the end it shows that the scientific method and the scientific establishment work efficiently. Despite even intentional fabrication, the truth of it was found in a few years and the field marches on.

Cornbilly 1y ago
HN (and Silicon Valley) has a contingent of people that want to attack the credibility of the scientific community so that they can present their own (usually very flawed) conclusions as being legitimate.
- kelipso 1y ago
  I noticed it’s very prevalent here. Lots and lots of academia is dead, useless, fraudulent, etc comments.
- throwawaymaths 1y ago
  well that's a funny way to put it. i assure, there is a contingent of the scientific community that would like to attack the credibility of the scientific community to discredit the actually very flawed conclusions of the scientific community.
gertop 1y ago
> it was found in a few years and the field marches on I agree but 16 years is still significant. It represents 5% of the modern medicine era.
- searine 1y ago
  I guess it depends where you set the starting point. Was it a dead end exacerbated by fabricated data? Yes. Did the system correct itself (relatively) quickly. Yes. Working as intended.
throwawaymaths 1y ago
https://scholar.google.com/citations?view_op=view_citation&hl=en&user=kUA4BQcAAAAJ&citation_for_view=kUA4BQcAAAAJ:YsMSGLbcyi4C https://scholar.google.com/citations?view_op=view_citation&h... 45 citations in 10 years for a paper pointing out a major systematic flaw in almost all foundations of amyloid reserch. the system is not working.
- searine 1y ago
  It was published and cited. 45 in 10 years is a reasonably okay citation count. What's the problem? Science is slow and consensus based. Ideas are put forth, tested, and replicated. Eventually a consensus is formed. If enough new contrary evidence is collected a new consensus can form. The article you linked is not consensus changing, but it adds weight on the scale of change, and clearly it worked. Mission accomplished. Science does not turn on a dime. It took many decades for Lynn Margulis's endosymbiosis theory to catch on, but it did. The evidence was eventually undeniable, and the consensus changed. This AD story is just another slow consensus change. We still don't know exactly how AD works. We still know amyloid is involved somehow. We now know amyloid isn't everything. The system works. It's just slower than you like it to be.
  - throwawaymaths 1y ago
    45 in ten years is extremely low.
    - searine 1y ago
      That's just flat-out wrong. It is field dependent, but 40 is about average for biomedical basic research. Here is a citation for cardiovascular research average citation rates : (https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3104007/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3104007/) . Specifically this paper explores 'high-performing' papers with an average of 66 ± 5 citations at 10y. This is a serious topic. And making a post like you did, spreads anti-science propaganda and anti-intellectualism.
      - 1y ago

Cornbilly 1y ago

HN (and Silicon Valley) has a contingent of people that want to attack the credibility of the scientific community so that they can present their own (usually very flawed) conclusions as being legitimate.

kelipso 1y ago
I noticed it’s very prevalent here. Lots and lots of academia is dead, useless, fraudulent, etc comments.
throwawaymaths 1y ago
well that's a funny way to put it. i assure, there is a contingent of the scientific community that would like to attack the credibility of the scientific community to discredit the actually very flawed conclusions of the scientific community.

gertop 1y ago

> it was found in a few years and the field marches on I agree but 16 years is still significant. It represents 5% of the modern medicine era.

searine 1y ago
I guess it depends where you set the starting point. Was it a dead end exacerbated by fabricated data? Yes. Did the system correct itself (relatively) quickly. Yes. Working as intended.

throwawaymaths 1y ago

https://scholar.google.com/citations?view_op=view_citation&hl=en&user=kUA4BQcAAAAJ&citation_for_view=kUA4BQcAAAAJ:YsMSGLbcyi4C https://scholar.google.com/citations?view_op=view_citation&h... 45 citations in 10 years for a paper pointing out a major systematic flaw in almost all foundations of amyloid reserch. the system is not working.

searine 1y ago
It was published and cited. 45 in 10 years is a reasonably okay citation count. What's the problem? Science is slow and consensus based. Ideas are put forth, tested, and replicated. Eventually a consensus is formed. If enough new contrary evidence is collected a new consensus can form. The article you linked is not consensus changing, but it adds weight on the scale of change, and clearly it worked. Mission accomplished. Science does not turn on a dime. It took many decades for Lynn Margulis's endosymbiosis theory to catch on, but it did. The evidence was eventually undeniable, and the consensus changed. This AD story is just another slow consensus change. We still don't know exactly how AD works. We still know amyloid is involved somehow. We now know amyloid isn't everything. The system works. It's just slower than you like it to be.
- throwawaymaths 1y ago
  45 in ten years is extremely low.
  - searine 1y ago
    That's just flat-out wrong. It is field dependent, but 40 is about average for biomedical basic research. Here is a citation for cardiovascular research average citation rates : (https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3104007/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3104007/) . Specifically this paper explores 'high-performing' papers with an average of 66 ± 5 citations at 10y. This is a serious topic. And making a post like you did, spreads anti-science propaganda and anti-intellectualism.
    - 1y ago