3 ms·

This is a pretty terrible post. Science didn't kick people in the balls for 20 years, the media did. The media pushed bogus results of bogus studies on people,

by ebbv 12y ago

This is a pretty terrible post. Science didn't kick people in the balls for 20 years, the media did. The media pushed bogus results of bogus studies on people, and overstates the case that "X is because of Y" on real studies who do not make such strong claims themselves. The media is responsible for people's distrust of science, because not only do they push bogus claims, but they also push FUD as well. Particularly oil and coal industry anti-climate change FUD for the past 20 years. That is precisely why people doubt the scientific fact of global warming. And yes I would prefer to live in a world where people defer to experts. It's great that people have "pattern recognition" but trusting your own half-assed judgment on an issue where there are experts who have studied something for 30 years is not "pattern recognition", it's hubris.

pjkundert 12y ago
Actually, it would appear that scientists did, in fact, kick everyone in the balls for 20 years: http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/feature/2014/6/the-statistical-crisis-in-science/99999 http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/feature/2014/6/the-s... Perhaps it was accidental in most cases. However, in the field of medical studies, the withholding of studies with negative outcomes (and their data) could be rightly described as "highly unscrupulous" researcher behavior. And this has apparently been de rigeur in medical studies for some time, and continues today: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jan/05/scandal-drugs-trials-withheld-doctors-tamiflu http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jan/05/scandal... It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that published results are near worthless, if those publishing results are allowed to withhold studies. You just do studies until you get the results you want, and then publish that one. So, it is difficult to blame people for doubting things, when there is evidence of widespread "hacking" of results by so-called scientists.
- ebbv 12y ago
  There's a big difference between being able to find instances of people doing this kind of thing, and widespread hacking of results. I think it's a given that it goes on sometimes, especially in cases where there is financial motive for doing so. But as far as it being a widespread issue? I have never seen evidence of that.
  - Fomite 12y ago
    Beyond that, there's people actively working on ways to correct for publication bias in meta-analysis, to the point that it's a pretty fundamental aspect of any proper analysis.

by ebbv 12y ago

pjkundert 12y ago

Actually, it would appear that scientists did, in fact, kick everyone in the balls for 20 years: http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/feature/2014/6/the-statistical-crisis-in-science/99999 http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/feature/2014/6/the-s... Perhaps it was accidental in most cases. However, in the field of medical studies, the withholding of studies with negative outcomes (and their data) could be rightly described as "highly unscrupulous" researcher behavior. And this has apparently been de rigeur in medical studies for some time, and continues today: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jan/05/scandal-drugs-trials-withheld-doctors-tamiflu http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jan/05/scandal... It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that published results are near worthless, if those publishing results are allowed to withhold studies. You just do studies until you get the results you want, and then publish that one. So, it is difficult to blame people for doubting things, when there is evidence of widespread "hacking" of results by so-called scientists.

ebbv 12y ago
There's a big difference between being able to find instances of people doing this kind of thing, and widespread hacking of results. I think it's a given that it goes on sometimes, especially in cases where there is financial motive for doing so. But as far as it being a widespread issue? I have never seen evidence of that.
- Fomite 12y ago
  Beyond that, there's people actively working on ways to correct for publication bias in meta-analysis, to the point that it's a pretty fundamental aspect of any proper analysis.