The real issue with science

[PaulSacramento]

The real issue with science, it seems, is becoming more and more self-evident:

http://www.collective-evolution.com/201 ... -is-false/

In the past few years more professionals have come forward to share a truth that, for many people, proves difficult to swallow. One such authority is Dr. Richard Horton, the current editor-in-chief of the Lancet – considered to be one of the most well respected peer-reviewed medical journals in the world.

Dr. Horton recently published a statement declaring that a lot of published research is in fact unreliable at best, if not completely false.

“The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness.” (source)

This is quite distrubing, given the fact that all of these studies (which are industry sponsored) are used to develop drugs/vaccines to supposedly help people, train medical staff, educate medical students and more.

It’s common for many to dismiss a lot of great work by experts and researchers at various institutions around the globe which isn’t “peer-reviewed” and doesn’t appear in a “credible” medical journal, but as we can see, “peer-reviewed” doesn’t really mean much anymore. “Credible” medical journals continue to lose their tenability in the eyes of experts and employees of the journals themselves, like Dr. Horton.

He also went on to call himself out in a sense, stating that journal editors aid and abet the worst behaviours, that the amount of bad research is alarming, that data is sculpted to fit a preferred theory. He goes on to observe that important confirmations are often rejected and little is done to correct bad practices. What’s worse, much of what goes on could even be considered borderline misconduct.

Dr. Marcia Angell, a physician and longtime Editor in Chief of the New England Medical Journal (NEMJ), which is considered to another one of the most prestigious peer-reviewed medical journals in the world, makes her view of the subject quite plain:

“It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of the New England Journal of Medicine” (source)

I apologize if you have seen it before in my articles, but it is quite the statement, and it comes from someone who also held a position similiar to Dr. Horton.

There is much more than anecdotal evidence to support these claims, however, including documents obtained by Lucija Tomljenovic, PhD, from the Neural Dynamics Research Group in the Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences at the University of British Columbia, which reveal that vaccine manufacturers, pharmaceutical companies, and health authorities have known about multiple dangers associated with vaccines but chose to withhold them from the public. This is scientific fraud, and their complicity suggests that this practice continues to this day. (source)

This is just one of many examples, and alludes to one point Dr. Horton is referring to, the ommision of data. For the sake of time, I encourage you to do your own research on this subject. I just wanted to provide some food for thought about something that is not often considered when it comes to medical research, and the resulting products and theories which are then sold to us based on that research.

It’s truly a remarkable time to be alive. Over the course of human history, our planet has experienced multiple paradigm shifting realizations, all of which were met with harsh resistence at the time of their revelation. One great example is when we realized the Earth was not flat. Today, we are seeing these kinds of revelatory shifts in thinking happen in multiple spheres, all at one time. It can seem overwhelming for those who are paying attention, especially given the fact that a lot of these ideas go against current belief systems. There will always be resistance to new information which does not fit into the current framework, regardless of how reasonable (or factual) that information might be.

[1over137]

[Audie]

The real issue with science, it seems, is becoming more and more self-evident:

http://www.collective-evolution.com/201 ... -is-false/

In the past few years more professionals have come forward to share a truth that, for many people, proves difficult to swallow. One such authority is Dr. Richard Horton, the current editor-in-chief of the Lancet – considered to be one of the most well respected peer-reviewed medical journals in the world.

Dr. Horton recently published a statement declaring that a lot of published research is in fact unreliable at best, if not completely false.

“The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness.” (source)

This is quite distrubing, given the fact that all of these studies (which are industry sponsored) are used to develop drugs/vaccines to supposedly help people, train medical staff, educate medical students and more.

It’s common for many to dismiss a lot of great work by experts and researchers at various institutions around the globe which isn’t “peer-reviewed” and doesn’t appear in a “credible” medical journal, but as we can see, “peer-reviewed” doesn’t really mean much anymore. “Credible” medical journals continue to lose their tenability in the eyes of experts and employees of the journals themselves, like Dr. Horton.

He also went on to call himself out in a sense, stating that journal editors aid and abet the worst behaviours, that the amount of bad research is alarming, that data is sculpted to fit a preferred theory. He goes on to observe that important confirmations are often rejected and little is done to correct bad practices. What’s worse, much of what goes on could even be considered borderline misconduct.

Dr. Marcia Angell, a physician and longtime Editor in Chief of the New England Medical Journal (NEMJ), which is considered to another one of the most prestigious peer-reviewed medical journals in the world, makes her view of the subject quite plain:

“It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of the New England Journal of Medicine” (source)

I apologize if you have seen it before in my articles, but it is quite the statement, and it comes from someone who also held a position similiar to Dr. Horton.

There is much more than anecdotal evidence to support these claims, however, including documents obtained by Lucija Tomljenovic, PhD, from the Neural Dynamics Research Group in the Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences at the University of British Columbia, which reveal that vaccine manufacturers, pharmaceutical companies, and health authorities have known about multiple dangers associated with vaccines but chose to withhold them from the public. This is scientific fraud, and their complicity suggests that this practice continues to this day. (source)

This is just one of many examples, and alludes to one point Dr. Horton is referring to, the ommision of data. For the sake of time, I encourage you to do your own research on this subject. I just wanted to provide some food for thought about something that is not often considered when it comes to medical research, and the resulting products and theories which are then sold to us based on that research.

It’s truly a remarkable time to be alive. Over the course of human history, our planet has experienced multiple paradigm shifting realizations, all of which were met with harsh resistence at the time of their revelation. One great example is when we realized the Earth was not flat. Today, we are seeing these kinds of revelatory shifts in thinking happen in multiple spheres, all at one time. It can seem overwhelming for those who are paying attention, especially given the fact that a lot of these ideas go against current belief systems. There will always be resistance to new information which does not fit into the current framework, regardless of how reasonable (or factual) that information might be.

The Real Issue? With science, or medical research?
Issues with the validity of research / peer review is hardly news.

Do you have a point to make?

[PaulSacramento]

The point is made clearly in the article.

[Audie]

The point is made clearly in the article.

What point did you have, it posting about something so well known and often talked about?

maybe that the "NDE studies" given such credence by some here might conceivably not offer the final Proof?

[PaulSacramento]

The point is made clearly in the article.

What point did you have, it posting about something so well known and often talked about?

maybe that the "NDE studies" given such credence by some here might conceivably not offer the final Proof?

The point is that while we /some may talk about it on passing, the reality is far worse when the leading editors of science journals come out and state it explicitly.
Look at the case with "climate change" and the black eyes they have been getting over the last few years ( though some people still don't even know that the "science" behind climate change is dubious at best).

[Audie]

The point is made clearly in the article.

What point did you have, it posting about something so well known and often talked about?

maybe that the "NDE studies" given such credence by some here might conceivably not offer the final Proof?

The point is that while we /some may talk about it on passing, the reality is far worse when the leading editors of science journals come out and state it explicitly.
Look at the case with "climate change" and the black eyes they have been getting over the last few years ( though some people still don't even know that the "science" behind climate change is dubious at best).

I suppose people who are not much on science dont know much about what goes on, same as I dont know or care what goes on in football.

Agenda driven "science' such as pro-tobacco, or pro-patent drugs is notoriously poor, as science.

If people doing geology for a mining company behaved so, they'd not be long employed.

But back to my q, do you find that one should be skeptical of people claiming evidence for these NDEs being something supernatural?

[PaulSacramento]

But back to my q, do you find that one should be skeptical of people claiming evidence for these NDEs being something supernatural?

First off, that is not the subject of THIS thread BUT to answer, if there is no natural proven explanation for NDE's, then if a person choose to go with a supernatural one because that is where the evidence points to, then that is their choice.

On topic:

https://ricochet.com/scandal-political-science/

Over the past few days a scandal has begun to plague political science. A UCLA graduate student, Michael LaCour, appears to have faked a data set that was the basis for an article that he published in the highly prestigious journal Science. I have examined a second paper by LaCour. As I’ll explain, I’m convinced that it also is the product of faked results.

The Science article purportedly showed that personalized, door-to-door canvassing is effective at changing political views. LaCour and his co-author, Don Green of Columbia University, enlisted members of an LGBT organization at UCLA to contact voters who had earlier indicated on a survey that they opposed gay marriage. The article shows, based on follow-up surveys, that the LGBT door-to-door canvassing had a significant effect in shifting voters toward pro-gay-marriage views.

Two graduate students at UC Berkeley, however, had significant difficulties in replicating the study. They called the private firm that LaCour had supposedly enlisted to conduct his survey. The firm, however, said that it did not conduct such a survey. LaCour had also reported to the grad students the name of an employee of the survey firm with whom he worked. The firm, however, said that it had no records of such an employee ever working at the firm...

You can go to the link and read more...

If anyone is wonder why I linked to an article about "political science":
It is very rare for political scientists to have our results mentioned alongside results from the “hard” sciences. But that’s exactly what happened when the journal Science published the Green-LaCour article.

[Byblos]

... same as I dont know or care what goes on in football.

BLASPHEMER REPENT OF YOUR SINS NOW!

[Audie]

... same as I dont know or care what goes on in football.

BLASPHEMER REPENT OF YOUR SINS NOW!

Speaking as one who once a sojourner at a foorball-dominated U, that is awful close to how it is.

I kept my opinions to myself!!!!

[1over137]

Paul, I remember following post you shared one year ago. Was interesting read as well
http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... 21#p155516 - pressures and pitfalls of the modern scientific process

[PaulSacramento]

I love science, I have a degree in mechanical engineering to go with my degree in Theological studies and am currently considering a degree in either physics or genetics.
It is because I love science that I don't like people playing games with it.

[jlay]

The point is made clearly in the article.

What point did you have, it posting about something so well known and often talked about?

maybe that the "NDE studies" given such credence by some here might conceivably not offer the final Proof?

Well known? How are you determining whether it's well known? As someone who has three research scientists in his immediate family, two of whom are published in peer reviewed journals, It certainly wasn't well known to me.

I can tell you about isolated incidents where my sister had to threaten law suits against a major university because they were attempting to manipulate data from her research because of MONEY. But, i certainly wouldn't put myself in the category that this is "well known." Oh, and nice job with the red herring at the end. What does NDE studies have to do with this subject. Answer: nothing.

[Audie]

I love science, I have a degree in mechanical engineering to go with my degree in Theological studies and am currently considering a degree in either physics or genetics.
It is because I love science that I don't like people playing games with it.

Of course not. Nobody with any integrity would
In general, my impression, having been one way and another around scientists all my life is that people will sit on good ideas rather than risk their reputation by publishing something too controversial, let alone if it is inadequate sourced or flawed.

They want peer review a final screening, in case something might slip thru that makes them look bad. A ;scientist sans reputation is done.

We get crooked lawyers (wont be me) doctors who kill patients, counselors who abuse, preachers who steal, and of course, scientists who are incompetent or falsify data.

That is not, tho the "the real issue with science", if there is a "real issue with".


Possibly the biggest problem in science has to do with objectivity. Dr Richard Feynman wrote an interesting piece on that, basically as I recall to the effect that
objectivity is a highest value in science, but that nobody can achieve that ideal.
It is, tho, essential that one do his utmost, keeping in mind that the easiest person to fool is ones self. If you want a certain result, however subconsciously, it
is a real danger to the quality of your work.

Setting out to prove something is the worst kind of science.

[jlay]

No true Scotsman.......