User Tag List

First 1234 Last

Results 11 to 20 of 63

  1. #11
    Senior Member ceecee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    12,627

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sung Jin-Woo View Post
    Because its been a talking point in politics quite a bit.
    Conservatives made it political, that doesn't mean it actually is.
    I like to rock n' roll all night and *part* of every day. I usually have errands... I can only rock from like 1-3.
    Likes SurrealisticSlumbers liked this post

  2. #12
    Feline Moderator The Cat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Posts
    19,604

    Default

    Us vs us will always lead to inevitable difficulties in reproducing. Just the way They like it.
    SEE YOU SPACE COWBOY...

  3. #13
    in dreamland Tellenbach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    MBTI
    ISTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5
    Posts
    5,501

    Default

    Earlier in the year, there was a study that said drinking lots of coffee was bad for you and then about a month later, there's another study that says drinking coffee is good for you. Maybe one study used 7/11 coffee and the other used Starbucks coffee?
    Black knives don't matter.

  4. #14
    Senior Member ceecee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    12,627

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vendrah View Post
    It depends in which science you are talking about. The article points one specific study in medicine related to cancer studies. You cant say that every other part of the science is in reproducibility cryisis because of one specific area of medicine. Of course that the title suggests that, but that just BBC working out (its a mild manipulation) to get more clicks. Actually, there is a quote inside that article: "It's about a culture that promotes impact over substance, flashy findings over the dull, confirmatory work that most of science is about."; BBC actually did exactly this in the article, they guided the reader to a fake conclusion that the whole science is in a reproducibility crisis by considering five studies in an specific science area (we know that there are thousands or milions studies, depending on the time frame you consider). And, of course, they did it in a reticent way (even mild manipulation is supposed to go unnoticed). This doesnt mean that there is not a reproducibility crisis, but it doesnt mean that there is one either.

    Physics and chemistry are more rigorous and precise than psychology (these are the two extremes I think). I dont think reproducibility in physics or chemistry is "in crisis", although a few of their experiments are incredibly expensive these days (and might require a billionarie budget to be done). Psychology experiments are expected to have more variation and some of them does not have a list of participants that is truly random. Some of them have a list of participants that are inside the same culture or country, one specific psychology experiment in one country can lead to conclusions that appears to be related to psychology but could be culture-related. And sometimes these two things can even mix.
    From what I gathered after reading, this is mostly a funding body problem, which makes sense. Look at what just happened at MIT for example. So this is less about reproducing and more about the cherry picking of data to get the most bang for the buck. This isn't talking about junk science or how we went from here...

    Bush Had a Lasting Impact on Climate and Air Policy - Scientific American

    to here

    Climate explained: Why are climate change skeptics often right-wing conservatives?

    It's more like..

    Quillette, Ben Shapiro, and the Myth of Conservative ‘Facts’

    and this

    The age of cherry-picking | PolitiFact

    Oh and that the heads of every US agency that oversees industry is headed by lobbyists for that the industry, including research but this isn't Trump or anything new. W really got that ball rolling.
    I like to rock n' roll all night and *part* of every day. I usually have errands... I can only rock from like 1-3.
    Likes SurrealisticSlumbers liked this post

  5. #15
    Vulnera Sanentur Coriolis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/sx
    Posts
    25,061

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tellenbach View Post
    Earlier in the year, there was a study that said drinking lots of coffee was bad for you and then about a month later, there's another study that says drinking coffee is good for you. Maybe one study used 7/11 coffee and the other used Starbucks coffee?
    I assume you are familiar with the expression: too much of a good thing. Real scientific publications will make sure to place quantitative bounds on "lots", plus add in mitigating or complicating factors.
    I've been called a criminal, a terrorist, and a threat to the known universe. But everything you were told is a lie. The truth is, they've taken our freedom, our home, and our future. The time has come for all humanity to take a stand...
    Likes SurrealisticSlumbers liked this post

  6. #16
    in dreamland Tellenbach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    MBTI
    ISTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5
    Posts
    5,501

    Default

    More than 4 cups of coffee linked to early death.

    A Mayo Clinic partnered study found that men who drank more than four 8 fl.oz. cups of coffee had a 21% increase in all-cause mortality.
    Another study showed that those who consume 6+ coffees per day have a greater risk of developing heart disease.
    Coffee not as bad for heart and circulatory system as previously thought

    The research from Queen Mary University of London has shown that drinking coffee, including in people who drink up to 25 cups a day, is not associated with having stiffer arteries.
    "There are several conflicting studies saying different things about coffee, and it can be difficult to filter what we should believe and what we shouldn't. This research will hopefully put some of the media reports in perspective, as it rules out one of the potential detrimental effects of coffee on our arteries."
    In general, I distrust research that warns against eating delicious food items. I also think any risk should be weighed against the pleasure/enjoyment that it gives. I'm sure we'll be hearing about the dangers of seared scallops or braised beef in the future from do-gooders.
    Black knives don't matter.

  7. #17
    Remember, Humanity. Vendrah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    MBTI
    ANFP
    Enneagram
    592
    Posts
    905

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ceecee View Post
    From what I gathered after reading, this is mostly a funding body problem, which makes sense. Look at what just happened at MIT for example. So this is less about reproducing and more about the cherry picking of data to get the most bang for the buck. This isn't talking about junk science or how we went from here...

    Bush Had a Lasting Impact on Climate and Air Policy - Scientific American

    to here

    Climate explained: Why are climate change skeptics often right-wing conservatives?

    It's more like..

    Quillette, Ben Shapiro, and the Myth of Conservative ‘Facts’

    and this

    The age of cherry-picking | PolitiFact

    Oh and that the heads of every US agency that oversees industry is headed by lobbyists for that the industry, including research but this isn't Trump or anything new. W really got that ball rolling.
    I had a read in these articles although I am not from the US.
    Manipulation like what you call "cherry picking" is very common and spread in my country several media (although I dont know face-to-face anyone who noticed them but myself; I already tried to give enlightment but it seems impossible, people will even cry for their favorite political messiah), like in WhatsApp, TV Shows, local you tubers and sites, etc... Here, this tatic is present and used on the left-wing and right-wing at the same time (the right-wing here is the worse since they have the best tricks). The cherry-picking, when you catch its principle, has several uses for manipulation purposes, like inducing racism (without the governemnt being able to argue against), changing the watchers perceptions (and what they perceive as realistic or usual or even as 'good' or 'bad') in several areas, like aesthetics (notion of what is pretty and what is ugly), politics, statistical manipulation (I only saw it to support a political point so far) and these are the ones I remember right now. Im not going to be more specific on the subject because I am already derailing from the topic. And about these people who despise evidence for their political ground... Trust me, it can get worse, in the place I live in, like half people or more only believe studys and data which supports their Messiah and ignore the others ones their Messiah doesnt like... Its depressing, I am trying to taught myself to not care so I wont get mad... And I am talking about two Messiahs actually, but whatever.

    Back to topic, your examples are more political cherry picking, from media, than actually scientifical papers doing cherry picking. However I know that there could (or maybe 'should' is more appropriate) be some studies with "lobbyists" interested on manipulating the results to support their interests (and this is a good point for the governemnt to keep a minimal founding in science) but I dont see it coming endemic... yet.
    Likes Maou liked this post

  8. #18
    Senior Member ceecee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    12,627

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vendrah View Post
    I had a read in these articles although I am not from the US.
    Manipulation like what you call "cherry picking" is very common and spread in my country several media (although I dont know face-to-face anyone who noticed them but myself; I already tried to give enlightment but it seems impossible, people will even cry for their favorite political messiah), like in WhatsApp, TV Shows, local you tubers and sites, etc... Here, this tatic is present and used on the left-wing and right-wing at the same time (the right-wing here is the worse since they have the best tricks). The cherry-picking, when you catch its principle, has several uses for manipulation purposes, like inducing racism (without the governemnt being able to argue against), changing the watchers perceptions (and what they perceive as realistic or usual or even as 'good' or 'bad') in several areas, like aesthetics (notion of what is pretty and what is ugly), politics, statistical manipulation (I only saw it to support a political point so far) and these are the ones I remember right now. Im not going to be more specific on the subject because I am already derailing from the topic. And about these people who despise evidence for their political ground... Trust me, it can get worse, in the place I am live in like half people only believe studys and data which supports their Messiah and ignore the others one their Messiah doesnt like... Its depressing, I am trying to taught myself to not care... And I am talking about two Messiahs actually, but whatever.

    Back to topic, your examples are more political cherry picking, from media, than actually scientifical papers doing cherry picking. However I know that there could (or maybe 'should' is more appropriate) be some studies with "lobbyists" interested on manipulating the results to support their interests (and this is a good point for the governemnt to keep a minimal founding in science) but I dont see it coming endemic... yet.
    What I mean is that the topics of research are often "cherry picked", to get the most funding and what it says in journals reflect the desires of that funding. And it's not as though the results can't be reproduced at all. From the OP article...

    The problem, it turned out, was not with Marcus Munafo's science, but with the way the scientific literature had been "tidied up" to present a much clearer, more robust outcome.

    "What we see in the published literature is a highly curated version of what's actually happened," he says.

    "The trouble is that gives you a rose-tinted view of the evidence because the results that get published tend to be the most interesting, the most exciting, novel, eye-catching, unexpected results.

    "What I think of as high-risk, high-return results."
    The reproducibility difficulties are not about fraud, according to Dame Ottoline Leyser, director of the Sainsbury Laboratory at the University of Cambridge.

    That would be relatively easy to stamp out. Instead, she says: "It's about a culture that promotes impact over substance, flashy findings over the dull, confirmatory work that most of science is about."
    The bolded is the point I am making. This is NOT about "doubting science" or some other bullshit. This is a problem due to lack of funding minus strings and researchers being able to research and reproduce no matter what the actual topic is.
    I like to rock n' roll all night and *part* of every day. I usually have errands... I can only rock from like 1-3.
    Likes Vendrah liked this post

  9. #19
    Remember, Humanity. Vendrah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    MBTI
    ANFP
    Enneagram
    592
    Posts
    905

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ceecee View Post
    What I mean is that the topics of research are often "cherry picked", to get the most funding and what it says in journals reflect the desires of that funding. And it's not as though the results can't be reproduced at all. From the OP article...





    The bolded is the point I am making. This is NOT about "doubting science" or some other bullshit. This is a problem due to lack of funding minus strings and researchers being able to research and reproduce no matter what the actual topic is.
    I got your point.
    Thats why at least some part of research funding should come from goverment, because public funding is more likely to have a neutrality than private ones.
    However, the OP article is more opinative than really "statitive" and the reason for that is in my first post (he concludes that based on 6 cancer studies). We cant really say thats happening, as I said, it could be and it can turn to be endemic (or not).

  10. #20
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    954 sx/sp
    Socionics
    TRSH None
    Posts
    15,950

    Default

    It seems like the right and left both like to claim they're the rational ones devoted to science, but both tend to cherry pick or ignore scientific findings when they don't align with their worldviews.

    Right wingers tend to ignore or downplay climate change, or will argue it's not really man-made, so why bother worrying about it? Left wingers tend to ignore the biology behind sex, and in some circles the dangers of obesity (i.e. the fat acceptance movement).

    Both sides are guilty of willfully ignoring and cherry picking.
    Give me clarity
    Likes Maou liked this post

Similar Threads

  1. Study proves gender bias exists in science
    By Randomnity in forum Academics and Careers
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 09-26-2012, 11:59 PM
  2. [NF] NFs interested in science
    By CuriousFeeling in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 84
    Last Post: 05-17-2012, 07:45 AM
  3. Killer type duos in science
    By BlueScreen in forum Science, Technology, and Future Tech
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 02-07-2010, 02:11 AM
  4. Replies: 7
    Last Post: 11-11-2009, 09:50 PM
  5. Famous Lies In Science
    By Heero in forum Science, Technology, and Future Tech
    Replies: 32
    Last Post: 10-08-2007, 06:37 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO