Reminder that academia is fake and gay
(www.zerohedge.com)
Comments (21)
sorted by:
tldr: paper mills are being used to create fake academic articles, which are actually being published in scientific journals.
Making everyone in academia publish papers was a good idea a long time ago. That time has passed.
it's still a good idea in concept, but as implemented right now it's incredibly poor. as I've mentioned in other threads, the single biggest thing corrupting it is the current peer review system. the worth of a paper is not based on the ability to reproduce the findings, but rather its based on if a council of professors agree that the paper seems legit. this means the system inevitably falls to ideological capture.
There was a publisher that did an expose about this a few years back. There is no "council of professors" it's just the editor and 1-3 of his friends. In other words, it is the journalists peers, not even necessarily accredited scientists.
The entire system is a garbage lie.
dear God it's worse than I thought.
even if it was a counsel of actual professors, that system would still inevitably be compromised. it's a system almost designed for ideological capture.
Ask yourself this then.
What's wrong with the peer review system? Is it just that the wrong people are allowed to participate? I don't think that to be the case. While a lot of problems in our society are caused by insufficient gatekeeping this isn't one. It contributes yes but it's not the only problem.
The problem is the process at the conceptual level. Firstly that being skimmed over by other academics is valid testing, but secondly because this is something that used to be a fight and isn't. Why?
Because of guaranteed money. Used to be these academics had to actually air out their papers in the marketplace of ideas and win, or they'd be ignored. They used to have to compete for funding.
The problem is public education. The problem is taxation and the unlimited gravy train of suckling on the public teat. The problem is that we invented welfare for colleges by pretending that everyone really does have the right to an education.
I agree the problem is the process, but I do think peer review is the root of the issues. infinite public funding would be much less of a problem if reproducibility was the standard, because it's much harder to fake reproduction. reproducibility would create a much stronger foundation for evidence, which would bubble up no matter how the academic world is funded.
Reproducibility will never be the standard if there's no incentive to disprove the other people at the table.
Which there isn't if they don't have to fight for funding.
In general people are lazy. If they are allowed to stay comfortable they will stagnate. As much as liberals decry "work or die" it is a GOOD thing.
TrUsT tHe sCiEnCe….
Some of the links no longer work because the j’ws wiped out the original sources, and apparently wiped those studies off of the archive sites too. These were the studies I gathered during Covid that basically proved we can’t trust a lot of the science out there nowadays.
"A pooled weighted average of 1.97% (N = 7, 95%CI: 0.86–4.45) of scientists admitted to having fabricated, falsified or modified data or results at least once –a serious form of misconduct by any standard– and up to 33.7% admitted other questionable research practices. In surveys asking about the behaviour of colleagues, admission rates were 14.12% (N = 12, 95% CI: 9.91–19.72) for falsification, and up to 72% for other questionable research practices."
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0005738 —————————————————————————————
A 2016 poll of 1,500 scientists conducted by Nature reported that 70% of them had failed to reproduce at least one other scientist's experiment (including 87% of chemists, 77% of biologists, 69% of physicists and engineers, 67% of medical researchers, 64% of earth and environmental scientists, and 62% of all others), while 50% had failed to reproduce one of their own experiments, and less than 20% had ever been contacted by another researcher unable to reproduce their work. Only a minority had ever attempted to publish a replication, and while 24% had been able to publish a successful replication, only 13% had published a failed replication, and several respondents that had published failed replications noted that editors and reviewers demanded that they play down comparisons with the original studies.[4][10] In 2009, 2% of scientists admitted to falsifying studies at least once and 14% admitted to personally knowing someone who did. Such misconduct was, according to one study, reported more frequently by medical researchers than by others.[11] A 2021 study found that papers in leading journals with findings that can't be replicated tend to be cited more than reproducible science. Results that are published unreproducibly – or not in a replicable sufficiently transparent way – are more likely to be wrong and may slow progress. The authors also put forward possible explanations for this state of affairs."
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis
—————————————————————————————
a large amount of published research is either complete bullshit, or poorly documented at a minimum.
https://www.nature.com/news/1-500-scientists-lift-the-lid-on-reproducibility-1.19970
—————————————————————————————
Why Less Than 30% of Science Articles are Reproducible
If you can't reproduce someone else's work, then who knows if it's (poorly documented) truth, fraud, or just guesswork going on with their results. It's clear that there's a crisis of quality in the world of science and the conditions that created it don't seem to be changing.
https://web.archive.org/web/20201004130522/https://www.jove.com/blog/scientist-blog/studies-show-only-10-of-published-science-articles-are-reproducible-what-is-happening/
https://www.jove.com/blog/scientist-blog/studies-show-only-10-of-published-science-articles-are-reproducible-what-is-happening/
—————————————————————————————
"Types Of Political Interference
Recent attempts at political interference can be roughly grouped into 4 types: (1) suppressing, distorting, or otherwise misusing scientific information; (2) controlling federal scientists; (3) limiting public access to scientific information; and (4) changing the way scientific information is incorporated into the decision-making process."
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2040357/
Peer review is religious scripture. Real science has been dead since 1960
Remember studies that proved nicotine was a-ok for ya?
Actually, you've made me curious now. I've never looked specifically at the effects of nicotine on the human body. I know that it can be highly addictive, but that's it. Smoking is obviously bad, as it sends warm smoke in your throat and lungs, physically damaging them and leaving an accumulating coat of residue in your respiratory system. But what about only nicotine itself? If it's ingested by a different medium like chewing gum or injection? I'd be curious to know the effects.
Its a stimulant. Basically backwards weed.
As a botanical potency varies wildly, from "light beer" to "single shot."
Pipe and Cigar tobacco isn't meant to be inhaled, the nicotine is absorbed through the soft pallete.
As a sensation, it's similar to the "first rush" of alcohol or caffeine, but without the disorentation of alcohol and without the jitters of Caffeine. You feel it mostly in your head.
Cigarettes i can't speak for
Only thing i care about is that cigarettes and their users smell terribly but at least they're also poisonous.
The Alarmist movement has really exposed how far "scientists" will go to fake their data and grab $$$.
This is the result of feminist thinking like AoC. Paraphrasing - "It's better to be morally correct than factually correct"
If these papers get published in scientific journals, the low end cost being $100, I wonder if you could start messing with them and start publishing wrongthink. I would love to publish some papers on telegony, pair bonding, keto diet, etc.
wrong-think won't pass peer review
Right, that's why you sidestep it and go with this scam. As long as the papers are out there, and people can cite them, it'll be hilarious.
All Anglo countries are there rd world countries now, complete with third world level scams.