On Trump "censoring science"

I read this article, i swear, a couple of months ago. But it came up today under Curated Links on Damn Interesting (one of my daily stops, when I can do casual internet reading daily):

www.theguardian.com...

A quick summary: errors and fraudulent entries are driving a deep running an quite problematic issue in science. Some sciences are harder hit than others, with those relying on use of Statistics being at greater risk. Ignoring the rather well known and easy to spot "p value" issue (where your sample size is small, making statistically insignificant results seem significant due to effect magnification in the statistical realm. Its why you need larger sample sizes).

A AI is being developed to try to help reduce the statistical errors in science reporting:

ne morning last summer, a German psychologist named Mathias Kauff woke up to find that he had been reprimanded by a robot. In an email, a computer program named Statcheck informed him that a 2013 paper he had published on multiculturalism and prejudice appeared to contain a number of incorrect calculations – which the program had catalogued and then posted on the internet for anyone to see. The problems turned out to be minor – just a few rounding errors – but the experience left Kauff feeling rattled. “At first I was a bit frightened,” he said. “I felt a bit exposed.”

but the issue is widespread enough to be undermining much of what we call "science"

If Fanelli’s estimate is correct, it seems likely that thousands of scientists are getting away with misconduct each year. Fraud – including outright fabrication, plagiarism and self-plagiarism – accounts for the majority of retracted scientific articles. But, according to RetractionWatch, which catalogues papers that have been withdrawn from the scientific literature, only 684 were retracted in 2015, while more than 800,000 new papers were published. If even just a few of the suggested 2% of scientific fraudsters – which, relying on self-reporting, is itself probably a conservative estimate – are active in any given year, the vast majority are going totally undetected. “Reviewers and editors, other gatekeepers – they’re not looking for potential problems,” Hartgerink said.

So as this pertains to Trump, and as I was trying to explain (poorly) a couple of times before: consider that if Trump is waging a war against false reporting an manipulation of the public, then trying to cease scientific misinformation by creating an improved vetting process might seem prudent.

Like I said, the above article may be dated today....but i read it a couple of months back. If not the exact same, a nearly identical version. Probably from Curated Links. But my point is: this isn't a new issue. Statcheck isn't really a new tool, altough its younger than my children. But for some context on the issue:

When it comes to fraud – or in the more neutral terms he prefers, “scientific misconduct” – Hartgerink is aware that he is venturing into sensitive territory. “It is not something people enjoy talking about,” he told me, with a weary grin. Despite its professed commitment to self-correction, science is a discipline that relies mainly on a culture of mutual trust and good faith to stay clean. Talking about its faults can feel like a kind of heresy. In 1981, when a young Al Gore led a congressional inquiry into a spate of recent cases of scientific fraud in biomedicine, the historian Daniel Kevles observed that “for Gore and for many others, fraud in the biomedical sciences was akin to pederasty among priests”.

Im sure many of you will pardon me for having a hard time imagining Trump as a "white knight of truth". LOL, so im pretending instead that he's annoyed with being lied to, and is going to use his new power to try to figure it out. For whatever the reason behind his actions, i believe that several disciplines of science have misused and abused public trust just so they could get published in journals (that don't fact check or encourage fact checking by publishing papers that duplicate prior results, or that have negative results) and thus enrich themselves by leveraging unearned reputation.

Simple question: Is this about Global Warming ... now called Climate Change?

Or sumpin else?

Trump loves science. You have a #storm of thumbsucking baby to chomp on.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

There's proper channels for scientific research to get out.

Can't have everyone in a beanie hat releasing their version of reality to the public.

It don't work well like that.

Ask Pons and Fleischman.

originally posted by: Snarl
Simple question: Is this about Global Warming ... now called Climate Change?

Or sumpin else?

The new term will be Global Greening.

I disagree with your premise; I don't think he actually cares that much about being lied to given his apparent following of Alex Jones.
Donald Trump and the “Amazing” Alex Jones

Not to mention the frequency of his own fabrications...

Global Greening works.

Lol Yes it does.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Nice catch. It would be great to get all the misinformation out of every part of our society.

a reply to: Snarl

How about we just call it, Climates does Change.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

My Master's thesis was a grueling endeavor. Never mind the fact that I had to type it (on a typewriter, didn't own a computer at the time) but I had to illustrate, source, reference, validate, verify every aspect of my research.

It stood up to my PhD's scrutiny, the board who oversaw it and finally approve it, as well as being verified at a conference and a paper presentation at Perdue as well as a final publication in a respected journal.

It was as sure as the sun setting in the west and rising in the east. Irrefutable.

To this day, it still gets referenced, especially when dealing with Sykes-Moore Chambers. . . but I digress.


Science seems now to be as substantial as a blog post or (dare I say. . . ) as substantial as a post on an internet board. It doesn't appear to have the validity, it doesn't measure up to the scrutiny as it once did.

But then again, as a scientist, specializing in engineering, what would I know.



Still, this is just my opinion.

I see it this way, if our tax dollars goes for research on many of the scientific data, then I want to know that the data is no manipulated because the scientist are pursuing on the side their own agendas, and getting money by interest groups to pick and chose what to publish.

a reply to: Snarl

For Trump? I have no idea. For me? I don't really care about Gw, or any of its iterations. I say that it doesn't matter who is causing the climate to change, we suck at being good stewards of our planet. I'm uninterested in leveraging science to see how far we can push it before really hosing it all. I'd rather determine ways to be human without being a human cockroach.

We have a long way to go. And stupid squabbling can't get us there.

originally posted by: Greven
I disagree with your premise; I don't think he actually cares that much about being lied to given his apparent following of Alex Jones.
Donald Trump and the “Amazing” Alex Jones

Not to mention the frequency of his own fabrications...

Well, i guess you settled it then.

While i think Jones is a moron, there's something to be said about the fact that our MSM is about as credible.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Hey be nice to one of the most amazing insects in our planet, cockroach are fascinating and they have endure longer that we humans has been around.

Is no doubt our clima is changing, but it is because our fault or because earth is just doing what earth is going to with us or without us.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

I think you may have drawn some broad conclusions that are not warranted.

The problems turned out to be minor – just a few rounding errors – but the experience left Kauff feeling rattled

This isn't huge, sweeping fraud like data faked, etc. If you read the article, they've been called on "small errors" that did not change their conclusions. It would be difficult to imagine that an error in the 10ths or 100ths position (an error of .001 or .005 out of a larger number) will cause any deaths or change any conclusions. The paper in the first instance was sociopolitical. Rounding errors in political statistics (counting the sample as containing 52.007 conservatives instead of the more correct 52.006 Conservatives) is frankly trivial.

And nothing changes.

Will such a program be welcomed to check information in the future? Absolutely. If you're working on a marathon paper and you're tired, it's easy to miss rounding something up. I got dinged on a rounding for the first paper I prepared for the Texas Journal of Epidemiology (and my cowriters didn't catch it... this was back in 1981.) The reviewers caught that (along with some other things that they wanted explained/documented/changed. They aren't deities, but in general they catch most things.

I relied on computers to correctly round data when I did my research on disability. What happens when a program like that disagrees with the computer software that I used for the research? I did check the formulas and the program is widely used and considered reliable... but what about that checking program?

What happens when two computer programs disagree over rounding in the tenths position?

Who fact-checks the fact-checking computers?

The peer review process also catches things that a program can't catch - outmoded models, for instance (I've done a rewrite based on that type of criticism for a paper.) Peer review also catches bad references that a computer program can't catch. it couldn't tell the difference between my correctly using Budge to identify the source of an inscription (which would be accurate) or my using Budge for the translation (which would be wildly inaccurate.)

Of course, to a public that's been sold on the idea that scientists are some sort of evil, money-grubbing enemy, such articles are pure gold. Scientists make a good target (as do physicians.)

You may well live out the end of your life in a country where physicians are replaced by faith healers and naturopaths (in part because no one wants to be a physician and deal with the hostility and negativity and potential immigrants are banned) and where science becomes a subject that nobody wants to study (while sports becomes a subject that everyone wants to study); a place, perhaps, of farmers and ranchers but not an environment where science and technology flourishes.

Are you old enough to remember the Cultural Revolution in China? The attitudes here are similar to those in China after the Cultural Revolution. You, as a non-scientist, may not be aware of just how much ground China lost in a 10 year period, but I can tell you that almost half a century later they are still behind us in paleontology and other fields.

I'm not eager to live in that kind of society. I remember the US in the 1950's and 1960's, when science was seen as a positive thing and when we made many huge foundational discoveries that led to rapidly advancing technologies from 1970 and onward.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

My Master's thesis was a grueling endeavor. Never mind the fact that I had to type it (on a typewriter, didn't own a computer at the time) but I had to illustrate, source, reference, validate, verify every aspect of my research.

It stood up to my PhD's scrutiny, the board who oversaw it and finally approve it, as well as being verified at a conference and a paper presentation at Perdue as well as a final publication in a respected journal.

It was as sure as the sun setting in the west and rising in the east. Irrefutable.

To this day, it still gets referenced, especially when dealing with Sykes-Moore Chambers. . . but I digress.


Science seems now to be as substantial as a blog post or (dare I say. . . ) as substantial as a post on an internet board. It doesn't appear to have the validity, it doesn't measure up to the scrutiny as it once did.

But then again, as a scientist, specializing in engineering, what would I know.

Still, this is just my opinion.

Ditto, ditto, ditto, and ditto.

...and ditto, just to make a second line.

(and mucho respect on the Sykes-Moor chamber research!)

a reply to: Byrd

Someone who understands.

A fellow traveler I assume.



Thank you.

a reply to: Byrd

The program currently is only looking at minor statistical errors. It is ignoring the glaring p-value error that is rampant in private funded research

Archaeology and anthropology are very slow changing, and not as prone to the issue in my observation. Although, much of archaelogy seems to be as much art as science, as much of it relies on group consensus on subjective criteria.

Uncensored science, right here on ATS.
For all to see.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Temperature data, or climate data in general, are no different in that regard. Whenever i see statements like, " year x has been the hottest ever" or claims that "XYZ" has been caught faking the data, i'm reminded that some basic knowledge and context are still much-needed.

Judging from the lack of responses, i realize now that it was probably overkill, but minus some fillers and trivial facts most of the information presented here should be the basics required when discussing surface temperatures.

In summary, the post was meant to be an overview of the data-sets, how they are created, what they represent and what some of the potential issues are.

I'm convinced most people would be much less concerned about climate change, or climate science, if the research and data behind it would be better understood.

a reply to: Byrd

On a related topic, lets talk journal publication, peer review, and how that ties to grant money.

First, peer review. Its a fairly well known fact that what we call "peer review" is in fact just a nebulous group of people competing against you for grant money reading what you publish and choosing not to raise a stink about it. That is it. If no one publishes a refutation of your findings, and you don't have mass rejection based on merit alone, you are generally considered "peer reviewed". Even if a few "experts" (i.e., your competition for grant funding) still maintain you're a kook. (1)

And lets be honest: when it comes to peer review, people are only proofreading publications. No one replicates experiments, and when they do few journals will publish them. There have been a few instances in the past couple of years where there were either issues duplicating, or flat out opposite results, in published experiments.

Ill agree that the above issue is really prevalent in psychology, where up to half of published papers are feared to be flawed or outright wrong. (2). But the issue has even stretched into the realm of physics, with a well known lampoon of postmodern philosophy (3).

The scientific principle is an ideal that we strive for. Often, we call things science that are very unscientific (psychology). And being human we tend to stumble and fail to reach that ideal. I think the only way to address the human condition in this regard is to leverage technology to at least review the mathematics, and then find a way to make it worthwhile to publish tests of replication on prior publications so that science is incentivized to police itself.