Hundreds of papers with bogus peer review to be retracted...

a reply to: TheRedneck

I never claimed the laws of pysyics have changed.

I said that using a news article from 25 years ago in a discussion about climate change was not really viable as a source.

If the member who posted it was able to show that the data and understanding was still valid I would agree that the article was valid but that was not done.

The human genome project ran in the 1990s I belive?

If I were to try and use articles from 1990 in a discussion on the subject and present them as fact to you what would your reaction be?

Would you take them as evidence or point me to more up to date and relevant information?

a reply to: nonspecific

If so then why do people still do research?

I'll reply to this because I do think you are just confused and actually want to understand. Remember that this is not a post from someone looking in at research... I am a researcher. This is what I do.

Let's take one project that i have been working on lately. This came about because of an anecdote form a friend relating his paranormal experiences. I considered what i had been told and what could have been responsible for it, and that led me to a working hypothesis. I am now (slowly due to health issues) constructing the equipment I need to run experiments to prove or disprove my hypothesis.

My purpose is not to prove or disprove anyone else's work. My purpose is to discover whether or not my hypothesis is correct. If I write a paper in an attempt to prove or disprove another's work, I am not practicing science; I am playing politics at that point and everything I do is tainted.

As an initial part of my research, I searched IEEE for any papers that might be relevant to my hypothesis. I found none in this case, but even if I had it would likely have not stopped the project. If I had found a paper that disputed what I hypothesized, I would have looked at the assumptions and tried to find a difference between them and my assumptions; I might have tried to duplicate their work to verify it for myself (peer review); I might have adjusted my hypothesis to take that paper into account. Either way, those earlier works serve as a foundation for what I am trying to research, not as a hindrance to be undone.

When I complete the equipment, I will run the experiment under controlled conditions. I will take the results and analyze them to determine if they support my hypothesis or not. I will then consider my next move: am I completely wrong with my hypothesis? Are my assumptions incorrect? Are my calculations incorrect? If the results support my hypothesis, I will look at what further information I can get to expand that hypothesis and hopefully quantify my results.

At no time am I interested in proving or disproving the work of another. If I need to peer review their work, it is only because my work may hinge on the results. If I disprove the earlier work and my results disprove me, then I have a lot of egg on my face for falsely challenging the work of an earlier researcher, and I will have a hard time explaining that to another journal, a potential employer, or a grant committee.

Are you starting to see how politics cannot ever be a part of science? Any attempt to involve politics into science destroys the entire scientific methodology used. It literally destroys science by allowing truth to be replaced by fiction.

TheRedneck

a reply to: nonspecific

I never claimed the laws of pysyics have changed.

I said that using a news article from 25 years ago in a discussion about climate change was not really viable as a source.

It's the exact same thing!

If the member who posted it was able to show that the data and understanding was still valid I would agree that the article was valid but that was not done.

No, it doesn't work like that. A scientific paper is accepted as accurate unless and until it is disproved. It is proof in itself until proven otherwise; proof does not have to be proven every time it is used.

If you dispute the information, it is on you to disprove it. It has stood as true for 25 years. That's an expectation of truth.

The human genome project ran in the 1990s I belive?

If I were to try and use articles from 1990 in a discussion on the subject and present them as fact to you what would your reaction be?

I would accept the original work as valid until disproved. If I found a paper from, say, 2001 that disputed the earlier work, then and only then would I consider discounting the earlier work. Still, it would not be an automatic dismissal; if two papers are in dispute, one must examine both to determine which one is incorrect. Date is irrelevant because the papers, if true, rely on the laws f physics which do not change with time.

Look, if we're discussing space travel at very sub-light velocities, Newton's Laws of Motion still apply just as much as they did 335 years ago. I am not going to say, "Oh, that's old information! I'm sure there are new papers to say different." No, the Laws of Motion are still just as relevant as they were when Newton was rubbing his head where the apple hit it. (Yes, I know that is a myth, but it makes a point.)

The onus of disproving a scientific work is on the one claiming it is incorrect, not the one who uses it as supporting evidence.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: nonspecific
a reply to: TheRedneck

I never claimed the laws of pysyics have changed.

I said that using a news article from 25 years ago in a discussion about climate change was not really viable as a source.

If the member who posted it was able to show that the data and understanding was still valid I would agree that the article was valid but that was not done.

The human genome project ran in the 1990s I belive?

If I were to try and use articles from 1990 in a discussion on the subject and present them as fact to you what would your reaction be?

Would you take them as evidence or point me to more up to date and relevant information?

What data are you talking about?
Since when much about the climate change ideology has changed? If anything the climate change ideology has become even more absurd and ludicrous.

25 years is a tiny period of time and what has changed isn't the data or science but this much more ridiculous ideology.

It's better to listen to Freeman Dyson in the video I linked. It's much more recent. Not that it changes much.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: nonspecific

I never claimed the laws of pysyics have changed.

I said that using a news article from 25 years ago in a discussion about climate change was not really viable as a source.

It's the exact same thing!

If the member who posted it was able to show that the data and understanding was still valid I would agree that the article was valid but that was not done.

No, it doesn't work like that. A scientific paper is accepted as accurate unless and until it is disproved. It is proof in itself until proven otherwise; proof does not have to be proven every time it is used.

If you dispute the information, it is on you to disprove it. It has stood as true for 25 years. That's an expectation of truth.

The human genome project ran in the 1990s I belive?

If I were to try and use articles from 1990 in a discussion on the subject and present them as fact to you what would your reaction be?

I would accept the original work as valid until disproved. If I found a paper from, say, 2001 that disputed the earlier work, then and only then would I consider discounting the earlier work. Still, it would not be an automatic dismissal; if two papers are in dispute, one must examine both to determine which one is incorrect. Date is irrelevant because the papers, if true, rely on the laws f physics which do not change with time.

Look, if we're discussing space travel at very sub-light velocities, Newton's Laws of Motion still apply just as much as they did 335 years ago. I am not going to say, "Oh, that's old information! I'm sure there are new papers to say different." No, the Laws of Motion are still just as relevant as they were when Newton was rubbing his head where the apple hit it. (Yes, I know that is a myth, but it makes a point.)

The onus of disproving a scientific work is on the one claiming it is incorrect, not the one who uses it as supporting evidence.

TheRedneck

Actually I posted two articles, one is from 1996 and the other from 2013. Both have something in common as they heavily criticise the bogus claims made by the IPCC which stands for the International Panel for Climate Change. The times of publication of these articles are relevent and very important as it seems that 17 years passed since the first article was written and still bogus claims are made in the name of climate change.

1996 was 17 years ago?


a reply to: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: nonspecific
1996 was 17 years ago?


a reply to: Asmodeus3

If you read my post above I was referring to the two articles I linked, one from 1996 and the other from 2013.

a reply to: nonspecific

The difference between 2013 and 1996 is 17 years. His point was that nothing in the underlying physics changed in those 17 years.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: nonspecific

The difference between 2013 and 1996 is 17 years. His point was that nothing in the underlying physics changed in those 17 years.

TheRedneck

www.forbes.com...

Another article this time from 2014

Title:

The IPCC's Latest Report Deliberately Excludes And Misrepresents Important Climate Science

The discussion in the article can be followed very easily and the claims made by the IPCC have been answered one by one.

The science is now the methodology to acquire funding support without regard to the content of the project.

Lie, cheat, steal, kill millions with injections, kill millions by suppressing therapy that could have saved them, .....

How do we expect academic journals to do high quality work when all print media is in financial decline? I'd say that's the problem. They have to compete with academic blogs. There is no revenue stream.



With stuff like climate change, there is big money to be had by pushing one agenda, and hardly any to be had pushing the other agenda. (Even though you would think it would be the other way around....if the government wasn't handing out money like candy.)

It's like the saying "Peace sells, but who's buying?" Who would pay for truthful academics in today's world?

originally posted by: tkwasny
The science is now the methodology to acquire funding support without regard to the content of the project.

Lie, cheat, steal, kill millions with injections, kill millions by suppressing therapy that could have saved them, .....

Sometimes it comes to this only. Unfortunately

originally posted by: nonspecific
a reply to: DirtWasher

I think its because members think all the papers will be about how covid is dangerous and vaccines are safe and they will be proved right about their beliefs that its the other way round.

I honestly didn't want to believe YOU OF ALL posters on here was living in a Clown world and didn't get reality.

Sad... tsk tsk. But I see now.. Maybe we can help you out here a bit with some sound logic you keep missing, but I think now you are only here to derail things instead of help.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: nonspecific

Our understanding may have advanced, and our technology may have advanced, but the underlying physics has not changed. If a paper from 25 years ago has not been disproved by peer review, then it is more relevant than a newer paper because it has stood the test of time.

This seems to go back to that belief you have that a scientist who manages to get a paper published in a journal must be correct by definition until someone else gets a paper published with a different opinion. That is patently and absolutely false, and is the very thing this thread is about. Getting a paper published does not make it true: time and actual peer review by peers who are not chosen by editors verifies truth.

TheRedneck

Newtons laws changed? Oh, wait! Only those claiming we should "believe the science" have actually tried to ignore Physics and the properties of elements. They even try to say the real Scientists are not real as if that will work in the end. The lay people who WANT to believe that lie are doing so in the open.

Old news, figuratively speaking (as you already indicated more or less by the reminder that you're getting used to it)...

Fraud in Science—A Greater Fraud (Awake!—1990)

...

“EVOLUTION is a fact.” This is the standard confession of faith that assures the scientific community of your orthodoxy. ... Yet, for years the statement has been made again and again, like some mystical chant: “Evolution is a fact.”

...

Stephen Jay Gould wrote an essay on evolution in the January 1987 issue of the science magazine Discover. Intent on overkill, in this five-​page article he proclaimed evolution to be a fact 12 times! Excerpts from the article follow:

...

At one point in the article, Gould said: “I don’t want to sound like a shrill dogmatist shouting ‘rally round the flag boys,’ but biologists have reached a consensus . . . about the fact of evolution.” But really, does that not sound like “a shrill dogmatist shouting ‘rally round the flag boys’”?

Molecular biologist Michael Denton referred to this glib talk about evolution’s being a fact and dismissed it with these words: “Now of course such claims are simply nonsense.” It’s much more than nonsense. It’s fraud. It deceives and misrepresents. It perverts the truth to induce another to part with something of value. Newspapers, radio, TV, nature series, science programs, schoolbooks from second grade on​—all drum this evolution-​is-a-fact litany into the public mind. ...

... So they are swept along by the repetitious mantras recited by evolution’s propagandizers. The theory becomes dogma, its preachers become arrogant, and dissenters reap disdainful abuse. The tactics work. ...

This four-​word propaganda line, ‘Evolution is a fact,’ is little (little in content), is a simple sentence (easily said), and is repeated persistently (even 12 times in one short essay). It qualifies as effective brainwashing propaganda, and with repetition it reaches the status of a slogan​—and slogans everywhere repeated are soon programmed into brains and tripped off tongues with little critical examination or skeptical dissection. Once a theory has been sloganized into community thinking, it no longer requires proof, and any who dissent are scorned. If such dissenters present rational refutation of the slogan’s validity, they are especially irritating and subjected to the only available response, namely, ridicule.

...

“Propaganda will not lead to success unless a fundamental principle is considered with continually sharp attention: it has to confine itself to little and to repeat this eternally. Here, too, persistency, as in so many other things in this world, is the first and the most important condition for success. . . . The masses . . . will lend their memories only to the thousandfold repetition of the most simple ideas. A change must never alter the content of what is being brought forth by propaganda, but in the end it always has to say the same. Thus the slogan has to be illuminated from various sides, but the end of every reflection has always and again to be the slogan itself.”​—Mein Kampf, by Adolf Hitler.

Next page:

Fraud in Science—The Greatest Fraud of All (Awake!—1990)

Previous page:

Fraud in Science​—Why It’s on the Increase

...

“What’s the major product of scientific research these days? Answer: Paper,” U.S.News & World Report said. “Hundreds of new journals are being founded each year to handle the flood of research papers cranked out by scientists who know that the road to academic success is a long list of articles to their credit.” Quantity, not quality, is the goal. Forty thousand journals published yearly produce a million articles, and part of this flood “is symptomatic of fundamental ills, including a publish-​or-​perish ethic among researchers that is stronger now than ever and encourages shoddy, repetitive, useless or even fraudulent work.”

A senior editor at The Journal of the American Medical Association, Dr. Drummond Rennie, commented on the lack of quality: “There seems to be no study too fragmented, no hypothesis too trivial, no literature citation too biased or too egotistical, no design too warped, no methodology too bungled, no presentation of results too inaccurate, too obscure, and too contradictory, no analysis too self-​serving, no argument too circular, no conclusions too trifling or too unjustified, and no grammar and syntax too offensive for a paper to end up in print.”

Making Mountains out of Molehills

...

Peer Review, a Safeguard Against Fraud?

Editors of science journals often​—but not always—​submit papers to other scientists for review before publishing them. This practice, called peer review, theoretically weeds out erroneous and fraudulent articles. “Science is self-​correcting in a way that no other field of intellectual endeavor can match,” Isaac Asimov says. “Science is self-​policing in a way that no other field is.” He marveled that “scandal is so infrequent.”

But many others do not share this view. Peer review is “a lousy way to detect fraud,” said previously quoted Dr. Drummond Rennie. The American Medical News said: “Peer-reviewed journals, once regarded as almost infallible, have had to admit that they are incapable of eradicating fraud.” “Peer review has been oversold,” said a medical writer and columnist for The New York Times.

...

“For high-​octane gall in proclaiming its ethical purity, the scientific community has long been the runaway winner,” said New Scientist magazine. The highly vaunted peer-​review system that theoretically screens out all the cheats is felt by many to be a farce. ...

Previously, an official of the NIH said, as reported in The New York Times: “I think an age of innocence has ended. In the past people assumed that scientists didn’t do this kind of thing. But people are beginning to realize that scientists are not morally superior to anybody else.” ...

Some people perhaps, but not as many as one would like I recon. Scientism has been on the increase ever since the so-called "Age of Enlightenment". And with it, the feeling or impression people have of scientists described there. Cause the most succesful in terms of personal gain among them, have done and continue to do everything in their power* to maintain that illusion for themselves and their clique of 'science' rockstars, like Stephen Hawking, Michio Kaku, Richard Dawkins, Lawrence Krauss, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Bill Nye, Craig Venter, Kenneth Miller, Noam Chomsky, Lynn Margulis, Alan Guth, Roger Penrose, Fred Hoyle, etc. *: such as what's described in the bolded part above, as for example demonstrated in the Isaac Asimov quotations earlier (that illusion is promoted, especially regarding the publications of the ones they like, usually the ones that are in the same business of selling their unverified philosophies/ideas under the marketingbanner: "Science").

More on this subject:

Evolution—Myths and Facts

Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed (Part 1 of 10) (playlist)

a reply to: MaxxAction

This one is probably a lot simpler than it seems. I think that we're talking Publishing mills, rather than outright fake papers containing bad science.

A lot institutes more or less require their people to publish papers on a regular basis, but a lot of the research that they do simply isn't noteworthy enough for publication. Often because it doesn't break new ground or because it's really just an iteration of something that lots of other people are doing.

So what happens is that they essentially waive through each other's papers on a mutual bais.

It's been a problem for a long time, and it's particularly bad with Chinese academics. You seen a lot of very similar papers being published in some fields because of this.

Often the research is genuine, but it's simply not remarkable enough to be published.

I don't believe in the "anonymous peer review" of German paper mills. The papers published in any particular "academic" journal or trade rag are exactly what the editors and publishers are promoting or selling, nothing more and nothing less. There's an author to every article of course, supposedly a responsible person who can stand up and say, "That's what I wrote, that's how it was edited and published" etc.

But nothing is "peer reviewed" until and unless the actual "peers" or educated fellows of the original author come forward with their own research and reference or respond to the original paper, and express their own opinions on it.

People have different opinions, even qualified professionals, they have to explain why they have different opinions, and "peer review" is not a "pass/fail" process.

a reply to: justinacolmena

I think that you're maybe confusing the peer review process with academic criticism. In most cases the peer review process exists to ensure standards and methodology are adhered to rather than to act as a critique of a paper.

originally posted by: AaarghZombies
a reply to: justinacolmena

I think that you're maybe confusing the peer review process with academic criticism. In most cases the peer review process exists to ensure standards and methodology are adhered to rather than to act as a critique of a paper.

In theory. In practise it could be politicalised enormously. Especially when financial and political interests are around.

a reply to: Asmodeus3

I won't disagree with you when it comes to the supernatural and the paranormal, or when it comes to cryptids, but the majority of what is being discussed here is relatively conventional and non-controversial.

We're talking about groups of academics and researchers colluding to approve each other's papers. In many cases the papers are so conventional and non-controversial that they wouldn't normally be published as they don't contribute enough to the scientific method or understanding.

Primarily, this is done because organizations use published papers as a way of keeping score. So there is enormous pressure to publish