User Tag List

+ Reply to Thread
Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234
Results 31 to 34 of 34

Thread: Countries that use Hydroxychloroquine may have 80% lower Covid death rates

  1. #31
    Points: 44,852, Level: 51
    Level completed: 77%, Points required for next Level: 398
    Overall activity: 0.1%
    Achievements:
    VeteranTagger Second Class25000 Experience Points
    Reason10's Avatar Banned
    Karma
    13535
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,265
    Points
    44,852
    Level
    51
    Thanks Given
    8
    Thanked 4,527x in 2,866 Posts
    Mentioned
    134 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Adelaide View Post
    You're right, Reason. We should have the lawyers review the academic work of physicians because they probably know a lot about science, then have the physicians review the work of the lawyers because they seem like they know a thing or two about law.

    You are making so much sense.


    Edit: Peer review is also a verb, by the way, but you do you.
    When large groups of alleged "scientists" get huge grants from George Soros into their accounts to come to any nutball left wing conclusion without any real research, it pretty much makes a joke out of the term Peer Review.

    But rather than ask for other specialized and political groups to review scientists, how about just the FREE MARKET? How about locking up those scientists who take money from donors who want a specific result? How about these cloistered hacks be forced to used their wonderful degrees in the real world and not in the research ivory tower, where they come up with crackpot notions all day long from flawed computer models?


    How about a scientist actually having to EARN his money, the way the rest of the world does, and not just get paid tons of money just to rubber stamp an OPINION?

  2. #32

    tPF Moderator
    Points: 152,027, Level: 93
    Level completed: 47%, Points required for next Level: 2,023
    Overall activity: 1.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialTagger First ClassCreated Album picturesYour first GroupRecommendation First Class50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Adelaide's Avatar tPF Moderator
    Karma
    341325
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    N. Pole and VA
    Posts
    30,757
    Points
    152,027
    Level
    93
    Thanks Given
    4,025
    Thanked 18,449x in 11,739 Posts
    Mentioned
    1723 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Reason10 View Post
    When large groups of alleged "scientists" get huge grants from George Soros into their accounts to come to any nutball left wing conclusion without any real research, it pretty much makes a joke out of the term Peer Review.

    But rather than ask for other specialized and political groups to review scientists, how about just the FREE MARKET? How about locking up those scientists who take money from donors who want a specific result? How about these cloistered hacks be forced to used their wonderful degrees in the real world and not in the research ivory tower, where they come up with crackpot notions all day long from flawed computer models?


    How about a scientist actually having to EARN his money, the way the rest of the world does, and not just get paid tons of money just to rubber stamp an OPINION?
    Ah, yes, it all comes back to the Jews.

    You don't understand the process and that's cool, but maybe don't pretend as though you do.
    FYIWDWYTM

  3. #33
    Original Ranter
    Points: 859,042, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 90.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialCreated Album picturesOverdrive50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Awards:
    Posting Award
    Peter1469's Avatar Advisor
    Karma
    496563
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    NOVA
    Posts
    241,693
    Points
    859,042
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    153,218
    Thanked 147,573x in 94,411 Posts
    Mentioned
    2552 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by FindersKeepers View Post
    Any methodology used to approve or judge the validity of research is going to fall prey to the unscrupulous. It's too bad, but it's happened so many times in the peer-review process that it's worth being skeptical of new studies and research until there is an undeniable consensus. Even the highly pressured field of climate science has yet to reach an undeniable consensus and is constantly being challenged. Politics is a $#@!.
    Here is an interesting article about a book that discusses some serious problems with science today.

    Why So Much Science is Wrong, False, Puffed, or Misleading

    n a year where scientists seemed to have gotten everything wrong, a book attempting to explain why is bizarrely relevant. Of course, science was in deep trouble long before the pandemic began and Stuart Ritchie’s excellent Science Fictions: How Fraud, Bias, Negligence, and Hype Undermine the Search for Truth had been long in the making. Much welcomed, nonetheless, and very important. For a contrarian like me, reading Ritchie is good for my mental sanity – but bad for my intellectual integrity. It fuels my priors that a lot of people, even experts, delude themselves into thinking they know things they actually don’t. Fantastic scientific results, either the kind blasted across headlines or those which gradually make it into public awareness, are often so poorly made that the results don’t hold up; they don’t capture anything real about the world. The book is a wake-up call for a scientific establishment often too blinded by its own erudite proclamations.



    Filled with examples and accessible explanations, Ritchie expertly leads the reader on a journey through science’s many troubles. He categorizes them by the four subtitles of the book: fraud, bias, negligence, and hype. Together, they all undermine the search for truth that is science’s raison d’être. It’s not that scientists willfully lie, cheat, or deceive – even though that happens uncomfortably often, even in the best of journals – but that poorly designed experiments, underpowered studies, spreadsheet errors or intentionally or unintentionally manipulated p-values yield results that are too good to be true. Since academics’ careers depend on publishing novel, fascinating and significant results, most of them don’t look a gift horse in the mouth. If the statistical software says “significant,” they confidently write up the study and persuasively argue their amazing case before a top-ranked journal, its editors, and the slacking peers in the field who are supposed to police their mistakes.



    Ritchie isn’t some crackpot science denier or conspiracy theorist working out of his mom’s basement; he’s a celebrated psychologist at King’s College London with lots of experience in debunking poorly-made research, particularly in his own field of psychology. For the last decade or more, this discipline has been the unfortunate poster child for the “Replication Crisis,” the discovery that – to use Stanford’s John Ioannidis’ well-known article title – “Most Published Research Findings Are False.”


    Take the example of former Cornell psychology professor Daryl Bem and his infamous “psychic pornography” experiment that opens Ritchie’s book. On screens, a thousand undergraduates were shown two curtains, only one of which hid an image that the students were supposed to find. The choice was a coin toss, as they had no other information to go on. As expected, for most kinds of images they picked the right curtain about 50% of the time. But – and here was Bem’s claim to fame – when pornographic images hid behind the curtails, students choose the right one 53% of the time, enough to pass for statistical significance in his sample. The road for top-ranked publication was wide open.


    When the article came out after passing peer review, the world was stunned to learn that undergrads could see the future – at least when images of a sexual nature were involved. Proven by science, certified by The Scientific Method™, the psychology world was thrown into chaos. The study was done properly, passed peer review, and published in a top field journal, with the same method that underlies all the other well-known results in the field. Still, the result was totally bonkers. What had gone wrong?
    Read the rest of the article at the link.







    ΜOΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ


  4. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Peter1469 For This Useful Post:

    FindersKeepers (09-25-2020),Sunsettommy (10-04-2020)

  5. #34
    Points: 123,366, Level: 85
    Level completed: 17%, Points required for next Level: 2,684
    Overall activity: 60.0%
    Achievements:
    50000 Experience PointsSocialVeteran
    FindersKeepers's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    173984
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    35,702
    Points
    123,366
    Level
    85
    Thanks Given
    25,436
    Thanked 26,625x in 16,267 Posts
    Mentioned
    271 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Adelaide View Post
    Undeniable consensus does not really exist in science/research or really in any field. If an overwhelming majority within a field are saying something, and they're not all being paid to say it (be wary of medical journals), then it would be likely that the conclusions they have reached are about as close to consensus as you will get. When there are anomalous outliers who publish articles that deviate from that "consensus" they often have the signs of being paid by someone, or being otherwise motivated to publish unless it is some major breakthrough.
    "Undeniable consensus" exists. Among researchers, there's an undeniable consensus that smoking cigarettes increases one's risk of developing emphysema, lung cancer, or other respiratory problems.

    But, that's all consensus is worth anyway -- it's just a common point of agreement that no one (currently) can logically dispute. It doesn't mean it's anywhere close to "settled science," of which there is no thing.
    ""A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul" ~George Bernard Shaw

+ Reply to Thread

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts