Mod+ 261. WHY SCIENCE IS WRONG...ABOUT ALMOST EVERYTHING

S

Sciborg_S_Patel

Hmmm without citations and context not sure I'd say that's a 100% picture.

But perhaps more to the point, it seems to me the varied problems with failed replications wouldn't, on the whole, be dependent on science's historical origins?

Unless you're talking about something like the rejection of final causes and the focus on mechanism, which one could argue led more toward the investigation of applicable mechanisms rather than the actual nature of things.
 
http://www.realclearscience.com/articles/2016/01/11/why_cosmology_is_in_crisis_109504.html
A study that surveyed all the published cosmological literature between the years 1996 and 2008 showed that the statistics of the results were too good to be true. In fact, the statistical spread of the results was not consistent with what would be expected mathematically, which means cosmologists were in agreement with each other – but to a worrying degree. This meant that either results were being tuned somehow to reflect the status-quo, or that there may be some selection effect where only those papers that agreed with the status-quo were being accepted by journals.
 
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/hea...isk-of-suicide-biggest-ever-review-finds.html

Antidepressants can raise the risk of suicide, biggest ever review finds

Antidepressant use doubles the risk of suicide in under 18s and the risks to adults may have been seriously underestimated, researchers found
This, like most of your posts, appears to support the notion that science is working as intended. That is, questioning its own results and finding a more truthy position.
 
Here is another good essay about what is going wrong with science:

http://www.firstthings.com/article/2016/05/scientific-regress

David
The hagiographies of science are full of paeans to the self-correcting, self-healing nature of the enterprise. But if raw results are so often false, the filtering mechanisms so ineffective, and the self-correcting mechanisms so compromised and slow, then science’s approach to truth may not even be monotonic. That is, past theories, now “refuted” by evidence and replaced with new approaches, may be closer to the truth than what we think now. Such regress has happened before: In the nineteenth century, the (correct) vitamin C deficiency theory of scurvy was replaced by the false belief that scurvy was caused by proximity to spoiled foods. Many ancient astronomers believed the heliocentric model of the solar system before it was supplanted by the geocentric theory of Ptolemy. The Whiggish view of scientific history is so dominant today that this possibility is spoken of only in hushed whispers, but ours is a world in which things once known can be lost and buried.
Which brings us to the odd moment in which we live. At the same time as an ever more bloated scientific bureaucracy churns out masses of research results, the majority of which are likely outright false, scientists themselves are lauded as heroes and science is upheld as the only legitimate basis for policy-making. There’s reason to believe that these phenomena are linked. When a formerly ascetic discipline suddenly attains a measure of influence, it is bound to be flooded by opportunists and charlatans, whether it’s the National Academy of Science or the monastery of Cluny.
Now, however, science and especially science bureaucracy is a career, and one amenable to social climbing. Careers attract careerists, in Feyerabend’s words: “devoid of ideas, full of fear, intent on producing some paltry result so that they can add to the flood of inane papers that now constitutes ‘scientific progress’ in many areas.”

If science was unprepared for the influx of careerists, it was even less prepared for the blossoming of the Cult of Science. The Cult is related to the phenomenon described as “scientism”; both have a tendency to treat the body of scientific knowledge as a holy book or an a-religious revelation that offers simple and decisive resolutions to deep questions. But it adds to this a pinch of glib frivolity and a dash of unembarrassed ignorance.
 
This, like most of your posts, appears to support the notion that science is working as intended. That is, questioning its own results and finding a more truthy position.
The problem with your approach is that if science doesn't issue a correction, you deny one is needed, but if it does issue a correction - however belatedly - you claim it is working correctly. What possible evidence could ever defeat that logic?

The point is that these drugs were supposed to have been tested for effectiveness and safety before they were generally used. However clearly somehow or other this didn't happen properly!

David
 
The problem with your approach is that if science doesn't issue a correction you deny one is needed
Doesn't sound like me. I've previously cited the half life of scientific facts, however it's impossible to know in advance which half of "facts" will be overturned (reliable psi could be useful here of course ;) ).

...but if it does issue a correction - however belatedly - you claim it is working correctly. What possible evidence could ever defeat that logic?
This is a strength of science. It, even belatedly, disencourages dogma.

Let me ask you... Why would you put more weight behind a correction than the original data?
 
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2016/06/27/1602413113.full

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America


Functional MRI (fMRI) is 25 years old, yet surprisingly its most common statistical methods have not been validated using real data. Here, we used resting-state fMRI data from 499 healthy controls to conduct 3 million task group analyses. Using this null data with different experimental designs, we estimate the incidence of significant results. In theory, we should find 5% false positives (for a significance threshold of 5%), but instead we found that the most common software packages for fMRI analysis (SPM, FSL, AFNI) can result in false-positive rates of up to 70%. These results question the validity of some 40,000 fMRI studies and may have a large impact on the interpretation of neuroimaging results.
 
http://www.city-journal.org/html/real-war-science-14782.html

The Real War on Science

It’s fine to expose pseudoscience on the left, they say, but why aren’t you an equal-opportunity debunker? Why not write about conservatives’ threat to science?

My friends don’t like my answer: because there isn’t much to write about. Conservatives just don’t have that much impact on science. I know that sounds strange to Democrats who decry Republican creationists and call themselves the “party of science.” But I’ve done my homework. I’ve read the Left’s indictments, including Chris Mooney’s bestseller,The Republican War on Science. I finished it with the same question about this war that I had at the outset: Where are the casualties?

Where are the scientists who lost their jobs or their funding? What vital research has been corrupted or suppressed?

...
But two huge threats to science are peculiar to the Left—and they’re getting worse.

The first threat is confirmation bias, the well-documented tendency of people to seek out and accept information that confirms their beliefs and prejudices.
...
And that brings us to the second great threat from the Left: its long tradition of mixing science and politics. ...
 
http://www.city-journal.org/html/real-war-science-14782.html

The Real War on Science

It’s fine to expose pseudoscience on the left, they say, but why aren’t you an equal-opportunity debunker? Why not write about conservatives’ threat to science?

My friends don’t like my answer: because there isn’t much to write about. Conservatives just don’t have that much impact on science. I know that sounds strange to Democrats who decry Republican creationists and call themselves the “party of science.” But I’ve done my homework. I’ve read the Left’s indictments, including Chris Mooney’s bestseller,The Republican War on Science. I finished it with the same question about this war that I had at the outset: Where are the casualties?

Where are the scientists who lost their jobs or their funding? What vital research has been corrupted or suppressed?

...
But two huge threats to science are peculiar to the Left—and they’re getting worse.

The first threat is confirmation bias, the well-documented tendency of people to seek out and accept information that confirms their beliefs and prejudices.
...
And that brings us to the second great threat from the Left: its long tradition of mixing science and politics. ...
excellent. thx.
 
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/a...ortions-beef-pork-wonders-blood-pressure.html


Eating more red meat does NOT hurt your heart: New study insists larger portions of beef and pork can actually be GOOD for blood pressure

Health officials recommend cutting our intake of red meat for our heart health

But a new study has found unprocessed beef and pork are not dangerous

In fact, a review of clinical trials showed the meat was beneficial for patients

...
The recommendations to limit red meat from the diet come mainly from studies that look at the dietary habits of people with cardiovascular disease.

Although these studies showed these people typically ate red meat, they were not designed to show that red meat caused cardiovascular disease.
 
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/a...ortions-beef-pork-wonders-blood-pressure.html


Eating more red meat does NOT hurt your heart: New study insists larger portions of beef and pork can actually be GOOD for blood pressure

Health officials recommend cutting our intake of red meat for our heart health

But a new study has found unprocessed beef and pork are not dangerous

In fact, a review of clinical trials showed the meat was beneficial for patients

...
The recommendations to limit red meat from the diet come mainly from studies that look at the dietary habits of people with cardiovascular disease.

Although these studies showed these people typically ate red meat, they were not designed to show that red meat caused cardiovascular disease.
Proabably want to be cautious with that one given the limitations they raise about the research.
 
Many archaeologists try to promote themselves by making bold claims about what their finds signify that are little more than speculations. This is a problem in paleoanthropology too. Their colleagues understand what is going on but science journalists and the public might not.
There are many examples in this series (but it is interesting anyway):
 
Last edited:
Proabably want to be cautious with that one given the limitations they raise about the research.
Yes, but the problem is if you are equally cautious about all the relevant research, then you should probably eat as your parents or grandparents ate.

It isn't just meat, the studies don't show that salt is not harmful at the levels you might typically wish to consume, moderate alcohol consumption is beneficial to health (provided you don't get addicted), saturated fat isn't bad for you, but sugar really is. These are results which come from epidemiological studies - i.e. they look at your life expectancy for different life styles - there isn't any complicated biochemistry to muddy the picture.

You really can't take a completely wait and see approach to these subjects because you have to go on eating! Personally, I eat butter, and full fat milk, I don't cut the fat off meat, I don't worry about salt any more, but I am very cautious about how much sugar I consume.

All these areas are easy to look up on the internet, and trust those that quote the large studies of people's health outcomes. The point is, medical science seems unable to accept that they were wrong about any of these things except sugar, which is now recognised as dangerous.

I suggest you read this book, because Dr Kendrick's books refer to actual raw study data and supply references. He is also a medical doctor.

http://www.doctoringdata.co.uk/

David
 
Last edited:
"Why Science Is Wrong...About Almost Everything"

Because according known science, the universe should not even exist:

http://www.uni-mainz.de/presse/aktuell/3027_ENG_HTML.php

19 October 2017

This consistency is a confirmation of the CPT symmetry, which states that the universe is composed of a fundamental symmetry between particles and antiparticles. "All of our observations find a complete symmetry between matter and antimatter, which is why the universe should not actually exist," explained Christian Smorra​
 
Science is wrong about almost everything because ... scientists will ignore mountains of data pointing to an obvious conclusion ... if it conflicts with their prejudices ... and then keep quiet after it is proved because of political correctness.

Here's one example:

The video below gives the evidence, including irrefutable genetic evidence, that people from Europe or the Middle east migrated to New Zealand and were there long before the Maori whom archaeologists claimed were the first people to populate the island 700 years ago. The evidence of earlier settlement including the presence of white skinned, blond haired, red haired, and green eyed people, was ignored and local knowledge was dismissed as legend until a descendant of these people, Monica Matamua, who knew all about the migration from her own family's oral history was angered by the misrepresentations and she spoke out. Genetic evidence proved her to be correct. Once scientists had the genetic evidence, they "reinterpreted" other archaeological evidence and local knowledge. In essence, an elderly woman of a people native to New Zealand since long before Europeans or Maori arrived explained to the scientists what their "anomalous" findings really meant. But then because of concerns over political correctness the truth was ignored again.

There is a lot of fascinating archaeological evidence in this video you may never have heard of, such as a tablet found on Easter Island in a script similar to one used in the Indus Valley. Monica believes her ancestors came from Persia and were displaced by a war 3000 years ago described in the Mahabharata.


More information is at this facebook site:
https://www.facebook.com/New-Zealand-History-The-Truth-346003915492277/


3 part article reprinted here

https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=670397729719559&id=346003915492277

https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=670609243031741&id=346003915492277

According to the National Geographic, the part of Monica’s DNA that most Polynesians descended from (southeast Asian) only took up 20% of her DNA structure, with northeast Asian taking up a sizeable lump of the structure also. People with northeast Asian DNA patterns were most likely to end up in Japan, China and Mongolia.

What was considerably surprising was the large percentage of the DNA which was taken up by northern European, Mediterranean, sub Saharan and southwest Asian DNA which all linked to Europe and/or the Middle East.

There are three migratory paths that Maori supposedly took to New Zealand. These include South America, Cambodia and the Middle East. Based on the DNA project, it seems that Monica’s family have come through the Middle East.

When confronted with the results of the DNA tests, Monica was overwhelmed and as tears ran from her eyes, all she could say was, “I wish Mum was here to see this”.

https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=671357942956871&id=346003915492277


http://www.ancient-wisdom.com/easterislandindusvalley1.htm
Easter Island - Indus Valley Scripts
...
In addition, recent epigraphic research have revealed both further similarities between the two scripts but also, and more significantly, that similarities between groupings of characters can be found in both scripts. A finding which cannot be ignored or considered simply a further coincidence. We are left with a mystery which however unlikely, appears to show a thread of connection between the two cultures.​
 
Last edited:
Here are a couple of more videos:

This one is about the cover up of Polynesian history. In one example a scientists tries to discredit an inconvenient carbon date of rat bones by saying the rats ate 1000 year old carbon. You can't make this up.

nz.GIF

The cover-up "brings the entire university system into question and disrepute by the fact that they did not question his 'findings', and it makes a mockery out of the academic world and everything it stands for!"

This video is about ancient travel between Alaska and Hawaii.
 
Last edited:
Top