Alarming Rise In Retractions Of Research Papers

[Pugchief]

For those of you who "trust the media", "trust the experts", "trust the science" or "trust the government", or think data is unbiased or even consistently accurate:

Recent evidence indicates the constant pressure to generate data and publish papers may be affecting the quality of research and fueling retractions of research papers.

In the past decade, there have been more than 39,000 retractions, and the annual number of retractions is growing by around 23% each year.

Nearly half the retractions were due to issues related to the authenticity of the data.

Plagiarism was the second most common reason research papers were retracted, accounting for 16% of retractions.

Fake peer review was another reason why research papers were retracted.

Read the rest here (https://theconversation.com/the-publish-or-perish-mentality-is-fuelling-research-paper-retractions-and-undermining-science-238983)

[CoachKandSportsguy]

Even a Nobel prize winner has retracted papers. Where there is money, there is fraud. . People several years ago were submitting obviously fraudulent papers just to see if the peer review process was even working. They all got peer reviewed for publishing. .

Thye system has broken down due to people seeing other fake data papers published, and hopping on board. One masters level economics class had projects to reproduce other paper's results. One of the more well known harvard publishers was caught with a cell or two errors which allowed the hypothesis to pass. He made a comment, that the data mistake didn't alter the outcome. . .

hmmmmmm . . . its all about supporting the outcome

In my opinion, there are too many data to narratives requirements advertisements, and courses.

[Stu from NYC]

So much for honesty but the old saying publish or perish is still alive

[Topspinmo]

I suppose some type of grant associated. Pass out grant money like it’s cotton candy know wonder there fraud?

[Taltarzac725]

For those of you who "trust the media", "trust the experts", "trust the science" or "trust the government", or think data is unbiased or even consistently accurate:

Recent evidence indicates the constant pressure to generate data and publish papers may be affecting the quality of research and fueling retractions of research papers.

In the past decade, there have been more than 39,000 retractions, and the annual number of retractions is growing by around 23% each year.

Nearly half the retractions were due to issues related to the authenticity of the data.

Plagiarism was the second most common reason research papers were retracted, accounting for 16% of retractions.

Fake peer review was another reason why research papers were retracted.

Read the rest here (https://theconversation.com/the-publish-or-perish-mentality-is-fuelling-research-paper-retractions-and-undermining-science-238983)


The system seems to be working if it is catching fraud and the like. I would worry when many start looking the other way like when German academics came under the control of totalitarianism. Whoever had the bigger gun and the will to use it controlled the dialog.

[Pugchief]

The system seems to be working if it is catching fraud and the like. I would worry when many start looking the other way like with German academics came under the control of totalitarianism. Whoever had the bigger gun and the will to use it controlled the dialog.

The system isn't working if 39,000 papers had to be retracted. I'm assuming they didn't even catch all the fake news. This is a travesty of intellectualism.

The other day, the FBI came out with a report that violent crime was down. Except it didn't include crime stats from several large, dangerous cities that refused to report data. So they just left it out. Everyone who lives in a city knows crime is up, but they insist "the data" shows otherwise.

So why would you believe anything (climate change, crime, inflation, unemployment, drug trials, etc.) if time and again, the "experts" have straight up lied to your face?

Caveat Emptor neighbors.

[spd2918]

The system seems to be working if it is catching fraud and the like.

It looks like the digital availability is making for more scrutiny. It makes me wonder if the older papers were just as bad.

I'd like to know what percentage of fake papers were on climate change.

[ThirdOfFive]

The only surprising thing about this is how unsurprising it is.

[fdpaq0580]

The only surprising thing about this is how unsurprising it is.

Agree. There is fraud everywhere. Fake studies, fake papers, fake Gucci wallets and purses, even plastic food. Fortunately, the real stuff is still readily available for those who know what they are looking for and systems to find and eliminate the fakes.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

So - plagiarism of the article - means that no one is questioning the data, the content, only the author(s). That's good news. It means that 16% of those articles are legit, even if incorrectly attributed.

Another 16.2% is due to duplication. Again - no concern with the content. So that's 32% of articles that has legitimate content and data.

Publication error - 5.5% is due to that. They retracted these because they found mistakes. No lying, no fraud, no shenanigans.

In all, almost half were retracted due to "concerns or issues" about the data itself, which is serious, but it also means that they were, in fact, retracted.

Lack of/fake peer review is equally serious, but significantly less frequent, at only 8.3%.

Now that everyone and their brother is jumping on the AI bandwagon, expect it to get worse, before it gets better.

[Pugchief]

So - plagiarism of the article - means that no one is questioning the data, the content, only the author(s). That's good news. It means that 16% of those articles are legit, even if incorrectly attributed.

Another 16.2% is due to duplication. Again - no concern with the content. So that's 32% of articles that has legitimate content and data.



Yes, not as bad as the outright fraud, but what does that tell you about the integrity of the "researchers"?

You can't trust these people.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Yes, not as bad as the outright fraud, but what does that tell you about the integrity of the "researchers"?

You can't trust these people.

Within the context of a patient needing to know what the best medical treatment is for me, I don't care who the researchers are. I care only about the integrity of the data. If 20 different people say the same thing, word for word, and the first one was proven correctly peer reviewed and accurate, I'm okay with it. Let the lawyers and publishers and editors deal with the "who dunnit" of the thing. Just tell me my tylenol really will get rid of my headache and wearing sunscreen really will reduce my risk of skin cancer, and carry on.

[CoachKandSportsguy]

John Wiley and Sons, a major academic publisher, is currently retracting more than 11,300 “peer-reviewed” science papers that they had previously published. These papers were once regarded as cutting-edge science and were cited numerous times by other academic researchers. Now these scientific papers – which often relied on taxpayer dollars for research funding – are being revealed as fraudulent.
Additionally, the 217-year-old publisher announced the closure of 19 journals due to large-scale research fraud. The fake papers often contained nonsensical phrases generated by AI to avoid plagiarism detection. Examples include “breast cancer” referred to “bosom peril” and “fluid dynamics” written as “gooey stream.” In one paper, “artificial intelligence” was called “counterfeit consciousness.”

These systemic issues of fraud have significantly damaged the legitimacy of scientific research and damaged the integrity of scientific journals. The academic publishing industry, valued at nearly $30 billion, faces a credibility crisis.


Talked with a PhD friend who used to teach at UMASS undergraduates.
He has no desire to read and grade papers anymore, and professors who do grade papers, have to trick the students to catch them using AI. and then run them through plagarism software.

There is a book about this, "The Death of Expertise", by Tom Nichols, a former US Naval war school professor and legislative aid.

And the world keeps moving forward somehow!

[Topspinmo]

Talked with a PhD friend who used to teach at UMASS undergraduates.
He has no desire to read and grade papers anymore, and professors who do grade papers, have to trick the students to catch them using AI. and then run them through plagarism software.

There is a book about this, "The Death of Expertise", by Tom Nichols, a former US Naval war school professor and legislative aid.

And the world keeps moving forward somehow!

Professor grade papers? Thought under post doctoral graduates more less teach class under the guidelines of the professor?

[CODYCAT]

Lying, cheating and stealing have become the norm in the world. People who are suppose to help America are helping themselves. People are told what to do and what to believe they just do it. They don’t take time to think for themselves and figure out what are the truths and what are the lies. No one answers questions anymore they just talk and spit out their own agenda. You only get retractions and the truth when someone gets caught in their lies. We have a lazy and stupid society today and people taking advantage of it.

[Shipping up to Boston]

For those of you who "trust the media", "trust the experts", "trust the science" or "trust the government", or think data is unbiased or even consistently accurate:

Recent evidence indicates the constant pressure to generate data and publish papers may be affecting the quality of research and fueling retractions of research papers.

In the past decade, there have been more than 39,000 retractions, and the annual number of retractions is growing by around 23% each year.

Nearly half the retractions were due to issues related to the authenticity of the data.

Plagiarism was the second most common reason research papers were retracted, accounting for 16% of retractions.

Fake peer review was another reason why research papers were retracted.

Read the rest here (https://theconversation.com/the-publish-or-perish-mentality-is-fuelling-research-paper-retractions-and-undermining-science-238983)

“Fake peer review” / “Authenticity of the data”

Oh...I’m sorry, I thought I was still on the climate change/global warming/hurricane thread!

[dougjb]

LOL !!

I got quite a laugh out of reading the initial posting in this thread. Why? Because it quotes figures from an unknown internet source. Anyone can make up numbers. I prefer to use the standard scientific method of basing my analysis on peer reviewed articles. Yes, I am sure there are some that are the result of fraud or error. The operative term is some as in a few. But, ultimately, these faux "scientific" reports are found out. That is the nature of science. A hypothesis is presented and then subsequent peer reviewed articles will either support or not support the original thesis. But, the original hypothesis or theory is not discarded because we don't want to believe anything.

As for me, I refuse to go back to thinking the universe, particularly the sun, revolves around the earth.

In science, we move on. We do not cast doubt on it, merely because some unknown publication comes up with some number that carries no citations but its own.

[GizmoWhiskers]

For those of you who "trust the media", "trust the experts", "trust the science" or "trust the government", or think data is unbiased or even consistently accurate:

Recent evidence indicates the constant pressure to generate data and publish papers may be affecting the quality of research and fueling retractions of research papers.

In the past decade, there have been more than 39,000 retractions, and the annual number of retractions is growing by around 23% each year.

Nearly half the retractions were due to issues related to the authenticity of the data.

Plagiarism was the second most common reason research papers were retracted, accounting for 16% of retractions.

Fake peer review was another reason why research papers were retracted.

Read the rest here (https://theconversation.com/the-publish-or-perish-mentality-is-fuelling-research-paper-retractions-and-undermining-science-238983)
I just recently bought a used "vintage" (crazy to think) 1979 Webster Dictionary due to a conversation about what "agnostic" means. 2024 word salad definition results in an agnostic basically being an aethiest. 1979 a sense of openmindedness remained for an agnostic.

Interesting stuff relevant to today in a 1979 dictionary. Worth every bit of the $5 to order it off of thriftbook(dot)com.

Words matter and they are changing meanings all the time to fit narratives. Preserve history. Buy old books. Even the Bible is being changed.

[Windguy]

This anti-science nonsense is really getting old. Yes. There are scientists who cheat and lie just like there are in any group whether it is a group of football players, cops, politicians, car drivers, golfers, etc. They are (by far!) not the majority of the groups.

If science were as completely corrupt as people here seem to be thinking, then we wouldn’t be here expressing our ignorant opinions because the technology that results from the vast majority of science would not work. The proof is in the pudding. You have a supercomputer in a tiny package that you call a smart phone. Science works. Period.

One more thing. Many of you think that retracted papers are a sign that science is wrong. No. It’s a sign that science works. That's the difference between science and religion. Scientists seek the truth and when earlier notions are shown to be incorrect, they are abandoned. Religion not so much. The pope imprisoned Galileo because he looked at Venus through a telescope and realized that it was going around the Sun instead of the Earth because it went through phases just like the Moon. Religion, however, clings to old beliefs despite massive evidence to the contrary.

[Ptmcbriz]

The system isn't working if 39,000 papers had to be retracted. I'm assuming they didn't even catch all the fake news. This is a travesty of intellectualism.

The other day, the FBI came out with a report that violent crime was down. Except it didn't include crime stats from several large, dangerous cities that refused to report data. So they just left it out. Everyone who lives in a city knows crime is up, but they insist "the data" shows otherwise.

So why would you believe anything (climate change, crime, inflation, unemployment, drug trials, etc.) if time and again, the "experts" have straight up lied to your face?

Caveat Emptor neighbors.

You use critical thinking skills for reasonableness. Otherwise, you’ll believe in nothing and that destroys a society. No matter what in life there are mistakes. Rarely perfection. You don’t base your beliefs on one person, one article, one of anything. You read a lot on the subject from many sources and usually the similarities between them all give you a reasonable truth.

[CybrSage]

The system seems to be working if it is catching fraud and the like. I would worry when many start looking the other way like when German academics came under the control of totalitarianism. Whoever had the bigger gun and the will to use it controlled the dialog.

It was caught due to the increased attention gained from colleges supporting antisemitism.

It is one of the few good things that happened from so many supposedly good colleges supporting hate.

Hopefully the lense stays on them from here on out.

[Shipping up to Boston]

This anti-science nonsense is really getting old. Yes. There are scientists who cheat and lie just like there are in any group whether it is a group of football players, cops, politicians, car drivers, golfers, etc. They are (by far!) not the majority of the groups.

If science were as completely corrupt as people here seem to be thinking, then we wouldn’t be here expressing our ignorant opinions because the technology that results from the vast majority of science would not work. The proof is in the pudding. You have a supercomputer in a tiny package that you call a smart phone. Science works. Period.

One more thing. Many of you think that retracted papers are a sign that science is wrong. No. It’s a sign that science works. That's the difference between science and religion. Scientists seek the truth and when earlier notions are shown to be incorrect, they are abandoned. Religion not so much. The pope imprisoned Galileo because he looked at Venus through a telescope and realized that it was going around the Sun instead of the Earth because it went through phases just like the Moon. Religion, however, clings to old beliefs despite massive evidence to the contrary.

Wow....this one took a weird turn!

[CybrSage]

LOL !!

I got quite a laugh out of reading the initial posting in this thread. Why? Because it quotes figures from an unknown internet source. Anyone can make up numbers. I prefer to use the standard scientific method of basing my analysis on peer reviewed articles

Google exists and is easy to use. Here are some snippets found in seconds

...scientific publisher Wiley decided to shutter 19 scientific journals after retracting 11,300 sham papers.

When neuropsychologist Bernhard Sabel put his new fake-paper detector to work, he was “shocked” by what it found. After screening some 5000 papers, he estimates up to 34% of neuroscience papers published in 2020 were likely made up or plagiarized; in medicine, the figure was 24%.

[TheWatcher]

For those of you who "trust the media", "trust the experts", "trust the science" or "trust the government", or think data is unbiased or even consistently accurate:

Recent evidence indicates the constant pressure to generate data and publish papers may be affecting the quality of research and fueling retractions of research papers.

In the past decade, there have been more than 39,000 retractions, and the annual number of retractions is growing by around 23% each year......

Read the rest here (https://theconversation.com/the-publish-or-perish-mentality-is-fuelling-research-paper-retractions-and-undermining-science-238983)

This was always going on for a long time and its existance is not just recent as reported. But the retractions fortunately are. There are groups that have reviewed the scientific research for the past several decades and exposed the problems. One problem not mentioned is the time it takes for organizations to publish a retraction. In the interim and even after, other researchers still list the problematic paper(s) in their sources. Check out:

Retraction Watch – Tracking retractions as a window into the scientific process (https://retractionwatch.com/)

Check their faq page and link to the first post.

The Retraction Watch FAQ, including comments policy – Retraction Watch (https://retractionwatch.com/the-retraction-watch-faq/)

Why write a blog about retractions? – Retraction Watch (https://retractionwatch.com/2010/08/03/why-write-a-blog-about-retractions/)

Two infamous cases were from Reuben and Wakefield. These cases still have people citing incorrect conclusions to this day.

Also take a look at:

Why Most Published Research Findings Are False - Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Why_Most_Published_Research_Findings_Are_False#)

by John P.A. Ioannidis
Professor of Medicine (Stanford Prevention Research), of Epidemiology and Population Health

It is highly technical but essentially says that research is very complex, needs corresponding reproduced info to confirm, and since we are human, will always have multiple biases. In other words, there are degrees of truth in everything but teasing it out and confirming is the problem (answering the problem that is asked also helps).

TheWatcher

[CybrSage]

“Fake peer review” / “Authenticity of the data”

Oh...I’m sorry, I thought I was still on the climate change/global warming/hurricane thread!

Nope, this is actually real. Climate "science" is part of the corruption. To be fair, it includes all areas of science.

[Blueblaze]

A corrupt world based on lies and fraud is what you get when your "Golden Rule" is "The Ends Justifies The Means".

On the academic front, my son-in-law the Ag professor, was denied tenure a few years ago when he expressed skepticism that the current warming trend is due to a trace gas in the atmosphere. He foolishly imagined that academic freedom was a thing, and discovered that "settled science" says otherwise.

"It rubs the lotion into its skin. It does whatever it is told"

[opinionist]

The generation of fraudulent papers is a booming industry. Providing fraudulent documents to government oversight functions is much cheaper than validating a genuine product designed to benefit people. A fine is imposed when fraud is discovered, but that is just the "cost of doing business." The pharmaceutical industry has been fined billions, but they keep churning out products and peddling them without regard for safety or effectiveness.

[Shipping up to Boston]

The generation of fraudulent papers is a booming industry. Providing fraudulent documents to government oversight functions is much cheaper than validating a genuine product designed to benefit people. A fine is imposed when fraud is discovered, but that is just the "cost of doing business." The pharmaceutical industry has been fined billions, but they keep churning out products and peddling them without regard for safety or effectiveness.

Yet ‘we’ still hit CVS and Walgreens et al and fill prescriptions from said industry....knowing this?! Sounds like their ‘plan’ is working! :1rotfl:

[jimbev]

You must be listening to Scott Adams podcast.😎😍For those of you who "trust the media", "trust the experts", "trust the science" or "trust the government", or think data is unbiased or even consistently accurate:

Recent evidence indicates the constant pressure to generate data and publish papers may be affecting the quality of research and fueling retractions of research papers.

In the past decade, there have been more than 39,000 retractions, and the annual number of retractions is growing by around 23% each year.

Nearly half the retractions were due to issues related to the authenticity of the data.

Plagiarism was the second most common reason research papers were retracted, accounting for 16% of retractions.

Fake peer review was another reason why research papers were retracted.

Read the rest here (https://theconversation.com/the-publish-or-perish-mentality-is-fuelling-research-paper-retractions-and-undermining-science-238983)

[dtennent]

Let's put this in perspective.

1) Assume that the number of 39,000 retractions is correct for the past 10 years. For 2022 the reported retractions was 6393.

2) A simple google search shows that 2-3 million articles are being published annually. I will take the number of 2.8 million for 2022 which was on the Science.org website. It is based on Scopus and Web of Science publication databases

Just a moment... (https://www.science.org/content/article/scienceadviser-scientists-are-publishing-too-many-papers-and-s-bad-science)

3) That means the number of retracted articles is about 0.23% of all the articles published in 2022.

While the growth in retracted papers is disturbing, the system is still working. Having worked in science all my life, I have come across people who publish false data. When it eventually comes to light, that person's reputation is, at the very least, diminished. If we are going to evaluate science, let's at least use the data correctly. How many other professions are as good?

[Wondering]

For those of you who "trust the media", "trust the experts", "trust the science" or "trust the government", or think data is unbiased or even consistently accurate:

Recent evidence indicates the constant pressure to generate data and publish papers may be affecting the quality of research and fueling retractions of research papers.

In the past decade, there have been more than 39,000 retractions, and the annual number of retractions is growing by around 23% each year.

Nearly half the retractions were due to issues related to the authenticity of the data.

Plagiarism was the second most common reason research papers were retracted, accounting for 16% of retractions.

Fake peer review was another reason why research papers were retracted.

Read the rest here (https://theconversation.com/the-publish-or-perish-mentality-is-fuelling-research-paper-retractions-and-undermining-science-238983)
You are talking in generalizations --be specific! What research is in question, that would affect the population of the US and the world? Otherwise, I can't take your sense of alarm serious.

[coconutmama]

When we were in high school one of our best and most used life courses was Truth in Advertising, along with a civics class. Hopefully it is still being taught but looking at society now, I doubt it. Everyone should attempt to question data & do their own free thinking but without the conspiracy hoopla.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

I just recently bought a used "vintage" (crazy to think) 1979 Webster Dictionary due to a conversation about what "agnostic" means. 2024 word salad definition results in an agnostic basically being an aethiest. 1979 a sense of openmindedness remained for an agnostic.

Interesting stuff relevant to today in a 1979 dictionary. Worth every bit of the $5 to order it off of thriftbook(dot)com.

Words matter and they are changing meanings all the time to fit narratives. Preserve history. Buy old books. Even the Bible is being changed.

The Torah, however, is unchanged. It is, word for word, exactly as it was when someone first wrote it. While scholars and archeologists debate when exactly that was, the general consensus is that it was at least 150 years before the Christian Christ was alleged to have been born.

New Torahs for synagogues/templars are written by hand, and if there's even a single letter that isn't tilted exactly the correct way, the entire thing is scrapped and they have to start over again.

[Shipping up to Boston]

When we were in high school one of our best and most used life courses was Truth in Advertising, along with a civics class. Hopefully it is still being taught but looking at society now, I doubt it. Everyone should attempt to question data & do their own free thinking but without the conspiracy hoopla.

Wasn’t offered the former...but the latter, Civics, was one of my favorite and since abandoned for the most part. You knew every level of government....especially your local school boards and councils, and their elected members. It’s sad because most today can’t even tell you who their elected representatives are short of the presidency.

[Margefrog]

I don't think most "trust" what's published. Most papers are published for peer review, critique, compete, etc. They are meant for the professionals in that field. Reporters like to jump on things for their news. Anyone would be mistaken to trust that. I would think most folks take it as information on an evolving subject & change often like political polls.

[kendi]

For those of you who "trust the media", "trust the experts", "trust the science" or "trust the government", or think data is unbiased or even consistently accurate:

Recent evidence indicates the constant pressure to generate data and publish papers may be affecting the quality of research and fueling retractions of research papers.

In the past decade, there have been more than 39,000 retractions, and the annual number of retractions is growing by around 23% each year.

Nearly half the retractions were due to issues related to the authenticity of the data.

Plagiarism was the second most common reason research papers were retracted, accounting for 16% of retractions.

Fake peer review was another reason why research papers were retracted.

Read the rest here (https://theconversation.com/the-publish-or-perish-mentality-is-fuelling-research-paper-retractions-and-undermining-science-238983)

Good solid studies are hard to come by. And even with the good ones it is well known in the world of statistics that one cannot rely on the results as being absolute. More good studies are needed to confirm.

[biker1]

It depends on where the work is being published and the discipline. The peer review process that my papers went through before being published in hard science journals was both extensive and lengthy. I suspect much of the retractions were in “softer” sciences. Regardless, this thread is essentially click bait meant to rile people up. I suspect the OP has never published a research paper.


I don't think most "trust" what's published. Most papers are published for peer review, critique, compete, etc. They are meant for the professionals in that field. Reporters like to jump on things for their news. Anyone would be mistaken to trust that. I would think most folks take it as information on an evolving subject & change often like political polls.

[vonbork]

"May Contain Lies: How Stories, Statistics, and Studies Exploit Our Biases—And What We Can Do about It" by Alex Edmans on Amazon

[biker1]

Unless you have had a class in statistics you may not know how to interpret what you hear and read. A good recent example were the efficacy numbers that were published with the first release of the COVID-19 vaccines. I’m pretty sure that the vast majority of people misinterpreted the numbers. There was no malicious intent by anyone. The developers speak a different language than non-researchers.


"May Contain Lies: How Stories, Statistics, and Studies Exploit Our Biases—And What We Can Do about It" by Alex Edmans on Amazon

[huge-pigeons]

So if abc/nbc/cnn/msnbc/cbs and any of the other fake news channels say the same thing, then it’s true? All these fake news outlets get together each day to come up with the “theme” or “word” of the day to bash a person. It’s funny, you can watch 10 mins of each of these outlets during the day and see what the common “theme”/“word” is and I know millions of people believe this garbage.

[graciegirl]

So true....I mean if ‘accuracy’ is the mission statement, you must rely solely on the journalistic integrity of Fox, NewsMax, Breitbart....or my favorite acronym news outlet...ToTV to satisfy your ‘thirst’!

My favorite Television source these days is News Nation.

I am tired of the three major networks and their opinions.

[mntlblok]

Google exists and is easy to use. Here are some snippets found in seconds

...scientific publisher Wiley decided to shutter 19 scientific journals after retracting 11,300 sham papers.

When neuropsychologist Bernhard Sabel put his new fake-paper detector to work, he was “shocked” by what it found. After screening some 5000 papers, he estimates up to 34% of neuroscience papers published in 2020 were likely made up or plagiarized; in medicine, the figure was 24%.

Google "Retraction Watch" and Elisabeth Bik for a good start. The fraud is embarrassingly and shockingly real.

[Santiagogirl]

Agree with above concerns. Also, there seems to be a greater trend over the years for use of meta-analyses (combining a bunch of studies in one heap in order to increase number of outcomes measured, which should yield more statistically significant results). It's also one way of publishing a paper without the time, expense, or aggravation of setting up or conducting a study of your own. The authors rarely select every study available on the subject, & are often treating very different study methods as equivalent. A meta-analysis will describe its study selection criteria & state potential sources of error up front & in detail. However, a diligent reader who wishes to determine if the results are credible must essentially duplicate most of the authors' data gathering process & actually read the articles they are citing. This can take hours, & is seldom done by people using the information to make decisions. A poorly designed study can live forever in meta-analyses. Will become even more common with AI.

[rpalumberi]

mostly for the love of money & power


The system isn't working if 39,000 papers had to be retracted. I'm assuming they didn't even catch all the fake news. This is a travesty of intellectualism.

The other day, the FBI came out with a report that violent crime was down. Except it didn't include crime stats from several large, dangerous cities that refused to report data. So they just left it out. Everyone who lives in a city knows crime is up, but they insist "the data" shows otherwise.

So why would you believe anything (climate change, crime, inflation, unemployment, drug trials, etc.) if time and again, the "experts" have straight up lied to your face?

Caveat Emptor neighbors.

[fdpaq0580]

Yes, not as bad as the outright fraud, but what does that tell you about the integrity of the "researchers"?

You can't trust these people.

I don't think you should trust anyone! Doctors, lawyers, politicians, teachers, researchers ... nobody! Not even your pets. They aren't "kissing" you, they are tasting you. 😉 Just saying! 😏

[jimjamuser]

For those of you who "trust the media", "trust the experts", "trust the science" or "trust the government", or think data is unbiased or even consistently accurate:

Recent evidence indicates the constant pressure to generate data and publish papers may be affecting the quality of research and fueling retractions of research papers.

In the past decade, there have been more than 39,000 retractions, and the annual number of retractions is growing by around 23% each year.

Nearly half the retractions were due to issues related to the authenticity of the data.

Plagiarism was the second most common reason research papers were retracted, accounting for 16% of retractions.

Fake peer review was another reason why research papers were retracted.

Read the rest here (https://theconversation.com/the-publish-or-perish-mentality-is-fuelling-research-paper-retractions-and-undermining-science-238983)
The statement......."The number of retractions is growing by 23% each year" may be misleading. Because the number of submissions MAY be INCREASING each year. And it is likely that they are increasing because as the Article said, " it is a publish or perish environment. Also, I see the idea that there are a lot of retractions as a GOOD, not bad situation. Meaning that the ones that get through the process have a stamp of approval.
......What the US should worry about is Chinese Universities producing MORE quality scientists than US Universities. In the US the "best and brightest" students go into business with a goal of ending up on Wall Street. That happened about 1980. In the 50s, 60s and 70s
the best students went into Science and Engineering.

[Dgodin]

For those of you who "trust the media", "trust the experts", "trust the science" or "trust the government", or think data is unbiased or even consistently accurate:

Recent evidence indicates the constant pressure to generate data and publish papers may be affecting the quality of research and fueling retractions of research papers.

In the past decade, there have been more than 39,000 retractions, and the annual number of retractions is growing by around 23% each year.

Nearly half the retractions were due to issues related to the authenticity of the data.

Plagiarism was the second most common reason research papers were retracted, accounting for 16% of retractions.

Fake peer review was another reason why research papers were retracted.

Read the rest here (https://theconversation.com/the-publish-or-perish-mentality-is-fuelling-research-paper-retractions-and-undermining-science-238983)

A good dose of skepticism is required but i tend to be very wary of internet experts, whose articles are more likely to be based on false info.

[PugMom]

yet another reason to question everything

[LianneMigiano]

For those of you who "trust the media", "trust the experts", "trust the science" or "trust the government", or think data is unbiased or even consistently accurate:

Recent evidence indicates the constant pressure to generate data and publish papers may be affecting the quality of research and fueling retractions of research papers.

In the past decade, there have been more than 39,000 retractions, and the annual number of retractions is growing by around 23% each year.

Nearly half the retractions were due to issues related to the authenticity of the data.

Plagiarism was the second most common reason research papers were retracted, accounting for 16% of retractions.

Fake peer review was another reason why research papers were retracted.

Read the rest here (https://theconversation.com/the-publish-or-perish-mentality-is-fuelling-research-paper-retractions-and-undermining-science-238983)
Better than trusting the Internet or some of the television network faux news!

[jimjamuser]

The system isn't working if 39,000 papers had to be retracted. I'm assuming they didn't even catch all the fake news. This is a travesty of intellectualism.

The other day, the FBI came out with a report that violent crime was down. Except it didn't include crime stats from several large, dangerous cities that refused to report data. So they just left it out. Everyone who lives in a city knows crime is up, but they insist "the data" shows otherwise.

So why would you believe anything (climate change, crime, inflation, unemployment, drug trials, etc.) if time and again, the "experts" have straight up lied to your face?

Caveat Emptor neighbors.
As to the FBI report - let's say that Chicago and Philadelphia refuse to report violent crime. So, they get left OUT of the FBI report every year. That report will still be of value for evaluating the National TREND, which is the main point of the FBI report. The US as an entity is much greater than a FEW cities.
.......The last sentence seems to me to be an OVER-GENERALIZATION where many variable quantities are lumped together And I disagree with the conclusion that a person can't believe ANYTHING because the experts lie. That conclusion is too NEGATIVE for me. The whole FABRIC of society is BASED on trust. We depend on our established institutions to give us economic stability. To lose that TRUST is to stumble into an abyss of social uncertainty. We MUST guard AGAINST that !

[LianneMigiano]

The worst offender is faux news....

[fdpaq0580]

yet another reason to question everything

YES!. Question everything! Make sure you even have the waiter taste your food at every restaurant to make sure it isn't poisoned. (You did say "everything") 🙂

[jimjamuser]

It looks like the digital availability is making for more scrutiny. It makes me wonder if the older papers were just as bad.

I'd like to know what percentage of fake papers were on climate change.
In my opinion there are very few younger people looking for a permission slip to disbelieve Climate Change. Because young people have the most"skin in the game".

[jimjamuser]

In my opinion there are very few younger people looking for a permission slip to disbelieve Climate Change. Because young people have the most"skin in the game".

[jimjamuser]

Let's put this in perspective.

1) Assume that the number of 39,000 retractions is correct for the past 10 years. For 2022 the reported retractions was 6393.

2) A simple google search shows that 2-3 million articles are being published annually. I will take the number of 2.8 million for 2022 which was on the Science.org website. It is based on Scopus and Web of Science publication databases

Just a moment... (https://www.science.org/content/article/scienceadviser-scientists-are-publishing-too-many-papers-and-s-bad-science)

3) That means the number of retracted articles is about 0.23% of all the articles published in 2022.

While the growth in retracted papers is disturbing, the system is still working. Having worked in science all my life, I have come across people who publish false data. When it eventually comes to light, that person's reputation is, at the very least, diminished. If we are going to evaluate science, let's at least use the data correctly. How many other professions are as good?
That is what I was getting at. .23 of a per cent seems better than the 23 % quoted in the original post.

[kingofbeer]

For those of you who "trust the media", "trust the experts", "trust the science" or "trust the government", or think data is unbiased or even consistently accurate:

Recent evidence indicates the constant pressure to generate data and publish papers may be affecting the quality of research and fueling retractions of research papers.

In the past decade, there have been more than 39,000 retractions, and the annual number of retractions is growing by around 23% each year.

Nearly half the retractions were due to issues related to the authenticity of the data.

Plagiarism was the second most common reason research papers were retracted, accounting for 16% of retractions.

Fake peer review was another reason why research papers were retracted.

Read the rest here (https://theconversation.com/the-publish-or-perish-mentality-is-fuelling-research-paper-retractions-and-undermining-science-238983)
What does this have to do with "The Villages" ?

[Pugchief]

Nope, this is actually real. Climate "science" is part of the corruption. To be fair, it includes all areas of science.

Hurricane season in FL....

[Pugchief]

I got quite a laugh out of reading the initial posting in this thread. Why? Because it quotes figures from an unknown internet source. Anyone can make up numbers.

The original article has citations (links) for all of its statements.

[Pugchief]

......What the US should worry about is Chinese Universities producing MORE quality scientists than US Universities. In the US the "best and brightest" students go into business with a goal of ending up on Wall Street. That happened about 1980. In the 50s, 60s and 70s
the best students went into Science and Engineering.

Wow. I actually agree.

Did you notice that universities in China do not include any wokeness in their curriculums, and actually focus on real subjects?

[Pugchief]

A corrupt world based on lies and fraud is what you get when your "Golden Rule" is "The Ends Justifies The Means".

On the academic front, my son-in-law the Ag professor, was denied tenure a few years ago when he expressed skepticism that the current warming trend is due to a trace gas in the atmosphere. He foolishly imagined that academic freedom was a thing, and discovered that "settled science" says otherwise.

"It rubs the lotion into its skin. It does whatever it is told"

But, but, but someone on TOTV claims being objective instead of following the narrative doesn't get you fired....

[Pugchief]

So if abc/nbc/cnn/msnbc/cbs and any of the other fake news channels say the same thing, then it’s true? All these fake news outlets get together each day to come up with the “theme” or “word” of the day to bash a person. It’s funny, you can watch 10 mins of each of these outlets during the day and see what the common “theme”/“word” is and I know millions of people believe this garbage.

They won't ever admit it, but there can be no other explanation.

[Pugchief]

You are talking in generalizations --be specific! What research is in question, that would affect the population of the US and the world? Otherwise, I can't take your sense of alarm serious.

You're entirely missing the point. Too many people just blindly accept whatever they are told as truth. Everyone needs to do some critical thinking when "facts" don't pass the sniff test. Especially with constant proof that "trusted sources" are lying to you regularly, often for some agenda.

[Pugchief]

When we were in high school one of our best and most used life courses was Truth in Advertising, along with a civics class. Hopefully it is still being taught but looking at society now, I doubt it. Everyone should attempt to question data & do their own free thinking but without the conspiracy hoopla.

Another FAIL of the current public school system. Civics. The Constitution. Personal finance. Basic reading and math. Where has it gone?

[Pugchief]

As to the FBI report - let's say that Chicago and Philadelphia refuse to report violent crime. So, they get left OUT of the FBI report every year. That report will still be of value for evaluating the National TREND, which is the main point of the FBI report. The US as an entity is much greater than a FEW cities.
.......The last sentence seems to me to be an OVER-GENERALIZATION where many variable quantities are lumped together And I disagree with the conclusion that a person can't believe ANYTHING because the experts lie. That conclusion is too NEGATIVE for me. The whole FABRIC of society is BASED on trust. We depend on our established institutions to give us economic stability. To lose that TRUST is to stumble into an abyss of social uncertainty. We MUST guard AGAINST that !

No, if the conclusion being presented as fact purposely omits multiple critical data, then the entire premise is useless.

Society historically has been based on trust. But now there is enough information available rapidly to make it clear that much of what has been presented is not trustworthy.

[Pugchief]

What does this have to do with "The Villages" ?

The same thing as 90% of the threads on TOTV. Nothing.
That's why it is in the "Non Villages Discussion".

[AMB444]

Another FAIL of the current public school system. Civics. The Constitution. Personal finance. Basic reading and math. Where has it gone?

Also cursive writing. My kids can't read it. Why did they stop teaching it?

We were taught in high school that a proper article written by a journalist was a list of facts. Not opinion. Now you can't watch the news without getting 99% opinion from the news people.

[fdpaq0580]

No, if the conclusion being presented as fact purposely omits multiple critical data, then the entire premise is useless..

Depends on what the premise is. Ex: If premise is that the sea level is getting higher, one needs only data from multiple locations demonstrate the trend. Measurement of the depth of every square foot of ocean surface is not necessary. One who wants to argue the trend can always claim insufficient data, whether reasonable or not. Ask silly questions as red hearings. Claim data was , omg, "manipulated", when simply rounded up or down to a reasonable decimal point. And, who gets to decide what is critical to demonstrating a premise? The researcher? The ones requesting the research? Or some random guy /gal on totv? Just because, whatever it is, doesn't match one's own preferred narrative does not mean the demonstrated premise is "fake" or intended to mislead in any way.

[fdpaq0580]

Also cursive writing. My kids can't read it. Why did they stop teaching it?

We were taught in high school that a proper article written by a journalist was a list of facts. Not opinion. Now you can't watch the news without getting 99% opinion from the news people.

One guess is, computers can't read it. Block letters, yes, but not cursive. Vague, lettery shapes strung together to express non-digital thoughts or feelings. When AI robots take over and the terminators come after us, cursive (artistic) writing may be our only weapon to defeat our human created overlords. Make a good story/movie. Remember, your heard it here first.������������������������������

[fdpaq0580]

They won't ever admit it, but there can be no other explanation.

I can think of several. I'm just a little bit surprised you can't, too. Or, maybe you can but 🤐
No matter. 🫠

[biker1]

Computers can read cursive via trained neural networks. Perhaps not 100% reliably.

One guess is, computers can't read it. Block letters, yes, but not cursive. Vague, lettery shapes strung together to express non-digital thoughts or feelings. When AI robots take over and the terminators come after us, cursive (artistic) writing may be our only weapon to defeat our human created overlords. Make a good story/movie. Remember, your heard it here first.��������������� ����������������

[AMB444]

When AI robots take over and the terminators come after us, cursive (artistic) writing may be our only weapon to defeat our human created overlords. Make a good story/movie. Remember, your heard it here first.��������������� ����������������

:clap2: Lol!

Search for a list of historical documents written in cursive.

[NoMoSno]

One guess is, computers can't read it. Block letters, yes, but not cursive. Vague, lettery shapes strung together to express non-digital thoughts or feelings. When AI robots take over and the terminators come after us, cursive (artistic) writing may be our only weapon to defeat our human created overlords. Make a good story/movie. Remember, your heard it here first.��������������� ����������������
The PO reads millions of cursive addresses daily using computer scanners.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

You use critical thinking skills for reasonableness. Otherwise, you’ll believe in nothing and that destroys a society. No matter what in life there are mistakes. Rarely perfection. You don’t base your beliefs on one person, one article, one of anything. You read a lot on the subject from many sources and usually the similarities between them all give you a reasonable truth.

Not entirely accurate, and can create an agenda-driven narrative that you believe, because "many" sources are telling you the same thing.

The critical thinking part of your comment is THE #1 most important part. That's what helps you figure out what to look for in the first place.

Example

Non-critical-thinking person wants to know if the rumor he heard about vaccines is true. He runs a search for "vaccine hoax"

And of course he will end up with pages of search results that insist vaccines are a hoax. That's because - that is what he asked for.

Critical-thinking person wants to get more information about the same thing. He runs a search for "vaccines medicine science"

and finds a plethora of returns on a vast array of sub-topics about vaccines, some of which will say it's a hoax, some of which will say it's legit. He'll completely discount any result that doesn't come from an actual medical source, and check at LEAST the summaries of the first dozen that are left. If there's a term he doesn't understand or hasn't ever heard before, he'll run a search on that term and learn what he can about it.

He'll then read thoroughly some more actual medical sourced results, and check THEIR bibliographies and footnotes. He'll dive deep into the medical rabbit hole to find as many facts as he can about it

And THEN he'll conclude that no, the rumor is false, or yes, the rumor is true.

[Windguy]

I don't think you should trust anyone! Doctors, lawyers, politicians, teachers, researchers ... nobody! Not even your pets. They aren't "kissing" you, they are tasting you. 😉 Just saying! 😏
You forgot to mention the con artists who claim to speak for their god.

[Pugchief]

Depends on what the premise is. Ex: If premise is that the sea level is getting higher, one needs only data from multiple locations demonstrate the trend. Measurement of the depth of every square foot of ocean surface is not necessary. One who wants to argue the trend can always claim insufficient data, whether reasonable or not. Ask silly questions as red hearings. Claim data was , omg, "manipulated", when simply rounded up or down to a reasonable decimal point. And, who gets to decide what is critical to demonstrating a premise? The researcher? The ones requesting the research? Or some random guy /gal on totv? Just because, whatever it is, doesn't match one's own preferred narrative does not mean the demonstrated premise is "fake" or intended to mislead in any way.

Huh? Okay, so we are doing a study on US crime. Up or down? Well, it would make us look bad if we told the truth, so let's use data that excludes major crime centers. Voila! Crime is down! We weren't trying to mislead you! Same with the fake jobs report that keeps getting revised down by several hundred thousand every single time. No misleading, just made an honest mistake!

So tell me, did we only need data from zip codes 32159, 32162 and 32163 to prove crime is down? I mean, that's several data points.

Sorry, your argument is not convincing.

[Pugchief]

I can think of several. I'm just a little bit surprised you can't, too. Or, maybe you can but 🤐
No matter. 🫠

Do tell...

[AMB444]

Huh? Okay, so we are doing a study on US crime. Up or down? Well, it would make us look bad if we told the truth, so let's use data that excludes major crime centers. Voila! Crime is down!.

Or does include major crime cities but those cities don't respond to 911 calls. And if they do... don't arrest anyone. Catch and release. Search "violence interrupters".

With cops down and shootings up, Minneapolis residents frustrated by police inaction • Minnesota Reformer (https://minnesotareformer.com/2021/11/09/with-cops-down-and-shootings-up-minneapolis-residents-frustrated-by-police-inaction/)

[golfing eagles]

It looks like the digital availability is making for more scrutiny. It makes me wonder if the older papers were just as bad.

I'd like to know what percentage of fake papers were on climate change.

About 100%. Let me rephrase: 99% of global warming papers are fake. The only truly accurate papers are those that show global warming is cyclical and has nothing to do with human activity

[jimbomaybe]

As to the FBI report - let's say that Chicago and Philadelphia refuse to report violent crime. So, they get left OUT of the FBI report every year. That report will still be of value for evaluating the National TREND, which is the main point of the FBI report. The US as an entity is much greater than a FEW cities.
.......The last sentence seems to me to be an OVER-GENERALIZATION where many variable quantities are lumped together And I disagree with the conclusion that a person can't believe ANYTHING because the experts lie. That conclusion is too NEGATIVE for me. The whole FABRIC of society is BASED on trust. We depend on our established institutions to give us economic stability. To lose that TRUST is to stumble into an abyss of social uncertainty. We MUST guard AGAINST that !

Its a matter of critical thinking, "let's say that Chicago and Philadelphia refuse to report violent crime. So, they get left OUT of the FBI report every year. That report will still be of value for evaluating the National TREND, which is the main point of the FBI report. The US as an entity is much greater than a FEW cities." only IF that has been the practice in the past. Electroshock therapy , prefrontal lobotomy were seen by intuitions as a new froward thinking opportunity for those with phycological problems, and so it continues

[CybrSage]

Let's put this in perspective.

1) Assume that the number of 39,000 retractions is correct for the past 10 years. For 2022 the reported retractions was 6393.

2) A simple google search shows that 2-3 million articles are being published annually. I will take the number of 2.8 million for 2022 which was on the Science.org website. It is based on Scopus and Web of Science publication databases

Just a moment... (https://www.science.org/content/article/scienceadviser-scientists-are-publishing-too-many-papers-and-s-bad-science)

3) That means the number of retracted articles is about 0.23% of all the articles published in 2022.

While the growth in retracted papers is disturbing, the system is still working. Having worked in science all my life, I have come across people who publish false data. When it eventually comes to light, that person's reputation is, at the very least, diminished. If we are going to evaluate science, let's at least use the data correctly. How many other professions are as good?

11,300 of the retractions were for only two branches of science, not all of them.

If we are going to evaluate science, let's at least use the data correctly.

[CybrSage]

The worst offender is faux news....

Not in the slightest. CNN had to settle a $200 million lawsuit out of court due to purposefully altering a video to try and destroy the life of a child due to that child holding a political view CNN does not agree with.

Blaming one side only when both sides are guilty is why we re in the mess we are today.

Be better

[CybrSage]

You forgot to mention the con artists who claim to speak for their god.

And don't forget the con artists who call people who speak for their god con artists.

[dtennent]

11,300 of the retractions were for only two branches of science, not all of them.

If we are going to evaluate science, let's at least use the data correctly.
And in the first point, I said “Assume….” Not that I believed the number. My point is that retractions are a tiny percentage of all papers published. Given the resources at hand, I didn’t think I could come up with an accurate number of the actual retractions in a relatively short period of time.

[CybrSage]

Its a matter of critical thinking, "let's say that Chicago and Philadelphia refuse to report violent crime. So, they get left OUT of the FBI report every year. That report will still be of value for evaluating the National TREND, which is the main point of the FBI report. The US as an entity is much greater than a FEW cities." only IF that has been the practice in the past. Electroshock therapy , prefrontal lobotomy were seen by intuitions as a new froward thinking opportunity for those with phycological problems, and so it continues

Incorrect. In 2021, the FBI stopped accepting submissions from the old collectiin system and only used the new collection system. That year, it lost roughly 30% of the data it normally received. The FabI itself said no trend could be reported due to this.

Anyone who used the data from 2021 forward would present false trends. As an example, the FBI later went back and gathered data about hate crimes from the old system and added that info and discovered they went up by 21% from 2020 to 2021 rather than going down like the incomplete data showed.

Police departments are still transitioning to the new system,so all trends report led are still using incomplete data. Any trends shown are useless and those reporting them know this. They also know most people do not.

Both sides of the aisle are taking advantage of this to sell lies.

EDIT: as an aside, it took me longer to type this post than it did to find the info contained in it.

[CybrSage]

And in the first point, I said “Assume….” Not that I believed the number. My point is that retractions are a tiny percentage of all papers published. Given the resources at hand, I didn’t think I could come up with an accurate number of the actual retractions in a relatively short period of time.

Assuming a false premise creates a logically unsound argument.

[fdpaq0580]

You forgot to mention the con artists who claim to speak for their god.

That goes without saying. God, if he/she/it/they exist, created the entire universe and everyone and everything in it without one single monetary contribution. Imagine that! 🫠

[fdpaq0580]

And don't forget the con artists who call people who speak for their god con artists.

Fruit ripe for the picking.

[spd2918]

Hurricane season in FL....

Everything is climate change according to the true believers. It's a cult.

[Sandabern]

I used to work for a well known "research hospital". They used to go around and "brag" about the fact that you could pretty much get the results you wanted from their research "based upon the extent of testing". As long as the grant money was sufficient, the test results would come out just fine. It wasn't even hidden and used as marketing for grant money/donations.

For those of you who "trust the media", "trust the experts", "trust the science" or "trust the government", or think data is unbiased or even consistently accurate:

Recent evidence indicates the constant pressure to generate data and publish papers may be affecting the quality of research and fueling retractions of research papers.

In the past decade, there have been more than 39,000 retractions, and the annual number of retractions is growing by around 23% each year.

Nearly half the retractions were due to issues related to the authenticity of the data.

Plagiarism was the second most common reason research papers were retracted, accounting for 16% of retractions.

Fake peer review was another reason why research papers were retracted.

Read the rest here (https://theconversation.com/the-publish-or-perish-mentality-is-fuelling-research-paper-retractions-and-undermining-science-238983)

[Sandabern]

Nichols reporting on fraud is like Al Capone reporting on money laundering. Whenever he's questioned on anything, he runs, hides or deflects.
Talked with a PhD friend who used to teach at UMASS undergraduates.
He has no desire to read and grade papers anymore, and professors who do grade papers, have to trick the students to catch them using AI. and then run them through plagarism software.

There is a book about this, "The Death of Expertise", by Tom Nichols, a former US Naval war school professor and legislative aid.

And the world keeps moving forward somehow!

[fdpaq0580]

About 100%. Let me rephrase: 99% of global warming papers are fake. The only truly accurate papers are those that show global warming is cyclical and has nothing to do with human activity

Oh, look! A family of cheetahs! 😃

[jimjamuser]

Huh? Okay, so we are doing a study on US crime. Up or down? Well, it would make us look bad if we told the truth, so let's use data that excludes major crime centers. Voila! Crime is down! We weren't trying to mislead you! Same with the fake jobs report that keeps getting revised down by several hundred thousand every single time. No misleading, just made an honest mistake!

So tell me, did we only need data from zip codes 32159, 32162 and 32163 to prove crime is down? I mean, that's several data points.

Sorry, your argument is not convincing.
It is said that, "the TREND is your FRIEND". Whether one data point about jobs is revised up or down is REALLY NOT important. What IS important is the TREND. The same is true when discussing US CRIME.The SAME FEW cities that do not report each time will NOT affect the TREND. Just look at a graph of the total US crime over TIME and see if the US is succeeding or failing to protect its citizens. I believe that crime per capita is FALLING today.

[fdpaq0580]

Huh? Okay, so we are doing a study on US crime. Up or down? Well, it would make us look bad if we told the truth, so let's use data that excludes major crime centers. Voila! Crime is down! We weren't trying to mislead you! Same with the fake jobs report that keeps getting revised down by several hundred thousand every single time. No misleading, just made an honest mistake!

So tell me, did we only need data from zip codes 32159, 32162 and 32163 to prove crime is down? I mean, that's several data points.

Sorry, your argument is not convincing.

I fear you are being intentionally obtuse!

[jimjamuser]

About 100%. Let me rephrase: 99% of global warming papers are fake. The only truly accurate papers are those that show global warming is cyclical and has nothing to do with human activity
It sounds like North Minneapolis would be a terrible place to live. Makes you glad that you live in The Villages. They might need to form a residents association to patrol the streets or seek help from the State. Police are too important to ANY community to allow them to engage in "stand down" tactics.

[Pugchief]

Its a matter of critical thinking, "let's say that Chicago and Philadelphia refuse to report violent crime. So, they get left OUT of the FBI report every year. That report will still be of value for evaluating the National TREND, which is the main point of the FBI report. The US as an entity is much greater than a FEW cities." only IF that has been the practice in the past. Electroshock therapy , prefrontal lobotomy were seen by intuitions as a new froward thinking opportunity for those with phycological problems, and so it continues

LOL, no. If the previous data included ALL cities, and the you take out some cities, the trend is not real. You have to compare ALL cities in the baseline year to ALL cities in the comparison year to actually see the true trend. Which they didn't do.

And to make matters worse, the police aren't responding to as many calls or making as many arrests due to pressure from above. Then prosecutors aren't filing the same degree of charges on rare occasions when they actually prosecute. All leading to more fake comparisons over given time frames.

[jimjamuser]

About 100%. Let me rephrase: 99% of global warming papers are fake. The only truly accurate papers are those that show global warming is cyclical and has nothing to do with human activity
Sorry that my response about Minneapolis went to the wrong poster. As far as Global Warming goes we just had a Cat 4 hurricane hit Tallahassee. It set an all-time record for rapid intensification and the strongest ever to hit Tallahassee. This is because the Gulf waters are very HOT, maybe also an all time record for Sept. Global Warming is proved, not just by strong hurricanes, but by actual temperature measurement. They show increasing warming for the recent time period starting about 30 years ago and getting HOTTER worldwide each year. We are NOT out of the Hurricane Season yet. And next year will likely be even HOTTER.
.......There are 22 deaths attributed to Hurricane Helene as of right now.

[bp243]

For those of you who "trust the media", "trust the experts", "trust the science" or "trust the government", or think data is unbiased or even consistently accurate:

Recent evidence indicates the constant pressure to generate data and publish papers may be affecting the quality of research and fueling retractions of research papers.

In the past decade, there have been more than 39,000 retractions, and the annual number of retractions is growing by around 23% each year.

Nearly half the retractions were due to issues related to the authenticity of the data.

Plagiarism was the second most common reason research papers were retracted, accounting for 16% of retractions.

Fake peer review was another reason why research papers were retracted.

Read the rest here (https://theconversation.com/the-publish-or-perish-mentality-is-fuelling-research-paper-retractions-and-undermining-science-238983)

Herein lies the issue. Everyone who questions the validity of a study or someone’s hypothesis needs to dig deeper, particularly if you’re going to use that information to make a decision for yourself. Some studies are flawed as many have pointed out here, but it takes time to figure out why. Evaluative thinking should be our own responsibility and it’s one of the reasons why we have the luxury of exercising our brains.

[Pugchief]

Incorrect. In 2021, the FBI stopped accepting submissions from the old collectiin system and only used the new collection system. That year, it lost roughly 30% of the data it normally received. The FabI itself said no trend could be reported due to this.

Anyone who used the data from 2021 forward would present false trends. As an example, the FBI later went back and gathered data about hate crimes from the old system and added that info and discovered they went up by 21% from 2020 to 2021 rather than going down like the incomplete data showed.

Police departments are still transitioning to the new system,so all trends report led are still using incomplete data. Any trends shown are useless and those reporting them know this. They also know most people do not.

Both sides of the aisle are taking advantage of this to sell lies.

EDIT: as an aside, it took me longer to type this post than it did to find the info contained in it.

3 years later and they're still transitioning? LOL, believe any narrative you want, but people who live in cities are complaining it's not as safe.

[CybrSage]

It is said that, "the TREND is your FRIEND". Whether one data point about jobs is revised up or down is REALLY NOT important. What IS important is the TREND. The same is true when discussing US CRIME.The SAME FEW cities that do not report each time will NOT affect the TREND. Just look at a graph of the total US crime over TIME and see if the US is succeeding or failing to protect its citizens. I believe that crime per capita is FALLING today.

Not true, the FBi stopped collecting data from the old reporting system in 2021. The cities not reporting are still using the old system.

The various police forces are only moving to the new system, slowing increasing the data used.

There is no valid trend data available from 2021 onward, not until they all start using the new system.

Google exists, you should try it. It took me longer to type this I do than it took me to find it.

[CybrSage]

3 years later and they're still transitioning? LOL, believe any narrative you want, but people who live in cities are complaining it's not as safe.

This info is directly from the FBI itself, the same people gathering and then reporting the data.

It is easy to believe the many police districts in NYC aline are not yet transitioned, considering all the "define the police" cries there have been.

You choosing to not believe the truth is a you issue.

[Pugchief]

It is said that, "the TREND is your FRIEND". Whether one data point about jobs is revised up or down is REALLY NOT important. What IS important is the TREND. The same is true when discussing US CRIME.The SAME FEW cities that do not report each time will NOT affect the TREND. Just look at a graph of the total US crime over TIME and see if the US is succeeding or failing to protect its citizens. I believe that crime per capita is FALLING today.

The trend is only a trend if comparable data points are used between time frames for measurement. See my post #97.

[CybrSage]

Sorry that my response about Minneapolis went to the wrong poster. As far as Global Warming goes we just had a Cat 4 hurricane hit Tallahassee. It set an all-time record for rapid intensification and the strongest ever to hit Tallahassee. This is because the Gulf waters are very HOT, maybe also an all time record for Sept. Global Warming is proved, not just by strong hurricanes, but by actual temperature measurement. They show increasing warming for the recent time period starting about 30 years ago and getting HOTTER worldwide each year. We are NOT out of the Hurricane Season yet. And next year will likely be even HOTTER.
.......There are 22 deaths attributed to Hurricane Helene as of right now.

The rise in global temps would be happening regardless of human activity. The Milkanovitch Cycles show this clearly. We can expect more warming by nature alone.

[jimjamuser]

Everything is climate change according to the true believers. It's a cult.
As far as a "cult" goes it is those that deny science that are in a CULT.

[spd2918]

As far as a "cult" goes it is those that deny science that are in a CULT.

When your science is politicized it is no longer valid. When your science is propped up by governments seeking new taxes it is no longer valid. When the media only reports science items favorable to the lie it is no longer exists.

And, as we see in this thread, when research papers are falsified to continue funding it is no longer valid.

[jimjamuser]

I used to work for a well known "research hospital". They used to go around and "brag" about the fact that you could pretty much get the results you wanted from their research "based upon the extent of testing". As long as the grant money was sufficient, the test results would come out just fine. It wasn't even hidden and used as marketing for grant money/donations.
No system is perfect and free from people that want to "play or USE" the system. But, if a system is well designed and tested for flaws, it can produce worthwhile results.

[jimjamuser]

Oh, look! A family of cheetahs! 😃
Oh no, they are going to scratch up the golf course.

[jimjamuser]

3 years later and they're still transitioning? LOL, believe any narrative you want, but people who live in cities are complaining it's not as safe.
"People who live in cities are claiming that it is not as safe". I could complain that in the street that I live at in The Villages - cars, trucks, and golf carts are going by at about DOUBLE the speed limit. Some golf carts are exceeding 30 MPH. I have NEVER, in over 10 years, seen a traffic stop by Police. About 30 % of the golf carts go by at 20 MPH and 70% exceed that.

[jimjamuser]

The rise in global temps would be happening regardless of human activity. The Milkanovitch Cycles show this clearly. We can expect more warming by nature alone.
Well in THAT case, we better ALL contact California and tell them NOT to bother requiring automobiles to be ELECTRIC after a certain year. It is those WASSKALLY Milkanovitchy twitchy cycles causing ALL our Global heating problems.........who knew ?????

[jimjamuser]

When your science is politicized it is no longer valid. When your science is propped up by governments seeking new taxes it is no longer valid. When the media only reports science items favorable to the lie it is no longer exists.

And, as we see in this thread, when research papers are falsified to continue funding it is no longer valid.
Scientists go out of their way to NOT be affected by Politics. They are the most apolitical part of our society. As far as "governments seeking new taxes" goes it is hard for me to conceptualize ANY government NOT seeking new taxes. Should we still be taxing horse and buggies and NOT taxing automobiles because they are newer? Should we NEVER tax A.I. or Tik Tok because they are NEW?????
......I don't understand?

[Bill14564]

When your science is politicized it is no longer valid. When your science is propped up by governments seeking new taxes it is no longer valid. When the media only reports science items favorable to the lie it is no longer exists.

And, as we see in this thread, when research papers are falsified to continue funding it is no longer valid.

I have no skin in this one as I operate on my own observations/experiences. That said...

Couldnt your last sentence describe....for example, cancer research? Which ‘evolves’ on a daily basis. Slippery slope

When those that don't like the outcome determine that science is politicized or propped up by governments or only selectively reported by the media they don't agree with, then you have a cult.

Science learns and grows. What was understood to be a treatment or a cure for a disease at one point may be later shown to have no real connection. Long term research into something like cancer will likely have reached many dead ends while pursuing what looked like promising results; that's just the way science works. Unfortunately, that doesn't meet the standards of the cult's skepticism and 20/20 hindsight.

it would be interesting to know how many of those papers flagged by AI or some other algorithm as having potential plagiarism or an objectionable email address or an international connection were 1. guilty of the accusation; and 2. inaccurate/wrong. While a plagiarized paper doesn't add to the body of science and never should have been published, its results may be just as accurate as the papers it copied.

[Bill14564]

Confused, since you packaged my post with someone else’s. My post was...in much less verbiage, was in the same spirit as yours. Thus the ‘slippery slope’ comment. But it is almost Halloween , and if cult is the theme, gotta find my purple shroud and purple Nike’s!

Sorry, I was attempting to agree. Science is criticized when it doesn't come up with the right answer the first time and very quickly. It gets accused of being wrong, slow, biased, etc. However, the right answer the first time doesn't always happen and for no nefarious reasons. You had a good example with cancer research - better and closer all the time but not there yet.

[Pugchief]

"People who live in cities are claiming that it is not as safe". I could complain that in the street that I live at in The Villages - cars, trucks, and golf carts are going by at about DOUBLE the speed limit. Some golf carts are exceeding 30 MPH. I have NEVER, in over 10 years, seen a traffic stop by Police. About 30 % of the golf carts go by at 20 MPH and 70% exceed that.

And your point is what? Yes, some Villagers have their golf carts rigged to exceed 20mph. No one argues that fact, it's accepted. Feel free to complain. But just like that reality, crime is way up, but certain forces want you to believe otherwise, based on cooked data.

[Pugchief]

"People who live in cities are claiming that it is not as safe". I could complain that in the street that I live at in The Villages - cars, trucks, and golf carts are going by at about DOUBLE the speed limit. Some golf carts are exceeding 30 MPH. I have NEVER, in over 10 years, seen a traffic stop by Police. About 30 % of the golf carts go by at 20 MPH and 70% exceed that.

Also, math says that double the speed limit (20 mph) would be 40. But you say the speeders are going 30. More fake data. :rolleyes:

[Pugchief]

Scientists go out of their way to NOT be affected by Politics. They are the most apolitical part of our society.

Not just false, but the opposite of reality.

[fdpaq0580]

The rise in global temps would be happening regardless of human activity. The Milkanovitch Cycles show this clearly. We can expect more warming by nature alone.

Agree that Earth would be warming on its own, but not this quickly. It is human activity in total that has kicked the warming into overdrive. We can expect more warming, but it won't be by mother nature alone.

[jmpate]

I take most "research" with a hand of salt bc their data is neither "valid nor reliable;" two terms that measure accurate (reliable and valid) data. I become most incensed when the research involves clinical/medical treatments bc patients' lives and their well being are affected.

[fdpaq0580]

Sorry, I was attempting to agree. Science is criticized when it doesn't come up with the right answer the first time and very quickly. It gets accused of being wrong, slow, biased, etc. However, the right answer the first time doesn't always happen and for no nefarious reasons. You had a good example with cancer research - better and closer all the time but not there yet.

Science is bunk! Bring back blood letting, leeches and voodoo! 👹👹👹 (I hope you realize this is a joke!

[fdpaq0580]

Oh no, they are going to scratch up the golf course.

I was attempting to get golfing eagles mind back on his African trip. 😀😄☺️

[fdpaq0580]

Also, math says that double the speed limit (20 mph) would be 40. But you say the speeders are going 30. More fake data. :rolleyes:

What about the cars and trucks? 50+ on some stretches, particularly on BV and Morse Blvd. Let's just say that exceeding the speed limits by 50% is very common.

[fdpaq0580]

Also, math says that double the speed limit (20 mph) would be 40. But you say the speeders are going 30. More fake data. :rolleyes:

A statement exaggerated to make a point is simply that, an exaggerated statement. Not "data", real or fake. And not presented as data. Jmho. 🫠

[dtennent]

11,300 of the retractions were for only two branches of science, not all of them.

If we are going to evaluate science, let's at least use the data correctly.
Let’s see. You say that 11,300 were from 2 branches is science without any reference on your part. It is not logical that we should believe you.

[justjim]

So if abc/nbc/cnn/msnbc/cbs and any of the other fake news channels say the same thing, then it’s true? All these fake news outlets get together each day to come up with the “theme” or “word” of the day to bash a person. It’s funny, you can watch 10 mins of each of these outlets during the day and see what the common “theme”/“word” is and I know millions of people believe this garbage.

I’m not sure what these news media you mention as fake news have to do with this thread but they do have much to do with having a free press necessary for a democracy and protected by the First Amendment. A conspiracy theory between the networks, really.

For over 50 years I have listened/watched the evening news (6:30 ET) on different news channels (ABC, NBC, CBS). I see nothing fake about them. Sometimes I watch PBS. I believe the news is presented as accurate and fairly as possible by men and women who are there to let us know what is happening across the United States and around the World. Every effort is made to get information correct but a rare mistake is always possible. Reporters sometimes are in “harms way” as they report from dangerous places around the globe. We are a fortunate people to have a free press unlike many other authoritarian dictatorships.

That said, CNN, Fox and other cable news are biased in their reporting and opinionated in their views. Social media is definitely not the best source of accurate information. However, they too are protected by the First Amendment.

[Taltarzac725]

I’m not sure what these news media you mention as fake news have to do with this thread but they do have much to do with having a free press necessary for a democracy and protected by the First Amendment. A conspiracy theory between the networks, really.

For over 50 years I have listened/watched the evening news (6:30 ET) on different news channels (ABC, NBC, CBS). I see nothing fake about them. Sometimes I watch PBS. I believe the news is presented as accurate and fairly as possible by men and women who are there to let us know what is happening across the United States and around the World. Every effort is made to get information correct but a rare mistake is always possible. Reporters sometimes are in “harms way” as they report from dangerous places around the globe. We are a fortunate people to have a free press unlike many other authoritarian dictatorships.

That said, CNN, Fox and other cable news are biased in their reporting and opinionated in their views. Social media is definitely not the best source of accurate information. However, they too are protected by the First Amendment.

Fox "News" is entertainment not news. CNN has a slight skew but does stick to the facts but does have a lot of people turn in their opinions of those facts. Often CNN has a rather dart board like guest for the other commentators to skewer.

[AMB444]

Science is bunk! Bring back blood letting, leeches

I understand what your saying and don't disagree....but blood letting was actually beneficial for some health conditions. I'm just sayin'..... :duck:

[jimbomaybe]

LOL, no. If the previous data included ALL cities, and the you take out some cities, the trend is not real. You have to compare ALL cities in the baseline year to ALL cities in the comparison year to actually see the true trend. Which they didn't do.

And to make matters worse, the police aren't responding to as many calls or making as many arrests due to pressure from above. Then prosecutors aren't filing the same degree of charges on rare occasions when they actually prosecute. All leading to more fake comparisons over given time frames.

You are right, I did not make the point I intended vary well, if you accept the FBI data as accurate and then the base data used is modified, it calls into question its reliability, I put an "IF " in there and should have expanded on that , my bad

[fdpaq0580]

I understand what your saying and don't disagree....but blood letting was actually beneficial for some health conditions. I'm just sayin'..... :duck:

And leeches, too. But science moves forward with newer and better results, while occasionally finding new uses for old treatments. Science and scientists are (for the most part) our friends.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Fox "News" is entertainment not news. CNN has a slight skew but does stick to the facts but does have a lot of people turn in their opinions of those facts. Often CNN has a rather dart board like guest for the other commentators to skewer.

I sometimes feel like y'all are living in an alternate reality.

Do people not know the difference between "the news" and "a news show?" We all grew up before there was cable, before social media, before the internet was available to everyone who owned a cell phone - before cell phones, before desktop computers.

Unless the majority of this forum membership is experiencing a collective dementia, you should ALL remember what "the news" means, as compared to "news shows." You should all know the difference between the two, and how to tell which is which.

So why are people referring to CNN - which is a NETWORK, as "fake news" or "slightly biased" ?

Here's a reminder:

News: A building burned down yesterday. There were 20 survivors, 1 injured and in the hospital, 1 fatality. Firefighters arrived 4 minutes after the first call to 911 reported the fire. The building was rendered uninhabitable. Details are as yet unavailable as to the cause.

News SHOW: Three Green-Pack gang members were seen one block away from the fire that broke out, and some residents are pointing fingers at them. They're saying it's a gang-related arson, and the fatality was a planned hit.

Other News SHOW: Johnny Blue, of the Blue-Pack gang, has been claiming the Green-Pack gang infiltrated his headquarters in the building, trying to plant drugs to get him arrested. But it is known that Blue has been arrested 19 times for drug related crimes and has himself been in and out of rehab since he was 12 years old.

[fdpaq0580]

I sometimes feel like y'all are living in an alternate reality.

Do people not know the difference between "the news" and "a news show?" We all grew up before there was cable, before social media, before the internet was available to everyone who owned a cell phone - before cell phones, before desktop computers.

Unless the majority of this forum membership is experiencing a collective dementia, you should ALL remember what "the news" means, as compared to "news shows." You should all know the difference between the two, and how to tell which is which.

So why are people referring to CNN - which is a NETWORK, as "fake news" or "slightly biased" ?

Here's a reminder:

News: A building burned down yesterday. There were 20 survivors, 1 injured and in the hospital, 1 fatality. Firefighters arrived 4 minutes after the first call to 911 reported the fire. The building was rendered uninhabitable. Details are as yet unavailable as to the cause.

News SHOW: Three Green-Pack gang members were seen one block away from the fire that broke out, and some residents are pointing fingers at them. They're saying it's a gang-related arson, and the fatality was a planned hit.

Other News SHOW: Johnny Blue, of the Blue-Pack gang, has been claiming the Green-Pack gang infiltrated his headquarters in the building, trying to plant drugs to get him arrested. But it is known that Blue has been arrested 19 times for drug related crimes and has himself been in and out of rehab since he was 12 years old.

Sure glad I'm not Johnny Blue! 😒

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

When your science is politicized it is no longer valid. When your science is propped up by governments seeking new taxes it is no longer valid. When the media only reports science items favorable to the lie it is no longer exists.

And, as we see in this thread, when research papers are falsified to continue funding it is no longer valid.

So - if science teaches us that the earth is spherical, AND the Purple Political Party says that's why you need to vote for the Purple Candidate - then that science is no longer valid, and the earth ceases to be spherical?

I think maybe you're not understanding the point of science.

Science is science, whether you politicize it or not. The science only changes with new information comes in to alter the conclusions. It doesn't matter who backs the science, or who is using it for what purpose.

[fdpaq0580]

It doesn't matter who backs the science, or who is using it for what purpose.

Hans! Discover a more powerful weapon to exschplode zee Englanders! 🤯🥸 Ya, mein herring.

Doesn't matter? Not to science, maybe. But to people, in certain cases it might. 🤔

[Pugchief]

A statement exaggerated to make a point is simply that, an exaggerated statement. Not "data", real or fake. And not presented as data. Jmho. 🫠

[/sarcasm]

[Pugchief]

Fox "News" is entertainment not news.
Fox is the same as ABC CBS NBC CNN and especially MSNBC: Opinion bordering on propaganda.

CNN has a slight skew
LOL, hope you don't actually believe that....

[Pugchief]

I sometimes feel like y'all are living in an alternate reality.

Do people not know the difference between "the news" and "a news show?" We all grew up before there was cable, before social media, before the internet was available to everyone who owned a cell phone - before cell phones, before desktop computers.

Unless the majority of this forum membership is experiencing a collective dementia, you should ALL remember what "the news" means, as compared to "news shows." You should all know the difference between the two, and how to tell which is which.

So why are people referring to CNN - which is a NETWORK, as "fake news" or "slightly biased" ?

Here's a reminder:

News: A building burned down yesterday. There were 20 survivors, 1 injured and in the hospital, 1 fatality. Firefighters arrived 4 minutes after the first call to 911 reported the fire. The building was rendered uninhabitable. Details are as yet unavailable as to the cause.

News SHOW: Three Green-Pack gang members were seen one block away from the fire that broke out, and some residents are pointing fingers at them. They're saying it's a gang-related arson, and the fatality was a planned hit.

Other News SHOW: Johnny Blue, of the Blue-Pack gang, has been claiming the Green-Pack gang infiltrated his headquarters in the building, trying to plant drugs to get him arrested. But it is known that Blue has been arrested 19 times for drug related crimes and has himself been in and out of rehab since he was 12 years old.

Your point is valid, but you didn't carry the opinionizing far enough in the "show" examples. The reality is way worse.

[Pugchief]

So - if science teaches us that the earth is spherical, AND the Purple Political Party says that's why you need to vote for the Purple Candidate - then that science is no longer valid, and the earth ceases to be spherical?

I think maybe you're not understanding the point of science.

Science is science, whether you politicize it or not. The science only changes with new information comes in to alter the conclusions. It doesn't matter who backs the science, or who is using it for what purpose.

Science ceases to become science when the researchers are pressured to conclude a specific predetermined outcome, which is essentially politicization.

[fdpaq0580]

Science ceases to become science when the researchers are pressured to conclude a specific predetermined outcome, which is essentially politicization.

The actual scientific result should be the same, but altering the facts or claiming a false result is telling an untruth. 2+2=4. True. Pressure to claim the result is other than 4 would be an untruth, dishonest, dishonorable, misrepresentation, lying, etc.
Note. There are some clever people that can through up a lot of fancy equations that erroneously show the answer to be other than 4, but they are doing mathematical 3 card monte. Like the wise man once said, "figures don't lie, but liars can figure".

[ndf888]

For those of you who "trust the media", "trust the experts", "trust the science" or "trust the government", or think data is unbiased or even consistently accurate:

Recent evidence indicates the constant pressure to generate data and publish papers may be affecting the quality of research and fueling retractions of research papers.

In the past decade, there have been more than 39,000 retractions, and the annual number of retractions is growing by around 23% each year.

Nearly half the retractions were due to issues related to the authenticity of the data.

Plagiarism was the second most common reason research papers were retracted, accounting for 16% of retractions.

Fake peer review was another reason why research papers were retracted.

Read the rest here (https://theconversation.com/the-publish-or-perish-mentality-is-fuelling-research-paper-retractions-and-undermining-science-238983)

Your interpretation is highly misleading because the number of retracted papers represent a tiny fraction of the total number. E.g., in 2022, only 0.2% papers were retracted. Or approximately 10,000 out of 5,000,000 papers.

Most of the retracted papers are published by researchers in non-western countries. Among countries, Saudi Arabia has the highest retraction rate, of 30 per 10,000 articles. I seriously doubt that many NIH-funded studies published in reputable journals get retracted. I’ve seen a few but there’re extremely rare.

The reason for the increase is the use of more sophisticated ai-based software to catch inconsistencies and plagiarism.

You can find more information here, but you may have to pay to access it: More than 10,000 research papers were retracted in 2023 — a new record (https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-03974-8#:~:text=In%202022%2C%20it%20exceeded%200.2,retra ctions%20based%20on%20conference%20papers).

[ThirdOfFive]

The Torah, however, is unchanged. It is, word for word, exactly as it was when someone first wrote it. While scholars and archeologists debate when exactly that was, the general consensus is that it was at least 150 years before the Christian Christ was alleged to have been born.

New Torahs for synagogues/templars are written by hand, and if there's even a single letter that isn't tilted exactly the correct way, the entire thing is scrapped and they have to start over again.
I didn't know that!

I'm certainly aware of the various Christian Bible translations having different wordings for various verses. It is fascinating to read about non-religious concepts and situations in the culture of the time being reflected in that culture's translation of the Bible. I can't recall specifically now but I recall an example given of how one of the Dutch translations differed markedly in various verses from the King James Bible because of the economic views of the time being so different culture-to-culture. Add to that the fact that words themselves change meanings, or become lost to time, which also affects the accuracy of the translation in question. Just looking at the list of such words in the KJV original version is telling: words such as Amerce, Astonied, Chapmen, Wreathen, Vesture, Taches, Sottish, Pygarg, Froward, Gaddest, Holpen, Knop. Lign aloes, along with many more: present in the original KJV but whose meaning may have changed, been corrupted, or just lost to time from then until now. And that is just a translation from one form of English to another. I'm pretty sure that translations from one LANGUAGE to another suffer even more serious changes in meaning and usage.

Serious questions here: are readings from Torah done in Hebrew? And are there translations to current English that are available? I ask this because my wife is making a study of original meanings of both Old and New Testament scripture.

[ndf888]

11,300 of the retractions were for only two branches of science, not all of them.

If we are going to evaluate science, let's at least use the data correctly.

That’s not true. The 10,000 number comes from all branches of science.

More than 10,000 research papers were retracted in 2023 — a new record (https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-03974-8#:~:text=In%202022%2C%20it%20exceeded%200.2,retra ctions%20based%20on%20conference%20papers).

[fdpaq0580]

Not just false, but the opposite of reality.

Whose "reality"? 🙃

[spd2918]

So - if science teaches us that the earth is spherical, AND the Purple Political Party says that's why you need to vote for the Purple Candidate - then that science is no longer valid, and the earth ceases to be spherical?

I think maybe you're not understanding the point of science.

Science is science, whether you politicize it or not. The science only changes with new information comes in to alter the conclusions. It doesn't matter who backs the science, or who is using it for what purpose.

Someone couldn't handle my response and reported it as political. Sad.

The flat earth example is insulting and not an argument.

It does matter where the money comes from and where it goes.

[spd2918]

So - if science teaches us that the earth is spherical....

The science community once told us the earth was flat. There was consensus (not scientific) and the debate was over (who does that sound like?).

Maybe you missed the original article that showed how a huge percentage of scientific papers are frauds.

[biker1]

Please let us know what you did for a living.


The science community once told us the earth was flat. There was consensus (not scientific) and the debate was over (who does that sound like?).

Maybe you missed the original article that showed how a huge percentage of scientific papers are frauds.

[Shipping up to Boston]

The science community once told us the earth was flat. There was consensus (not scientific) and the debate was over (who does that sound like?).

Maybe you missed the original article that showed how a huge percentage of scientific papers are frauds.

Can I take a guess....Kyrie Irving?

[Bill14564]

The science community once told us the earth was flat. There was consensus (not scientific) and the debate was over (who does that sound like?).

Maybe you missed the original article that showed how a huge percentage of scientific papers are frauds.

I must have missed it as well. What huge percentage of papers were fraudulent?

[fdpaq0580]

Please let us know what you did for a living.

Why? What difference does that make? Unless you think you can use that as a source to embarrass them or one up them or use it as a reason they should be ignored ("oh! That explains it") what they did to earn a living doesn't, or shouldn't, matter.

[biker1]

I wasn’t talking to you but if they don’t know what they are talking about then they should be ignored. Frankly, I get tired of having people criticize scientists they don’t know who are engaged in science they don’t understand. Any other questions?


Why? What difference does that make? Unless you think you can use that as a source to embarrass them or one up them or use it as a reason they should be ignored ("oh! That explains it") what they did to earn a living doesn't, or shouldn't, matter.

[Shipping up to Boston]

Why? What difference does that make? Unless you think you can use that as a source to embarrass them or one up them or use it as a reason they should be ignored ("oh! That explains it") what they did to earn a living doesn't, or shouldn't, matter.

Wait wait wait....you usually have your shine box out for the scientific community in countless threads. The individual you're addressing is defending the profession. So your post appears to be friendly fire.

[fdpaq0580]

I wasn’t talking to you but if they don’t know what they are talking about then they should be ignored. Frankly, I get tired of having people criticize scientists they don’t know who are engaged in science they don’t understand. Any other questions?

"Please let us know what you did for a living. " That was what you wrote. I am one of "us". Your question included me thusly. I am a defender of science, as I assume you are. If you disagree with a position or argument, address said position or argument. Asking someone what they did for a living in no way addresses the argument. It is a request for ones personal information. Once in possession of one's personal information, one wonders how you intended to use it as regarding the argument? My mother was a housewife. One would think she was not likely highly educated or conversant on many subjects, but they would be very wrong. One's "work" is not indicative of one's interests or knowledge. That's all.

[fdpaq0580]

Wait wait wait....you usually have your shine box out for the scientific community in countless threads. The individual you're addressing is defending the profession. So your post appears to be friendly fire.

Hope 155 answers you as well. Just want to stay on track. Let the other side fight dirty. It's their only chance. Oh, and their mothers wear army boots! (Did I say that?)
🫢🤭🤭

[spd2918]

I must have missed it as well. What huge percentage of papers were fraudulent?
I guess you'd have to read the posted article. Over 10,000 papers in the last decade, and those are only the known frauds. That's probably not statistically huge given the number of papers, but it's growing.

How many have not been reviewed? What percentage are reviewed?

[Bill14564]

I guess you'd have to read the posted article. Over 10,000 papers in the last decade, and those are only the known frauds. That's probably not statistically huge given the number of papers, but it's growing.

How many have not been reviewed? What percentage are reviewed?

“Not statistically huge” sounds a lot like NOT “a huge percentage.” I *did* read the paper which is precisely why I questioned your misstatement of what it contained.

[graciegirl]

I wasn’t talking to you but if they don’t know what they are talking about then they should be ignored. Frankly, I get tired of having people criticize scientists they don’t know who are engaged in science they don’t understand. Any other questions?

Well said.

[graciegirl]

Lets see...youre an oil tycoon, your mom was a housewife and I believe the poster in question has identified in past threads as retired LEO. Is that enough to open a Sears credit card?

I think the correct wording is;

Your mother wears combat boots.

[biker1]

If someone is going to diss scientists without any references, data, etc. then I think it is fair game to find out if they actually ever did any science. Hence, the question. For example, I have read a few books on M-theory. I now know enough to know that I actually know nothing about M- theory. If I come on this forum and start talking smack about Brian Greene and M-theory, I don’t think it is unreasonable for someone to ask if I actually have any real knowledge about M-theory. Unless you actually worked on M-theory it is not likely that you would have a deep understanding. Full disclosure: I’m a retired research meteorologist and I worked at NASA and the National Weather Service developing research and operational atmospheric computer models. I am not aware of any retracted papers in the peer reviewed journals that I published in.


"Please let us know what you did for a living. " That was what you wrote. I am one of "us". Your question included me thusly. I am a defender of science, as I assume you are. If you disagree with a position or argument, address said position or argument. Asking someone what they did for a living in no way addresses the argument. It is a request for ones personal information. Once in possession of one's personal information, one wonders how you intended to use it as regarding the argument? My mother was a housewife. One would think she was not likely highly educated or conversant on many subjects, but they would be very wrong. One's "work" is not indicative of one's interests or knowledge. That's all.

[spd2918]

“Not statistically huge” sounds a lot like NOT “a huge percentage.” I *did* read the paper which is precisely why I questioned your misstatement of what it contained.

I can admit i was wrong to use the term percentage. You must admit 10,000 frauds that we know about is alarming.

It would be good to know what percentage of papers is actually reviewed. The problem could be far worse.

[Pugchief]

Hope 155 answers you as well. Just want to stay on track. Let the other side fight dirty. It's their only chance. Oh, and their mothers wear army boots! (Did I say that?)
������������������

What other side? You mean the side that uses critical thinking instead of blindly accepting the word of "experts" who apparently are not above publishing fraudulent papers?

My mom wears Navy espadrilles.

[Bill14564]

I can admit i was wrong to use the term percentage. You must admit 10,000 frauds that we know about is alarming.

It would be good to know what percentage of papers is actually reviewed. The problem could be far worse.

Post #30 might help put things into perspective. 10,000 is a large number, particularly where the ideal is zero, but it is a small percentage.

I find it hard to trust the 10,000 number anyway. The claim was there could be problems with the authenticity of the papers. Certainly, this calls into question the accuracy of the papers but it doesn't prove them false. Them, there is the article about one of the filters that flagged the false papers having a false-positive error rate of 44% which is just a little bit better than flipping a coin. I would lime a more accurate analysis before I accuse the community of widespread fraud.

[Velvet]

This anti-science nonsense is really getting old. Yes. There are scientists who cheat and lie just like there are in any group whether it is a group of football players, cops, politicians, car drivers, golfers, etc. They are (by far!) not the majority of the groups.

If science were as completely corrupt as people here seem to be thinking, then we wouldn’t be here expressing our ignorant opinions because the technology that results from the vast majority of science would not work. The proof is in the pudding. You have a supercomputer in a tiny package that you call a smart phone. Science works. Period.

One more thing. Many of you think that retracted papers are a sign that science is wrong. No. It’s a sign that science works. That's the difference between science and religion. Scientists seek the truth and when earlier notions are shown to be incorrect, they are abandoned. Religion not so much. The pope imprisoned Galileo because he looked at Venus through a telescope and realized that it was going around the Sun instead of the Earth because it went through phases just like the Moon. Religion, however, clings to old beliefs despite massive evidence to the contrary.

Perhaps because religion is faith based rather than science based. Personally, I don’t see a conflict because I can reconcile the two acceptably to myself. When you believe in something you can be mistaken, and it is the same in science except we call it evolving rather than mistaken. Science is a set of repeatable rules which people can sometimes discover or figure out. But what put those rules in motion and who supersedes them? That is religion.

[fdpaq0580]

Lets see...youre an oil tycoon, your mom was a housewife and I believe the poster in question has identified in past threads as retired LEO. Is that enough to open a Sears credit card?

Sears? Sears! I remember them. I was more of a JCPenny guy.
I do have a small oil contract, but "small" should be read as "teensy-weensy". The word tycoon does, in no way, apply to me. More like "typhoon", as in "blow hard". Or baboon, as in, well, big a$$ baboon.
I must confess that I am surprised to be worthy of creation of, what I guess, must be a dossier. True that I was once considered a nuclear threat, but other than that incident, I'm (by my own estimation) pretty unremarkable in any way.
So, one question regarding the dossier. CIA or KGB? Inquiring minds want to know. 🙂🙃🫠😉
Your answer will determine what color socks I wear with my sandles tomorrow.

[fdpaq0580]

If someone is going to diss scientists without any references, data, etc. then I think it is fair game to find out if they actually ever did any science. Hence, the question. For example, I have read a few books on M-theory. I now know enough to know that I actually know nothing about M- theory. If I come on this forum and start talking smack about Brian Greene and M-theory, I don’t think it is unreasonable for someone to ask if I actually have any real knowledge about M-theory. Unless you actually worked on M-theory it is not likely that you would have a deep understanding. Full disclosure: I’m a retired research meteorologist and I worked at NASA and the National Weather Service developing research and operational atmospheric computer models. I am not aware of any retracted papers in the peer reviewed journals that I published in.

Great! Your work, along with others, is what I learn from. Wanting to know if one has practical experience in a field or just educational information makes sense as you express it here here. My issue was with the request for, depending upon what one may have been doing, personal or privileged information. I perceived that your request was inappropriate and irrelevant.

[fdpaq0580]

Dossier? Isn’t that an ATL strip club! ;)

I have no idea! And, sadly, past caring. 🙁

[fdpaq0580]

What other side? You mean the side that uses critical thinking instead of blindly accepting the word of "experts" who apparently are not above publishing fraudulent papers?

My mom wears Navy espadrilles.

Thank her for her service! This is genuine appreciation and admiration.

[fdpaq0580]

I think the correct wording is;

Your mother wears combat boots.

You are probably correct. However, my mom mostly wore leather "flip-flops".

[kingofbeer]

This has nothing to do with The Villages. What a waste of time this topic is. Imagine, having to bite my tongue living here and reading this meaningless krap.

[biker1]

Three comments:

1) Yes, there is a bunch of nonsense posted. That is not unique.
2) The thread is in a “Non-Villages” category so by definition it has nothing to do with The Villages.
3) Nobody is forcing you to read this thread.

This has nothing to do with The Villages. What a waste of time this topic is? Imagine, having to bite my tongue living here and reading this meaningless krap.

[fdpaq0580]

Three comments:

1) Yes, there is a bunch of nonsense posted. That is not unique.
2) The thread is in a “Non-Villages” category so by definition it has nothing to do with The Villages.
3) Nobody is forcing you to read this thread.

1) True!
2) True!
3) True!
But, I like the idea of him biting his tongue. OUCH! 😝

[mntlblok]

If someone is going to diss scientists without any references, data, etc. then I think it is fair game to find out if they actually ever did any science. Hence, the question. For example, I have read a few books on M-theory. I now know enough to know that I actually know nothing about M- theory. If I come on this forum and start talking smack about Brian Greene and M-theory, I don’t think it is unreasonable for someone to ask if I actually have any real knowledge about M-theory. Unless you actually worked on M-theory it is not likely that you would have a deep understanding. Full disclosure: I’m a retired research meteorologist and I worked at NASA and the National Weather Service developing research and operational atmospheric computer models. I am not aware of any retracted papers in the peer reviewed journals that I published in.

I remember reading a great post on ToTV a while back on climate change and feedback loops and it was written by an actual scientist in the field. Was that you? Been kicking myself for not keeping it for reference. TIA

[biker1]

Yes, that was me. I don’t typically read threads about anthropogenic climate change anymore because the posts were generally nonsensical. They generally fell into 2 camps; talking smack about scientists they don’t know and are working on science they don’t understand or saying the world is going to end and you must immediately buy an electric golf cart to save the planet. The evidence points to some anthropogenic warming (about 1C for the mean global surface temperature anomaly) and there will probably be more. Estimates vary but warming of 2-3C by the end of the century appears to be possible. That is actually a lot. We will probably need to remediate coastal regions and there will probably be some geopolitical implications as the warming varies geographically. Unfortunately, due to that fact that we derive about 80% of the world’s energy from hydrocarbons, bending the curve downward will be a slow process. There is not much we can do in the US since we only account for about 15% of world’s total CO2 release each year. If you look at just transportation in the US, our cars only account for about 2% of the world’s total CO2 release each year. China and India are the long poles in the tent.


I remember reading a great post on ToTV a while back on climate change and feedback loops and it was written by an actual scientist in the field. Was that you? Been kicking myself for not keeping it for reference. TIA

[mntlblok]

Yes, that was me. I don’t threads about anthropogenic climate change anymore because the posts are generally nonsensical.

Rarely do I achieve such a win after such a screw-up! A banner day. :-)

Fascinating to learn that retractions are rare in your field. They are most definitely not in the areas of biology that I've had reason to follow. It's been most disheartening. But, it *has* caused me to learn a good bit more about proteins than I ever thought I'd have bothered with. :-)

I had some minor direct involvement in this situation. Just a moment... (https://www.science.org/content/article/u-s-levels-fraud-indictment-cuny-scientist-who-helped-alzheimer-s-drug-developer) Learned more than I wanted to about how the world works. :-(

Do you happen to have easy access to that post of yours on the feedback loops? It was better than anything I've read or seen since on the subject. TIA

[mntlblok]

Yes, that was me. I don’t typically read threads about anthropogenic climate change anymore because the posts were generally nonsensical. They generally fell into 2 camps; talking smack about scientists they don’t know and are working on science they don’t understand or saying the world is going to end and you must immediately buy an electric golf cart to save the planet. The evidence points to some anthropogenic warming (about 1C for the mean global surface temperature anomaly) and there will probably be more. Estimates vary but warming of 2-3C by the end of the century appears to be possible. That is actually a lot. We will probably need to remediate coastal regions and there will probably be some geopolitical implications as the warming varies geographically. Unfortunately, due to that fact that we derive about 80% of the world’s energy from hydrocarbons, bending the curve downward will be a slow process. There is not much we can do in the US since we only account for about 15% of world’s total CO2 release each year. If you look at just transportation in the US, our cars only account for about 2% of the world’s total CO2 release each year. China and India are the long poles in the tent.

Understood. I choose to think of global warming as a free energy source. Guess it coulda been packaged better. :-)

[biker1]

In my field, the peer review process is pretty substantial. You can take a pretty good guess who will be reviewing your paper. They will typically be people working in the same area.

Rarely do I achieve such a win after such a screw-up! A banner day. :-)

Fascinating to learn that retractions are rare in your field. They are most definitely not in the areas of biology that I've had reason to follow. It's been most disheartening. But, it *has* caused me to learn a good bit more about proteins than I ever thought I'd have bothered with. :-)

I had some minor direct involvement in this situation. Just a moment... (https://www.science.org/content/article/u-s-levels-fraud-indictment-cuny-scientist-who-helped-alzheimer-s-drug-developer) Learned more than I wanted to about how the world works. :-(

Do you happen to have easy access to that post of yours on the feedback loops? It was better than anything I've read or seen since on the subject. TIA

[biker1]

My expectations are much lower than in the past.

If you truly are a ‘Scientist’....responding to a membership (as stated on a Non Villages discussion group) that for the most part, is not exactly a collection of your peers....what do/did you expect? The only thing on these ‘science’ threads that is ‘peer reviewed’ is the ‘nonsensical ‘! :1rotfl:

[mntlblok]

In my field, the peer review process is pretty substantial. You can take a pretty good guess who will be reviewing your paper. They will typically be people working in the same area.
Sounds like that would be pretty standard within any area of up-to-date science. Things have become quite specialized. What little actual info I've been able to access about the process suggests that the reviewer does the reviewing for free. Maybe that's how it must be, but from what I know about human nature, there's a fairly good chunk of us who might do less than stellar work under such circumstances, especially if there's a huge pile of more urgent stuff sitting on the desk. And, I *have* seen stuff published that was clearly "off" that had ostensibly been "peer reviewed". I suppose some areas of science are easier to fool and maybe some areas just have a different "culture".

BTW, another of my experiences was to have a discussion about this retraction thing with a newly Ph.D.'d microbiologist. I surmised that publications such as Science and Nature surely didn't have this retraction issue. She averred that the opposite was the case. :-(

[mntlblok]

I had some minor direct involvement in this situation. Just a moment... (https://www.science.org/content/article/u-s-levels-fraud-indictment-cuny-scientist-who-helped-alzheimer-s-drug-developer) Learned more than I wanted to about how the world works. :-(
TIA

And more. . . NIH Neuroscience Leader Committed Research Misconduct, Agency Says | MedPage Today (https://www.medpagetoday.com/neurology/generalneurology/112142)

[TheWatcher]

Retraction Watch email:

The RW Daily: Hidden hydras: uncovering the massive footprint of one paper mill’s operations. And what two decades of retraction data can tell us. (https://mailchi.mp/retractionwatch/the-rw-daily-hidden-hydras-footprint-papermill-bibliometric-web-of-science-integrity-withdrawal-image-reuse-journal-rank-publication-output?e=ccb92c3281)

Article on retractions:

Two decades of retraction data provide "insight into areas where scientific integrity may be compromised."

Just a moment... (https://www.cell.com/heliyon/fulltext/S2405-8440(24)14651-8)

TheWatcher

[BigDawgInLakeDenham]

Agree. There is fraud everywhere. Fake studies, fake papers, fake Gucci wallets and purses, even plastic food. Fortunately, the real stuff is still readily available for those who know what they are looking for and systems to find and eliminate the fakes.

You left out the worst of the worst.....FAKE NEWS!!!

[Pugchief]

Big Pharma Paid Over $1 Billion to Influence Medical Research from 2020-2022 in BMJ, JAMA, The Lancet, The New England Journal of Medicine (https://t.co/o3FCEUOWki)

If you still believe "the science", I can't help you.

[Bill14564]

Big Pharma Paid Over $1 Billion to Influence Medical Research from 2020-2022 in BMJ, JAMA, The Lancet, The New England Journal of Medicine (https://t.co/o3FCEUOWki)

If you still believe "the science", I can't help you.

What did that article say to you?

To me, it raised the possibility that the "peers" doing the peer reviews might be well-funded researchers or researchers working for well-funded companies and universities. Who should a peer reviewer be, someone with no working relationship to the field they are reviewing or someone currently active in the field? Those currently active in the field are funded and some of that funding comes from affected businesses such as pharmaceutical companies.

Perhaps a further study will show a bias by those receiving large funding amounts. This article does not mention anything like that.

[Pugchief]

What did that article say to you?

To me, it raised the possibility that the "peers" doing the peer reviews might be well-funded researchers or researchers working for well-funded companies and universities. Who should a peer reviewer be, someone with no working relationship to the field they are reviewing or someone currently active in the field? Those currently active in the field are funded and some of that funding comes from affected businesses such as pharmaceutical companies.

Perhaps a further study will show a bias by those receiving large funding amounts. This article does not mention anything like that.

The article said to me there is a huge conflict of interest. It was summarized in the first paragraph. Big Pharma shouldn't be paying anybody for reviewing papers that involve pharma.

It's like when the Sugar Council funds a study on sugar. Is that likely to be impartial?

So yes, if a paper is going to be peer reviewed, it should be by a completely impartial third party, not someone being paid by interested parties with deep pockets. That should go without saying.

[Bill14564]

The article said to me there is a huge conflict of interest. It was summarized in the first paragraph. Big Pharma shouldn't be paying anybody for reviewing papers that involve pharma.

It's like when the Sugar Council funds a study on sugar. Is that likely to be impartial?

So yes, if a paper is going to be peer reviewed, it should be by a completely impartial third party, not someone being paid by interested parties with deep pockets. That should go without saying.

The article did not say they were being paid to reviewing papers. That article said that those reviewing papers had received payment. Big difference.

I think you are going to have to consider the quality of those you desire to perform the peer reviews. If they are not involved with research or development in the particular field, or are not established enough to have grants, salaries, or other funding, then are they truly qualified to review that type of paper?

[biker1]

An issue with the peer review process is that typically the reviewers are people you know and are working in the same area, albeit the reviewers are typically anonymous, at least in my field. I worked with one fellow who actually signed all his reviews as he didn’t believe in the anonymous aspect. Some may think that the process is biased since the reviewers may be direct competitors for grants. However, most reviewers, I believe, are interested in furthering their reputation. Doing a poor job, or biased job, at reviewing a paper is inconsistent with that goal.


The article did not say they were being paid to reviewing papers. That article said that those reviewing papers had received payment. Big difference.

I think you are going to have to consider the quality of those you desire to perform the peer reviews. If they are not involved with research or development in the particular field, or are not established enough to have grants, salaries, or other funding, then are they truly qualified to review that type of paper?

[Velvet]

In my field, in applied sciences, research is more often modified rather than retracted. We simply learn more with time. Although the source of money for funding the research sometimes can have an “influence”. Real life results tend to be your “peer review”. Either it works or it doesn’t. And how often. In the soft sciences, for example, psychology, which my daughter does research in, interpretation and politics can influence the peer review.

When my daughter was doing her oral defense, the committee was divided. Her chair lady, locked the doors of the room and said, “Gentlemen, it seems like we have not reached a consensus yet. We will stay here until we do.” It was nice to have this lady as the chair of your PhD committee, she never had a student not pass. You couldn’t do that in my field.

[Pugchief]

Is anyone not already aware of the bias? And it's not just Big Sugar, it's Big Everything.

[Velvet]

Is anyone not already aware of the bias? And it's not just Big Sugar, it's Big Everything.

Not surprised; not infrequently, “He who pays the piper, calls the tune”.

[CoachKandSportsguy]

Is anyone not already aware of the bias? And it's not just Big Sugar, it's Big Everything.

I worked for a building Life Safety installation and service company.
We were always consulted as were other companies on what should regulatory bodies mandate for safety equipment for new building types as technology and other devices advance. The goal of the regulators is to improve human safety, which makes sense. However, they are also not experts in building safety design and advancement.

Interpreted properly, industry got to spec out their future revenue stream by influencing the regulators requirements with new / better equipment.

The correct term is regulatory capture in political circles.

It's a vicious circle. . . all thrown down the drain by the Supreme court's decision for corporate influence.