[Bill14564]

Originally Posted by spd2918

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]

Originally Posted by 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?

Well said.

[graciegirl]

Originally Posted by Shipping up to Boston

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.

Originally Posted by fdpaq0580

"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]

Originally Posted by Bill14564

“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]

Originally Posted by fdpaq0580

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]

Originally Posted by spd2918

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by Shipping up to Boston

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by Shipping up to Boston

Dossier? Isn’t that an ATL strip club!

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

[fdpaq0580]

Originally Posted by Pugchief

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]

Originally Posted by graciegirl

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.

Originally Posted by 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.