My favorite Television source these days is News Nation.

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

Bik
 

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

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.

agree, so concerned about the lack of morality/integrity today
 

mostly for the love of money & power

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! 😏

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.

Whom to trust
 

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.

yet another reason to question everything

Better than trusting the Internet or some of the television network faux news!

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 !

The worst offender is faux news....

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") 🙂

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".

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".

That is what I was getting at. .23 of a per cent seems better than the 23 % quoted in the original post.

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

Hurricane season in FL....

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

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?

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

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.������������������������������

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

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

:clap2: Lol!

Search for a list of historical documents written in cursive.

The PO reads millions of cursive addresses daily using computer scanners.

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.

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

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.

Do tell...

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

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

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

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.