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.

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.

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

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

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.

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! 😒

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.

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. 🤔

[/sarcasm]

Fox is the same as ABC CBS NBC CNN and especially MSNBC: Opinion bordering on propaganda.

LOL, hope you don't actually believe that....

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

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".

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.

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.

Only 0.2% of research publications get retracted on average
 

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.

Whose "reality"? 🙃

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.

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.

Please let us know what you did for a living.

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

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

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.

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?

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.

"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.

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?)
🫢🤭🤭

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.

Well said.

I think the correct wording is;

Your mother wears combat boots.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.