[ndf888]

Originally Posted by 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

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.

[ThirdOfFive]

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby

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]

Originally Posted by CybrSage

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.

[fdpaq0580]

Originally Posted by Pugchief

Not just false, but the opposite of reality.

Whose "reality"? 🙃

[spd2918]

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby

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]

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby

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.

Originally Posted by spd2918

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]

Originally Posted by spd2918

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]

Originally Posted by spd2918

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]

Originally Posted by biker1

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?

Originally Posted by fdpaq0580

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]

Originally Posted by fdpaq0580

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]

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?

"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]

Originally Posted by Shipping up to Boston

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]

Originally Posted by Bill14564

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?