[Pugchief]

Originally Posted by fdpaq0580

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]

Originally Posted by Pugchief

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

[golfing eagles]

Originally Posted by spd2918

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]

Originally Posted by jimjamuser

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]

Originally Posted by 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...

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]

Originally Posted by LianneMigiano

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]

Originally Posted by Windguy

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]

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.

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]

Originally Posted by jimbomaybe

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]

Originally Posted by dtennent

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]

Originally Posted by Windguy

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]

Originally Posted by CybrSage

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

Fruit ripe for the picking.

[spd2918]

Originally Posted by Pugchief

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.

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

[Sandabern]

Nichols reporting on fraud is like Al Capone reporting on money laundering. Whenever he's questioned on anything, he runs, hides or deflects.

Originally Posted by CoachKandSportsguy

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!