“Why Most Published Research Findings Are False”

[john61ct]

Same tactics, different evil

https://bylinetimes.com/2019/03/18/r...anda-industry/

[CatNewBee]

Consensus is the end of science.

Science must challenge the consensus for new findings.

Niels Bor's atom model was consensus and peer reviewed etc., but was challenged, new quarks, bosons and sub-atomar particles were found because science goes behind consensus.

Einsteins relativity theory has challenged the status quo of a deterministic universe and an static understanding of space and time.

So every time I read an article about scientists claiming consensus and agreement I just think to myself, it is time to fire them and search for new scientists, this one batch have finished being scientist and can be recycled. You cannot expect new findings from people being convinced to have already the answer and claim it is indisputable.

[gamayun]

As to green energy, there needs to be incentives (i.e government regulations and/or tax waivers) or it doesn't make business sense. And businesses will jump on board when they have settled regulatory expectations and when they know there are profits to be made. Look at the big oil majors jumping into wind on the US East Coast. They see the writing on the wall, but an oil production platform is a 30+ year operation. These are not going away overnight (or in 10 years) and to say "just get rid of oil" is not political reality. Everyone knows this but the Pols also know they have to go big and bombastic to acheive the small victories that they're really after. It's all just a game and I really don't mean that to be disparaging to the political process. Why does every bit of news about science and policy have to get people so worked up as if the sky is falling? Both sides could easily support certain aspects of climate science and reasonable policy changes that would benefit all and cost a whole lot less than the lobbying and manipulation that gets thrown around to muddle the issues.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by CatNewBee

Consensus is the end of science.

Science must challenge the consensus for new findings.

Niels Bor's atom model was consensus and peer reviewed etc., but was challenged, new quarks, bosons and sub-atomar particles were found because science goes behind consensus.

Einsteins relativity theory has challenged the status quo of a deterministic universe and an static understanding of space and time.

So every time I read an article about scientists claiming consensus and agreement I just think to myself, it is time to fire them and search for new scientists, this one batch have finished being scientist and can be recycled. You cannot expect new findings from people being convinced to have already the answer and claim it is indisputable.

No - consensus represents the current state of scientific understanding.
But, if enough contradictory evidence arises, the consensus falls apart. Eventually, it crumbles completely, and is replaced by a new consensus.
However, in particular cases some people dislike the implications scientific findings have for their ideology, worldview or other self-interest, and refuse to accept the science. Advocates of pseudosciences tend to see scientific consensus as just an argument from authority, or even a conspiracy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KtiE...ature=youtu.be

[hellosailor]

About five years ago, one of the biggest "burger" franchise companies tested out a new product. They were going to sell 1/3 pound burgers, at the same price that their competition was selling 1/4 pound burgers for. The idea being, same price, bigger burger, who could resist that?

Apparently everyone. The field tests overwhelmingly came back saying "Four is bigger than three, so 1/4 pound burger must be bigger than 1/3 pound burger...we'd rather buy the 1/4 pound burger for the same price."

As Walt Kelly's Pogo said, "We have met the enemy and he is us."

[gamayun]

Originally Posted by hellosailor

About five years ago, one of the biggest "burger" franchise companies tested out a new product. They were going to sell 1/3 pound burgers, at the same price that their competition was selling 1/4 pound burgers for. The idea being, same price, bigger burger, who could resist that?

Apparently everyone. The field tests overwhelmingly came back saying "Four is bigger than three, so 1/4 pound burger must be bigger than 1/3 pound burger...we'd rather buy the 1/4 pound burger for the same price."

As Walt Kelly's Pogo said, "We have met the enemy and he is us."

Really? That just sounds too precious to be true. However, if this were a breakfast sandwich, I could totally understand. I don't do math in the morning!

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by GordMay

No - consensus represents the current state of scientific understanding.
But, if enough contradictory evidence arises, the consensus falls apart. Eventually, it crumbles completely, and is replaced by a new consensus.
However, in particular cases some people dislike the implications scientific findings have for their ideology, worldview or other self-interest, and refuse to accept the science. Advocates of pseudosciences tend to see scientific consensus as just an argument from authority, or even a conspiracy.

except its not really 97% of all climate scientists is it . Just the few that they counted because they liked their answers to the second of the 2 questions.

[Dave_S]

Originally Posted by hellosailor

About five years ago, one of the biggest "burger" franchise companies tested out a new product. They were going to sell 1/3 pound burgers, at the same price that their competition was selling 1/4 pound burgers for. The idea being, same price, bigger burger, who could resist that?

Apparently everyone. The field tests overwhelmingly came back saying "Four is bigger than three, so 1/4 pound burger must be bigger than 1/3 pound burger...we'd rather buy the 1/4 pound burger for the same price."

As Walt Kelly's Pogo said, "We have met the enemy and he is us."

Originally Posted by gamayun

Really? That just sounds too precious to be true. However, if this were a breakfast sandwich, I could totally understand. I don't do math in the morning!

I totally believe it.....................sadly





It's funny though

[hellosailor]

gamayun-
Except, the incident was in a statement from the corporation, discussing how they were trying to win market share, and finding the market just wasn't playing nice.
Consider all the supermarket goods that are sold in 56 ounce bottles, instead of half gallon bottles, because the makers didn't want to break a magic price point (like, $2.99 instead of $3.39) so folks keep buying because the "price" hasn't gone up...even though there is now less product, more shipping and handling, all sorts of other expenses that say this is just the WRONG way to cover price increases.
Look at toothpaste, detergent, soap, PostIt pads. All sold in dozens of varying sizes/packs, so the consumer can't possibly compare a price at WalMart to the price at Costco, simply because they'd have to do so much math.
"Don't confuse me with the facts."

And what little excuse we have left for The Nooze, usually has no clue about the difference between causation and coincidence, let alone the finer points of what a real 'study' is.

"Buy one, get one 50% off" is common now. It sounds SO much better than "buy two, get 25% off" even though that's exactly the same price.

[CaptTom]

I know we're not going to pull anyone's head out of the sand (or wherever else they've got it stuck) when they really, really want to disregard science.

For the rest, I found a really good Ted Talk which explains pretty well how science works, in laymen's terms and in a short format.

[hellosailor]

Tom-
In the movie "War Games" there's a classic scene where news radio is playing in the background and the announcer is talking about a four alarm fire in a condom factory. An easter egg in the sound track that most viewers newer notice.
But the classic unheard line about pulling heads goes to the mainly forgotten TV series "St. Elsewhere" when the doctors are walking down a hospital hallway discussing whatever the episode is about, and the background chatter blithely mentions a "cranial rectal infarction".
Just a typical day in a big city hospital....

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by newhaul

except its not really 97% of all climate scientists is it ...

You’re right, the 97% consensus (on AGW) might not be accurate.

Recent studies indicate an even stronger agreement (99.94%).

A 2014 study by Cook et al., entitled “Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature“, analyzed 11,944 peer-reviewed papers published between 1991-2011. Out of them, about a third (4,013) expressed a position on man-made climate change, and 3,894 (or 97%) supported the position that humans are causing climate change. The authors also found that more recent papers were increasingly attributing climate change to mankind, indicating an increasing acceptance level.
But in 2017, James Powell published an even larger meta-analysis of 54,195 peer-reviewed papers, finding a 99.94% consensus about human-caused climate change. Again, more recent papers seem to back the idea up even more overwhelmingly.
At the end of the day, a difference between 97% and 99.94%, is probably not going to sway many people who aren’t already convinced.

[Dave_S]

So 1 in every 1,666 scientists or is it just climate scientists believe either that climate change is not man made or have no opinion. That's a bit hard to believe.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Dave_S

So 1 in every 1,666 scientists or is it just climate scientists believe either that climate change is not man made or have no opinion. That's a bit hard to believe.

this is a lot closer to the truth

[Dave_S]

Originally Posted by Dave_S

So 1 in every 1,666 scientists or is it just climate scientists believe either that climate change is not man made or have no opinion. That's a bit hard to believe.

My maths is out.........oppps, still I don't believe the 99.94%.