“Why Most Published Research Findings Are False”

[Singularity]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Their obsession with the character and motivations of others, and not the others arguments, is also a pretty clear tell.

Believe it or not maybe like 1/3 to 1/2 of people don't walk though life assuming that others who disagree with them are attacking their character and motivations REGARDLESS of language used. The interpersonal respect (i.e. end of the day love for) thing remains congruent at like over 90% across populations.

This is hard to understand if you've only lived in North America, but easier if you've lived elsewhere, but the distributions remain true in North America as well.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Well. Good afternoon to you too.

The "system" framework classification system we're apparently using as shorthand seems to lack one class - the self-deluding hypocrite who maintains a pretense of being the Last Rational Man™ and an honest debater, while simply deflecting or ignoring real issues and unfailingly rushing to the defense of the very few outliers and contrarians that support their unacknowledged denial.

Their obsession with the character and motivations of others, and not the others arguments, is also a pretty clear tell.

But hey, let's ignore your decontextualizing of my comment, and the short, sharp nature of most debates with newhaul. Let's even ignore the comment's obvious construction as a pretty lightweight retort, complete with popcorn bag.

What's wrong with creating good jobs in clean, sustainable industries?

[edit] by purest coincidence - while writing, I have been listening to an excerpt from a podcast called "Conversations with People Who Hate Me".

there are many costs involved that do not get taken into account by the "greenies"
There are more millions of fossil fuel jobs that will be lost . To create approximately 60% of those jobs in the renewables industry. There is also one major issue that seems to be lost on everyone the time necessary to retrain the workers to use the new technology.
The high cost of updating and expanding the electrical distribution grid.

There are many other points that can be made but should be on their own thread.

All of this back and forth for the most part skips right over the environmental distruction that the manufacture of the renewables ( solar and wind ) and associated and necessary battery storage capacity . Creates as a result of the mining refining and smelting that is associated with all of it.

Now that being said we all ( those of us with boats big enough to live on for more than a couple days at a time ) know that on a small individual scale pure renewable off grid is a reality. It doesn't require large scale distruction of land resources and all of the large scale
Infrastructure that would be required

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Well. Good afternoon to you too.

The "system" framework classification system we're apparently using as shorthand seems to lack one class - the self-deluding hypocrite who maintains a pretense of being the Last Rational Man™ and an honest debater, while simply deflecting or ignoring real issues and unfailingly rushing to the defense of the very few outliers and contrarians that support their unacknowledged denial.

Their obsession with the character and motivations of others, and not the others arguments, is also a pretty clear tell.

But hey, let's ignore your decontextualizing of my comment, and the short, sharp nature of most debates with newhaul. Let's even ignore the comment's obvious construction as a pretty lightweight retort, complete with popcorn bag.

What's wrong with creating good jobs in clean, sustainable industries?

[edit] by purest coincidence - while writing, I have been listening to an excerpt from a podcast called "Conversations with People Who Hate Me".

As usual, you are personalizing disagreements, and in the process attempting to create conflict. And as usual, you're conflating motivations that may be sincerely & honestly held with those that are also irrationally influenced by more selfish & self-centered personal desires (which we all have to varying degrees). Whether it's scientists applying for research grants, oil cos. marketing themselves as conscientious stewards of the environment, or overtly corrupt politicians, one must always consider others' influences & motivations in determining what may be truthful.

A good example is your assumption (or suggestion) that people "hate" you because of your ideas, as opposed to the sanctimonious but often misinformed manner in which you deride them and their ideas. It's all too easy to claim being "hated," just like it's all too easy to claim that those who question whether clean energy jobs will supplant jobs in the fossil fuel industry "hate the idea of creating good jobs in clean, sustainable industries." Go back a few posts to the story about the farmer -- it's not a question of "good" and "bad," but one of basic economic realities. I know you and the angels don't like crowds up there, but there's few outside the fossil fuel industry itself who wouldn't prefer "clean energy." So the point of your question was what again?

I don't think accusations of my being delusional or hypocritical are justified. I've been quite clear about my own biases & predilections, and regret that you more than any other poster has reinforced the inevitable stereotyping I generally try and resist. As a former Democrat who's #walkedaway, but still quite liberal in many areas, I do admit to being ill-disposed against what I see as a new crop of Liberals. Not necessarily on account of their ideas which I admittedly often disagree with, but because they are that much more naive, malleable and self-righteous than any I've witnessed before. That, for me, is a recipe for dangerous divisiveness, a problem greater -- imo -- than positions on any particular issues. But that's only my opinion, and I really don't care if others can't see the inherent superiority in every respect of monohulls over multi-hulls. (only kidding Señor!).

Nope, the problem you have with me, Newhaul, and many others on these threads is that our opinions differ from yours, despite a good deal of commonality in overall goals. And that's because you believe your opinions are "good," and differing ones therefore necessarily "bad." It's really as simple as that. It's always easier to demonize, but harder to read & listen more, engage others in civil debate, understand others' perspectives, find common ground. Self-righteousness is the result of a lack of humility, leads to contempt for others, and inevitably to anger & hate. One doesn't require a psych degree for any of this, just a modicum of self-awareness. I have admittedly not always lived up to my own mantra in this regard, but it's a goal that seems worthy of an effort. Besides, what's the alternative?

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

A good example is your assumption (or suggestion) that people "hate" you because of your ideas, as opposed to the sanctimonious but often misinformed manner in which you deride them and their ideas.

Your assumption about my assumption is ... wrong. I merely mentioned the coincidence of listening to that. btw the podcast seems quite relevant to the challenge of talking past polarization, if you're genuinely interested in that issue.

It's all too easy to claim being "hated," just like it's all too easy to claim that those who question whether clean energy jobs will supplant jobs in the fossil fuel industry "hate the idea of creating good jobs in clean, sustainable industries." Go back a few posts to the story about the farmer -- it's not a question of "good" and "bad," but one of basic economic realities. I know you and the angels don't like crowds up there, but there's few outside the fossil fuel industry itself who wouldn't prefer "clean energy." So the point of your question was what again?

You're making rather a lot about a small throwaway point. My point was at about the same level of sophistication as what I was responding to. So is newhaul also a sycophant?

Nope, the problem you have with me, Newhaul, and many others on these threads is that our opinions differ from yours, despite a good deal of commonality in overall goals. And that's because you believe your opinions are "good," and differing ones therefore necessarily "bad." It's really as simple as that.

^^^^^
Singularity - it's this stuff. We don't hear Exile refuting a point, or providing counterfactuals, just his assumptions, his behavioral theses. At least it's not costing me $200/hour.

I can't completely fault him; it's true that I have zero patience and even less civility for most of the twaddle that appears in CF in denial of AGW and the other serious problems we need to face. Fortunately this is a boat-related forum, the thing that we all have in common... so contentious, hot-button, divisive issues like that seldom come here, right?


It was my recent impression that Exile and I were both avoiding responding to each other, and I think that was a Good Thing, as Martha might say. We should keep that up.

Now if you'll excuse me, I have to pick up my robes and clip-on wings from the cleaners and head off to the MMGWC service.

[Singularity]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

... it's this stuff....

The funny thing is....in real life....the strongest bonds, respect, friendships come from folks who so vehemently disagree with one another when they move in next door to one another. If they don't kill each other in the first few minutes/days....they both come to realize that they each care about the big picture more than 99% of other people. They coalesce against the world, despite their differences.

Usually the problem is the continued instigation from factors outside of the two households or artificial barriers (e.g. religion, walls) in between. There's a very famous perpetual conflict that exists through today in the middle east. It's been long observed that if money/politics from outside the region did not continue to flow into that conflict, that the conflict would end shortly with a mutually (dis)agreeable outcome.

If I were king for a day I'd force all the subjects to watch videos like the following (volume warning). This natural behavior has been exploited by divide-and-conquer folks since antiquity:

https://youtu.be/6zUc-mpMGrs
https://youtu.be/dJcRHvzU3Zs
https://youtu.be/Xvz7nboJ0kg

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Singularity

The funny thing is....in real life....the strongest bonds, respect, friendships come from folks who so vehemently disagree with one another when they move in next door to one another. If they don't kill each other in the first few minutes/days....they both come to realize that they each care about the big picture more than 99% of other people. They coalesce against the world, despite their differences.

I don't disagree. And an online forum is a very restricted medium for conversations between strangers. Still, honesty and sincerity, or the lack thereof, can sometimes be discerned. Also, there are at present many bad actors who are profiting from manufacturing and amplifying dissent and divisions, to the point of driving wedges between friends and family members. I hate seeing CF as just another vehicle for such misinformation and bias.

Anyway, yours is a good point to end this digression on.

* * *


Some observations about the article linked to in the OP:

• it's from 2005
• it's mainly about medicine! There have been well-publicized problems with recent psychological studies, and when you have drug companies sponsoring trials, or running them themselves, the opportunities for influence of course multiply. And of course the simple wish to be the one who cures cancer or some other dread disease.
  
  But the reported biases and distortions don't necessarily extend to all science, nor to an equal degree. Most scientific endeavours are not structured like medical trials, nor do they have the same set of expectations and pressures as medical research.

Most important... what is this saying about the current state of scientific research and its processes? There's nothing in the article that suggests that research has gotten worse or more sloppy.

In fact I would argue the opposite: the article demonstrates that self-scrutiny is ongoing, that improved statistical methods are showing flaws in methodology, and that this sort of scrutiny is a normal and necessary part of the scientific process, and shows how it continues to improve.

[Exile]

Sometimes even Martha can be wrong.

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Your assumption about my assumption is ... wrong. I merely mentioned the coincidence of listening to that. btw the podcast seems quite relevant to the challenge of talking past polarization, if you're genuinely interested in that issue.

Your insinuation being that I'm not, obviously.

You're making rather a lot about a small throwaway point. My point was at about the same level of sophistication as what I was responding to.

If it was merely "a small throwaway point," you only would have used it once. Instead, you're suggesting that those who question whether a more robust clean energy industry would create more jobs than the booming fracking industry (for e.g.) are people who "hate clean energy." No different from your frequent assertions that those who question the impacts of CC "don't care about the environment," or that those who defend Prof. Ridd's ability to express his contrarian views "don't care about the Great Barrier Reef." Such claims are as ridiculous as they are divisive, but you're at a level unsurpassed by other true believers on CF.

^^^^^
Singularity - it's this stuff. We don't hear Exile refuting a point, or providing counterfactuals, just his assumptions, his behavioral theses. At least it's not costing me $200/hour.

No, it's only costing you 30 secs to find an opinion piece from a far-left publication that substantiates your own personal views. I actually don't mind that so much (you're hardly alone) as I do with your representing it as uncontroverted fact when it's actually based on dubious (at best) assumptions. Hint #1: a corporate subsidy is different from a tax code which provides generous deductions for depreciation & capital outlays. Hint #2: The fossil fuel industry is extremely capital-intensive and so benefits more than other industries which are less so. (But see Amazon among others not paying any corporate taxes last year, presumably because of such capital outlays and other investments). Hint #3: These amorphous & theoretical "costs" of fossil fuels which are supposedly not sufficiently paid for are unknown, unknowable, and not subject to quantification.

Hopefully these hints will help you better understand why rational people would beg to differ that fossil fuel based energy costs are somehow kept "artificially low" in the nature of a "subsidy." Some of these people might even believe they wear the same robes & wings as you do, but perhaps have different bases of knowledge. Heck, they may even be people who moderate their sources of information on occasion. It's hard to conclude who may be "right" in such a case, but easy to refrain from accusing people who differ with you of being opposed to clean energy goals.

Enough refutations & counterfactuals? Or should I expend 30 secs. on Google in an effort to support my comments with partisan opinion articles, complete with charts & graphs? (which I've done many times before on these economic issues, btw). But then more "shaming" will ensue for supporting the existence of such far-right sources, right? Or maybe we could just let people have their say, provided they're civil about it, and have a healthy exchange of views? What a concept!

I can't completely fault him; it's true that I have zero patience and even less civility for most of the twaddle that appears in CF in denial of AGW and the other serious problems we need to face. Fortunately this is a boat-related forum, the thing that we all have in common... so contentious, hot-button, divisive issues like that seldom come up, right?

So I'm not getting it. What's "twaddle" to you is sincerely held, good faith opinions by others. Just like what's "denial" to you is often simply a useful reality check on fanciful ideas which have no chance of actually working. Or maybe you have all the answers and any opinions to the contrary are all "twaddle." Either way your intolerance is showing under those angelic robes, and it's not becoming. But it begs the question why you continue to participate in conversations which you know, sooner rather than later, are going to produce opinions which apparently bother you so. Lively debate is not everyone's calling, but civility is in fact a requirement on this particular forum. Time to launch that fun little sailboat of yours?

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Now if you'll excuse me, I have to pick up my robes and clip-on wings from the cleaners and head off to the MMGWC service.

so you finally admit you are a member of the church of the goremons

[Singularity]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

...the reported biases and distortions don't necessarily extend to all science, nor to an equal degree. Most scientific endeavours are not structured like medical trials...
...In fact I would argue the opposite: the article demonstrates that self-scrutiny is ongoing, that improved statistical methods are showing flaws in methodology, and that this sort of scrutiny is a normal and necessary part of the scientific process, and shows how it continues to improve.

The problem is what we don't see, what isn't studied, what needs are left neglected for research that you sort of have to be in the field or whatever to get a sense of the shenanigans involved.

Consider reviewing this study (or at least just the abstract). After reading the study (full version including protocols suggested for further research) I corresponded with the author asking "why don't you just use the collective accelerometer data that these guys have on hand and probably share for free? If the accelerometer data shows positive correlation, the findings could be used to save tens to hundreds of thousands of lives." The author wasn't familiar with the accelerometer data and otherwise balked...not wanting to so much as have a minion ping the accelerometer people. I'd prefer to not hash this stuff out openly here, but any sailor clicking on the links would recognize the potential utility of findings here.

My only peer-reviewed published work is unfortunately under the tutelage of lead authors similar to the habits of those lamented maybe in this thread and upthread by the engineer. Research nowadays can very much be territorial niche building as it is pure search for truth on behalf of humanity. It could be, but I don't see such research very often.

The reason, best I can tell...is the "No bucks, no Buck Rogers" phenomenon that to get funded you have to have something sexy/sell-able or else you don't get funded. Not saying it's all this way...but from my perspective....short of literal bench research....most of what I come across is not pure research.

[transmitterdan]

This study has an inherent bias in that they seem to consider seismic activity as the only possible way for animals to sense something is happening. But there are other senses that could explain why animals could possibly sense earthquakes in advance. No animal has a better seismic sensor than the USGS. So if animals can detect something we cannot with our super sensitive sensors it must be that animals are not using seismic activity at all.

And i kind of dislike studies that just tabulate and analyze data from other studies. I know some of these recursive studies are helpful but we see a ton of it nowadays. I guess when you have no new ideas of your own you can still study studies.

[Singularity]

Originally Posted by transmitterdan

This study has an inherent bias in that they seem to consider seismic activity as the only possible way for animals to sense something is happening. But there are other senses that could explain why animals could possibly sense earthquakes in advance. No animal has a better seismic sensor than the USGS. So if animals can detect something we cannot with our super sensitive sensors it must be that animals are not using seismic activity at all....

This is the whole point, depending on how we define terms. If critters in the aggregate have statistically significant activity changes preceding available solid-state sensors findings....then this would be a huge game changer.

https://frontiersinzoology.biomedcen...742-9994-10-80

Edit:
Adding another link: https://medium.com/@trinh.orszag/how...3-bfd06a335be3

The thing is...we don't per se have easy-to-make sensors for some of this stuff and in no way have the capacity to employ so many mechanical sensors in the field if we did.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by newhaul

so you finally admit you are a member of the church of the goremons

Hey. I haven't made fun of your religion yet. Though I did see Book of Mormon.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by transmitterdan

This study has an inherent bias in that they seem to consider seismic activity as the only possible way for animals to sense something is happening. But there are other senses that could explain why animals could possibly sense earthquakes in advance. No animal has a better seismic sensor than the USGS. So if animals can detect something we cannot with our super sensitive sensors it must be that animals are not using seismic activity at all.

And i kind of dislike studies that just tabulate and analyze data from other studies. I know some of these recursive studies are helpful but we see a ton of it nowadays. I guess when you have no new ideas of your own you can still study studies.

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015...ct-earthquakes
This is one of the early study papers

Late last year the Chinese launched a satellite to monitor this phenomenon .

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

https://www.nrdc.org/experts/han-che...al-oil-and-gas

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

https://www.nrdc.org/experts/han-che...al-oil-and-gas

and you really believe the propaganda don't ya.

Ok lets remove all petroleum based electric power generation from your beloved Canada for 1 week in January . Now how many tens of thousands of people do you think would die from the cold because of no electric to heat their homes or apartments