How the Smithsonian Creates Scientific Consensus:
Without noting the deep irony of their announcement and without confessing their own obstinacy in having previously debunked all former evidence supporting the proposition, last year the Smithsonian Institution along with the University of Florida announced the discovery (and acceptance as genuine) of an object depicting a mammoth here in North America which they announced to be 13,000 years old…
…It may have been an exciting discovery but the “fact” that there were no mammoths in North America living alongside man was a paradigm and a reality which had been set in stone by the Smithsonian itself more than 125 years ago. After the paradigm had been set, no evidence to the contrary could be accepted as genuine and like all such science created realities one literally could find one’s career at stake were one to question such a scientific decree.
Read more: Elephant Pipes, Incised Bones and the Davenport Tablets; How the Smithsonian Institution (and other “Authorities”) Create the “Scientific Paradigms” You May Be Condescendingly Parroting Tomorrow from S8int.com
The adjective modifies the noun, quoting a NYT article:
The past several years have been bruising ones for the credibility of the social sciences. A star social psychologist was caught fabricating data, leading to more than 50 retracted papers. A top journal published a study supporting the existence of ESP that was widely criticized. The journal Science pulled a political science paper on the effect of gay canvassers on voters’ behavior because of concerns about faked data.
Now, a painstaking yearslong effort to reproduce 100 studies published in three leading psychology journals has found that more than half of the findings did not hold up when retested…
The vetted studies were considered part of the core knowledge by which scientists understand the dynamics of personality, relationships, learning and memory…
Study delivers bleak verdict on validity of psychology experiment results: “Of 100 studies published in top-ranking journals in 2008, 75% of social psychology experiments and half of cognitive studies failed the replication test”
In particular, it was the rise of DNA evidence that helped Bowers to come to a solid — and within his field, controversial — conclusion: There is simply no science to back up bite mark analysis. There is no proof that odontologists can either reliably identify a wound as a bite mark or reliably match an alleged bite mark to an alleged biter. For all the authority with which experts testify in court about bite marks, as a forensic discipline, it is little more than junk science.