Scientific Consensus and Mass Delusion

A video showing that science isn’t perfectly objective and can be manipulated by politics, emotion, etc.  Did you know that scientists once claimed to be in regular contact with Martians?  Neither did I until I watched this video:

Scientific Consensus And Mass Delusion – 150 Years Of Scientific Insanity

Advertisements

Hoax Paper Published To Wide Acclaim

The po-faced nature of ‘gender studies’ has long been the subject of ridicule.

So two American academics set up to deliberately expose the ‘fashionable nonsense’ emanating from social science departments by writing a hoax paper on the ‘The Conceptual Penis as a Social Construct’.

Despite being made-up twaddle, their effort was subsequently published to acclaim in a leading UK journal.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-4534590/Hoax-paper-blaming-male-genitalia-evil-published.html

Scientists Not Following The Scientific Method

Fewer than 1 percent of papers published in scientific journals follow the scientific method, according to research by Wharton School professor and forecasting expert J. Scott Armstrong.

Read more: http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2017/03/29/j-scott-armstrong-fraction-1-papers-scientific-journals-follow-scientific-method/

107 cancer papers retracted due to peer review fraud

The journal Tumor Biology is retracting 107 research papers after discovering that the authors faked the peer review process. This isn’t the journal’s first rodeo. Late last year, 58 papers were retracted from seven different journals— 25 came from Tumor Biology for the same reason.

Read more: https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/04/107-cancer-papers-retracted-due-to-peer-review-fraud/

Is Most Published Research Wrong?

Shoddy Science and Publishing Incentives

“The cultural evolution of shoddy science in response to publication incentives requires no conscious strategising, cheating, or loafing on the part of individual researchers,” Smaldino writes in The Conversation.

“There will always be researchers committed to rigorous methods and scientific integrity. But as long as institutional incentives reward positive, novel results at the expense of rigour, the rate of bad science, on average, will increase.”

Read more: http://www.sciencealert.com/study-warns-that-science-as-we-know-it-is-evolving-into-something-shoddy-and-unreliable

Harvard, Sugar, and Heart Disease

More evidence that science is not the objective bastion of truth that so many think it is today:

The sugar industry paid prestigious Harvard scientists to publish research saying fat – not sugar – was a key cause of heart disease, newly unveiled documents reveal.

At the time, in the 1960s, conflict of interest disclosure was not required.

It meant sugar chiefs could work closely with researchers to re-draft and re-draft their paper until it was ‘satisfactory’ – without having to report their involvement.

The result shaped public health approaches to nutrition for years.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-3785753/How-sugar-industry-paid-prestigious-Harvard-researchers-say-fat-NOT-sugar-caused-heart-disease.html