MovieChat Forums > Donald Trump Discussion > Fake Science: 30 scientists analyze same...

Fake Science: 30 scientists analyze same data, get 30 different results

posted 6 years ago by Thrillhouse (1509)
4 replies | jump to latest

In a brilliant new sting opperation, the scientist Brian Nosek founder of the Reproducability Project, collected data on the the race of soccer players and the frequency of red cards. He gave this data to 30 different scientific groups for analysis. They all came back with different answers, and not minor differences but qualitative differences. 70% found positive correlation. 30% found negative correlation. In such circumstances there probably is not a correlation. The majority may have been lying for political reason or to be newsworthy, or because they are incompetent. But the minority on the other hand may have been tellling the truth only because they knew they were being watched. What does that say about the majority, and the atmosphere of the industry?

It's obviously very corrupt. Not a good way to set government policy. Cut their funding. Take the money out of it.

[–] eYeDEF (5050) 6 years ago

lolz. There goes Thrillhouse again, this time trying in vain to discredit science.

It's so obvious he's lying when he can't even produce a link. He knows he'll get called out for being too stupid to understand what he was reading.

[–] Keelai (36157) 6 years ago

You mean psychologist Brian Nosek. The soccer player study allowed different analytical and interpretative analysis as well as possible personal biases which lead to different results. A soft science like psychology is harder to establish standard measurable criteria. You're confusing that study with hard science.

"Cut their funding."
The internet that you're enjoying was invented because of American government funding. Ditto: the smartphone; GPS Navigation, baby formula; bar codes; vaccines; weather apps.
https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/04/science-march-funding-technology-genius/

You're obviously unaware that government funding is important for scientific development. Unfortunately, private industry will rarely do major R&D without it.

The National Science Foundation gives money to private industries to help fund future innovations like electric car technology, green energy, the aforementioned and much more.

The National Institutes of Health funds medical science like a cure for cancer. The latest Cancer Immunotherapy Research which is saving many lives was funded by the government.

If you hate the results of government-funded science, I suggest that you switch off your government-funded internet and smartphone.

[–] AckbartheHutt (1370) 6 years ago

The same theory applies to global warming, some say its man made and others say its just the Earth naturally getting warmer.

And Pluto wasn't a planet, then it was a planet, then its not a planet.

[–] Keelai (36157) 6 years ago

Oilmen multi-billionaires the Koch brothers have spent over $88 billion dollars to 80+ groups since 1997 to convince Americans that there is scientific confusion over global warming since any meaningful action to address it would harm their oil business.

97% of scientists know humans are causing it. 57% of Americans agree.

I predict as more Americans die or lose their homes and jobs because of climate change (floods, storms, fires, heat) that percentage will rise dramatically. Oil and coal are D.O.A. as foreign countries move to future clean energy technologies like electric cars. The American economy will suffer unless we join them.

For those who are not science averse:
https://nca2018.globalchange.gov/

"And Pluto wasn't a planet, then it was a planet, then its not a planet."

You mean Pluto was discovered, then it became a planet, then it wasn't a planet.

Science isn't static. There will always be new discoveries replacing old ones. In 1992, astronomers were able to discover the Kuiper Belt using stronger telescopes which is why Pluto was demoted.