General > General Technical Chat
Dilbert loses newspapers, publishers, distributor, and possibly its website
Kim Christensen:
--- Quote from: Nominal Animal on March 12, 2023, 05:19:22 pm ---Or you could go read about the survey of 1576 scientists Nature did in May 2016. The initial numbers often cited from that are fractions of scientists having had issues with reproducibility, not fractions of articles, so don't just skim it. Over half of those reported they believed there was a "reproducibility crisis" going on even then.
--- End quote ---
Not a single mention of "peer review" in that article.
Nice little quote from your article:
--- Quote ---The survey — which was e-mailed to Nature readers and advertised on affiliated websites and social-media outlets as being 'about reproducibility
--- End quote ---
--- Quote ---For an example of 60% of articles failing reproducibility test, look at psychology (Nature, 2015, cited 56 times). (And that's not all crappy papers, only the ones whose results cannot be reproduced.)
In preclinical cancer research, 89% of articles failed reproducibility testing, ie. their results could not be reproduced. Also note that this Nature article has been cited 1851 times, so it is definitely main-stream science, not some lone goofball spouting nonsense.
--- End quote ---
Even if I accept these findings as 100% accurate, psychology (A very weak science) and "preclinical cancer research" don't make up anything near "one quarter to three quarters of accepted peer-reviewed publications"
Nominal Animal:
--- Quote from: Kim Christensen on March 12, 2023, 05:55:36 pm ---Even if I accept these findings as 100% accurate
--- End quote ---
I'm sure you wouldn't accept anything that is contrary to your current beliefs anyway.
Besides, I'm not here to convince you. I'm just showing my current understanding, and trying to show what it is based on, through examples and references.
Neither of which you have provided for any of your own assertions.
james_s:
--- Quote from: AVGresponding on March 12, 2023, 08:53:27 am ---
--- Quote from: james_s on March 12, 2023, 07:05:13 am ---I was really shocked to learn the UK had arrested several times more people for speech violations than Russia, that's truly terrifying that a modern, civilized nation would be doing that. The law is so broad and vague that any one of us could be charged.
--- End quote ---
Your citations for this blatantly ridiculous claim?
--- End quote ---
It was posted earlier in this thread, I have not read the entire law and I'm not very familiar with UK law in general but the part that was quoted by tszaboo said
“using public electronic communications network in order to cause annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety” which could apply to any one of us, "cause annoyance" is extremely broad and vague.
tom66 responded saying "It's a terrible law, because it's so easy to misinterpret. The basis for the law was one to prevent cyber-bullying and internet harrassment, and it was warned at the time that it was a dangerous precedent to set, but it still happened, because you've "got to protect those innocent children". See also: Internet safety bill in the UK."
And langwadt posted this video link which is what I was referring to https://www.youtube.com/shorts/GTn1He86oJk
So perhaps you could clarify which part(s) of all this are "blatantly ridiculous".
coppice:
--- Quote from: james_s on March 12, 2023, 06:09:16 pm ---
--- Quote from: AVGresponding on March 12, 2023, 08:53:27 am ---
--- Quote from: james_s on March 12, 2023, 07:05:13 am ---I was really shocked to learn the UK had arrested several times more people for speech violations than Russia, that's truly terrifying that a modern, civilized nation would be doing that. The law is so broad and vague that any one of us could be charged.
--- End quote ---
Your citations for this blatantly ridiculous claim?
--- End quote ---
It was posted earlier in this thread, I have not read the entire law and I'm not very familiar with UK law in general but the part that was quoted by tszaboo said
“using public electronic communications network in order to cause annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety” which could apply to any one of us, "cause annoyance" is extremely broad and vague.
tom66 responded saying "It's a terrible law, because it's so easy to misinterpret. The basis for the law was one to prevent cyber-bullying and internet harrassment, and it was warned at the time that it was a dangerous precedent to set, but it still happened, because you've "got to protect those innocent children". See also: Internet safety bill in the UK."
And langwadt posted this video link which is what I was referring to https://www.youtube.com/shorts/GTn1He86oJk
So perhaps you could clarify which part(s) of all this are "blatantly ridiculous".
--- End quote ---
There's nothing obscure or secret about that information. Its well known in the UK. You don't even need to break a law to get on the kind of police register that will exclude you from various jobs. There are "non crime hate incident" reports which get you onto those registers, just because someone didn't like what you said.
james_s:
--- Quote from: PlainName on March 12, 2023, 11:10:34 am ---That is Trump's MO, presumably used to prevent any negative comeback. "Some smart people have said he fiddles with kids. Maybe he does - I don't know." Of course, he says that kind of thing not because anyone has actually said what he purports but to plant the idea, and then reiterates that he's not saying that "but maybe there's something in it".
Specifically to the bleach thing, there is surely a time and place to ask things and suggest things, and when speaking as The Official Word in front of the entire world is surely not it. He did it then to a) bring his idea forward where it couldn't be dismissed, and b) make sure everyone knew he owned it. But, again, he gave himself an out, just in case.
Trump is actually a great example of how 'just asking' is really not that at all.
--- End quote ---
Trump is a blathering idiot, that much has been obvious for as long as he has been involved in politics. I really hate being forced to defend the guy because I absolutely cannot stand him and cringe whenever he flaps his gums, but he did not suggest anyone inject themselves with bleach. He was pondering whether it is possible to inject something that would disinfect a person and kill the virus, it's an idiotic thing to ponder if one knows anything about medicine but he's an idiot and doesn't know anything about medicine. If somebody is stupid enough to take that idle speculation as an instruction to actually inject themselves with disinfectant then they win the Darwin award.
I don't really see it much differently than someone with a poor understanding of engineering and physics pondering if we can "just do xyz" to fix a free energy machine so that it achieves over unity. People speculate about things they don't understand all the time.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version