trust the science(TM) moment

trust the science(TM) moment
https://twitter.com/LeahLibresco/status/1743769727330029639

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

Rise, Grind, Banana Find Shirt $21.68

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

  1. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >error gets found with science
    >somehow this is bad

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >"scientist" makes idiotic error
      >proofreading misses it
      >peer review misses it
      >gets published
      >picked up by large media outlets for clicks
      >retracted months later when other scientists couldn't replicate the calculations
      How about as a compromise we all agree to only Trust the Science until a year after publication (or in the case of politically sensitive topics, a year after it becomes culturally permissible to consider the possibility that the study was wrong)

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >proofreading misses it
        >proofreading
        What do you mean that the spellchecker missed a design flaw in the study? That is outrageous and shows that all of academia is fraud.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        everyone tells you replicated studies and meta analyses are the gold standard, but you just won't listen

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >peer review misses it
        you know how peer review works?
        >oldgay head researcher or prof gets paper to review
        >lazy, forwards it to some lackey PhD student
        >PhD student skims it for some keywords, looks at the picture, quickly fills out the form

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Going by time is pointless. You can publish some shit that nobody cares about at the time and nobody feels the need to verify then it becomes relevant 10 years later.
        Time can be a poor proxy for amount of scrutiny.

        >Shortly after the paper was published some colleagues from Bowling Green State, I-Fen Lin and Susan Brown, emailed me and my co-author about our estimate of divorce. They were trying to replicate the paper and couldn’t understand why their estimate was so much lower than ours. I sent them the statistical analysis file, which documents all of the steps as to how we came to all the estimates in the paper. And they pointed out to us, to our horror, that we had miscoded the dependent variable…As soon as we realized we made the mistake, we contacted the editor and told him what was happening, and said we made a mistake, we accept responsibility for it.
        >The original code will be available online. The code that we used for all the estimates. That’s part of good research practice: somebody should be able to replicate your results. We talked with I-fen Lin and Susan Brown, and really appreciated them raising this with us. While you would never want to discover that you made a mistake, what’s ultimately important is to do good research, and sometimes that requires you to make a correction. We’ve tried to be completely transparent about the mistake that we made and correcting it as quickly and clearly as possible.
        So, science corrected itself successfully. That's why I trust the science.

        Also, the publication and retraction both happened in 2015. Why is this being pushed on social media now, in 2024?

        >So, science corrected itself successfully.
        Only after someone else tried to replicate. All of the gatekeeping and quality control before the replication attempt were useless. The peer review system should have caught this. They were either too trusting to request the data or too lazy to catch the error.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >Only after someone else tried to replicate
          That someone else is also part of the science community.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >That someone else is also part of the science community
            Do you not know what peer review is? It is not simply just another scientist (who is a peer in some sense) reviewing your work by doing the experiment/study themself.
            That is just science. Peer review is a sawed-off shortcut that aims to spot obvious errors/frauds just from reviewing the documents. The whole point of the process is to save time/money by catching the problems which don't require running the entire experiment again.

            >The peer review system should have caught this
            how?

            By requesting the same data and finding the same code error the other researches did.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >finding the same code error the other researches did.
            are you unironically illiterate? the error was found because other researchers failed to DUPLICATE the result, which made the original authors check their internal procedure again

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >are you unironically illiterate? the error was found because other researchers failed to DUPLICATE the result
            Are you an imbecile? The error was obviously found because that researcher's dad fricker her mom, which allowed her to be born, become a researcher, then fail to duplicate the results, then request the data.

            We can play this game all the way back. I understand failure to duplicate is what created the motivation to look for an error. Since peer reviewers aren't in the business to redo entire studies, they should assume there might be errors from the start and try to find them.
            The obvious necessary ingredient was for somebody to spot the code error. Spotting a code error should be something a peer reviewer does. If they don't think to request the code or they fail to vet the code then it is the peer reviewer's fault for signing off on something faulty.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Spotting a code error should be something a peer reviewer does. If they don't think to request the code or they fail to vet the code then it is the peer reviewer's fault for signing off on something faulty.
            Doesn't work like that. Reviewers are generally from the same field and more often than not don't know how to code, let alone review code.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Same field
            >Reviews work of researcher who had some simple code to exclude certain data
            >Somehow can't do/review the simple coding themself
            For all I know it was just a formula in an excel sheet.
            If you are in any science field and can't write a formula or code to exclude data based on a boolean value or flag then I find that hard to believe.

            You mean to tell me every statistical analysis in peer reviewed papers isn't checked? It's all "just trust me, bro"?
            Every graph/table comparing things by age, race, sex, etc. is just wizardry to the reviewer?
            Even though, they have the same ability to make those graphs/tables in their own papers?
            You are so full of shit.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >The peer review system should have caught this
          how?

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Strange how "errors" always seem to be in the direction of demonizing a particular demographic group. How many other "errors" demonizing this group that's trendy in academia to hate are still out there?

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      found the libtard

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      It's only bad because people will see "One single dubious social science study says" and make life choices based on it.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      An obvious error got past peer review. This is evidence that peer review is unreliable.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        an obvious error didn't get past peer review. this is evidence that peer review is reliable

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        If it was obvious, then the authors wouldn't have made it. If it was obvious, the peer reviewers would have found it. If it was obvious, the peers trying to replicate would've found it instantly. It was only found after some further investigation and code review. Isn't that proof that the mistake wasn't obvious at all? Peer review for journals doesn't check every line of code. I've never even sent code to a reviewer. They send you a list of questions and requests to change your manuscript.
        >This section requires further explanation
        >I am not convinced that the observed phenomena can be explained with just ...
        If you don't manage to convince them, they reject you. If you can provide additional explanations that convince them, you pass. This isn't a pull request where a colleague reads every line of code.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >If it was obvious, then the authors wouldn't have made it.
          why not? most people publishing in the replication crisis press are low IQ, smart people don't devote their lives to vanity publishing

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >If it was obvious, then the authors wouldn't have made it.
          Making mistakes is kinda independent of obviousness. Obviousness is a measure of how easy it is to spot.
          >If it was obvious, the peer reviewers would have found it
          You are assuming what needs to be proved. The argument is the peer reviewers should have spotted it because it would be obvious to anyone reviewing the data/statistical methods.
          >If it was obvious, the peers trying to replicate would've found it instantly.
          They did when they tried to crunch the numbers themselves. They immediately saw a disagreement and knew there had to be an error and where it would be in general (without having access to the code).
          They notified the original researcher there might be an error and where it might be and it was instantly spotted in the code.

          >Peer review for journals doesn't check every line of code. I've never even sent code to a reviewer.
          So it is as useless as I am arguing. All data and statistical analysis is probably full of errors if that is the norm.
          Publishing data and code should be the standard for all papers since peer review doesn't seek to spot errors there.
          Wouldn't it be nice to be able to save time and money in the vetting of scientific knowledge by being able to spot errors without needing to have somebody else redo the entire experiment/study?
          Why only vet the integrity of the methodology when flaws/fraud could just as easily hide in the data and data processing?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >>Peer review for journals doesn't check every line of code. I've never even sent code to a reviewer.
            >So it is as useless as I am arguing.
            REEEE WHY ISNT EVERY FIELD IN THE WORLD LIKE MINE
            What are you even upset about? The error was found very quickly and the paper was retracted 9 years ago.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >What are you even upset about? The error was found very quickly and the paper was retracted 9 years ago.
            I'm thinking of all of the ones that aren't found but could be if the full documentation was provided.
            Do you not see the waste of time/resources it could take to try to replicate entire studies in order to find errors?
            It is more efficient to find the errors which can be found just by looking at documentation by looking at the documentation instead of doing the entire study again.

            Even if you think it is too much work for the peer reviewers, there is no reason full documentation shouldn't be provided/published for anyone else to scrutinize.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            > I'm thinking of all of the ones that aren't found but could be if the full documentation was provided.
            I think this is called schizophrenia.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I guess demanding transparency is for schizos now?
            Or you just have the delusion that nobody ever makes errors in data processing?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I don’t know the exact legal framework behind this, if this is EU policy or the policy of all my previous employers (universities and research institutes), but open access to publications AND data were always required for me. Granted, when this paper was published, I was still a student, but it could hardly be more transparent than it is in my experience.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >proofreading misses it
      >proofreading
      What do you mean that the spellchecker missed a design flaw in the study? That is outrageous and shows that all of academia is fraud.

      I think it's either a bot account or a mentally ill person. "She" posted 24 tweets in the last 2 days.

      Just give up, you run out of credibility.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Religion and ideology is never mistaken because it never acknowledges errors. IQfy loses. /misc/ wins. When will eggheads learn?

  2. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Social sciences in general are a meme and should be given the same level of consideration as astrology and psychology.

  3. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >Shortly after the paper was published some colleagues from Bowling Green State, I-Fen Lin and Susan Brown, emailed me and my co-author about our estimate of divorce. They were trying to replicate the paper and couldn’t understand why their estimate was so much lower than ours. I sent them the statistical analysis file, which documents all of the steps as to how we came to all the estimates in the paper. And they pointed out to us, to our horror, that we had miscoded the dependent variable…As soon as we realized we made the mistake, we contacted the editor and told him what was happening, and said we made a mistake, we accept responsibility for it.
    >The original code will be available online. The code that we used for all the estimates. That’s part of good research practice: somebody should be able to replicate your results. We talked with I-fen Lin and Susan Brown, and really appreciated them raising this with us. While you would never want to discover that you made a mistake, what’s ultimately important is to do good research, and sometimes that requires you to make a correction. We’ve tried to be completely transparent about the mistake that we made and correcting it as quickly and clearly as possible.
    So, science corrected itself successfully. That's why I trust the science.

    Also, the publication and retraction both happened in 2015. Why is this being pushed on social media now, in 2024?

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      no idea but how often do things like this get caught? and how far did the bad data get sensationalised by the media?

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >how often do things like this get caught?
        Given that we're discussing a 2015 paper, I'd assume that these things don't happen so often.
        >how far did the bad data get sensationalised by the media?
        That's a media problem, not a problem of science. In my field we're often reliant on the latest publications. However, a single, not-yet replicated paper is not seen as proof for anything. We sometimes try to replicate the results ourselves and publish the results of that attempt. Sometimes we wate and only when other researchers come to the same conclusions, we start treating it seriously. Some IQ 80 sensationalist journalists going apeshit about such a result is really not my problem.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >Shortly after the paper was published some colleagues from Bowling Green State, I-Fen Lin and Susan Brown, emailed me and my co-author about our estimate of divorce. They were trying to replicate the paper and couldn’t understand why their estimate was so much lower than ours. I sent them the statistical analysis file, which documents all of the steps as to how we came to all the estimates in the paper. And they pointed out to us, to our horror, that we had miscoded the dependent variable…As soon as we realized we made the mistake, we contacted the editor and told him what was happening, and said we made a mistake, we accept responsibility for it.
          >The original code will be available online. The code that we used for all the estimates. That’s part of good research practice: somebody should be able to replicate your results. We talked with I-fen Lin and Susan Brown, and really appreciated them raising this with us. While you would never want to discover that you made a mistake, what’s ultimately important is to do good research, and sometimes that requires you to make a correction. We’ve tried to be completely transparent about the mistake that we made and correcting it as quickly and clearly as possible.
          So, science corrected itself successfully. That's why I trust the science.

          Also, the publication and retraction both happened in 2015. Why is this being pushed on social media now, in 2024?

          Who gives a shit? The damage to public perception has been done. It's easy to cause and nearly impossible to fix. You can thump your holy journal in your ivory tower with your thumb up your ass about the triumphs of science, and it means absolutely Jack shit if public perception of science of consistently decreasing. The type of tone deaf self fellating going on in your posts is precisely the type of idiocy that is causing the public to lose faith in science. You know what I say? Deserved.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >it means absolutely Jack shit if public perception of science of consistently decreasing
            Why should I give a frick about what "the public" thinks about my field? Do you think that bus drivers care what cosmologists think about bus drivers?
            >The type of tone deaf self fellating going on in your posts is precisely the type of idiocy that is causing the public to lose faith in science.
            You're confusing science and religion. Science doesn't rely on faith.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Why should I give a frick about what "the public" thinks about my field?
            Did I say "your field" you dumb israelite, or did I say science in general? Holy shit you need to get your head out of your ass. If you really can't understand why publix perception matters then I reiterate: deserved.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Where do you get your funding?

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >Given that we're discussing a 2015 paper, I'd assume that these things don't happen so often.
          There's a whole website for this (Hint: It's linked in OP). Why this twitter rando unaffiliated with the site is interested in this specific case today is irrelevant.

          Just for fun here's a running list they keep of 388 (so far) retracted chink flu papers:

          https://retractionwatch.com/retracted-coronavirus-covid-19-papers/

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Just for fun here's a running list they keep of 388 (so far) retracted chink flu papers:
            And how many were not retracted?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >And what about all those people I *didn't* murder?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >a methodological flaw in a scientific study that was discovered after publication is literally the same as murder

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            https://i.imgur.com/oxprgaq.png

            Because this happened and still hasn't been corrected.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >read my wall or text and you'll see why scientists noticing flaws in their work and retracting a publication is the same as literal murder
            Nope. Still not seeing it.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Because this happened and still hasn't been corrected.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      You think science has gotten *better* since 2015?

  4. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    I think it's either a bot account or a mentally ill person. "She" posted 24 tweets in the last 2 days.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >either a bot account or a mentally ill person
      >either a bot account or a person who uses twitter
      it’s the same proposition

  5. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    The Truth About Climate Change
    Authors: Jonathan Tooker
    https://vixra.org/abs/1309.0069
    Climatology occupies the intersection of science policy and public understanding of science. In such a prominent position, the wide spectrum of climate opinions is remarkable. Society has achieved a paradigm in which global warming subscribers and non-subscribers are largely segregated by political affiliation. Since science is non-political, only a misunderstanding of the science can facilitate such a segregation. In the first section we analyze a recent study by Cook emph{et al.} finding overwhelming scientific endorsement for the greenhouse theory of anthropogenic global warming (AGW). We find the popular reporting on Cook's result is not accurate. The aim of the following section is to clarify the science behind the most popular climate arguments and introduce the reader to some evidence that is not widely publicized. Even the astute non-climatologist should come away from this report with an enhanced understanding of relevant issues in modern climate science.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      climate change is debunked by taking into account real numbers in the neighborhood of infinity in climate models

  6. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    feminists used that study fricking constantly lol so I just assumed it was busted

  7. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    More proof that all scientific publishing is completely fake and contrived in order to to push a political agenda

  8. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    What an obvious mistake. Men are biological ultraloyal gigasimps for sick girls.

  9. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Why are research groups like this?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Like what? Why they check other people's work?

  10. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    is someone unironically getting paid to shill in this thread? it's a such a bizarre overzealous defense of "Science" (TM) that I don't see from any of my STEM peers. i teach at a university, and i'm talking about biology, chemistry, mathematics, engineering. none of the faculty members in these disciplines (not even the woke, ardent anti-religion and anti-white) ones will shill "Science" as hard as the guy in this thread. i mostly see it from social science people and paid science "communicators" or PhD students who've never peer reviewed a paper

Comments are closed.