Pages

Jump to bottom

4 comments

1
Teukka  Jul 17, 2017 • 4:34:48am

One thing I hate — and other scientists hate — is when scientists cut corners. Because it is diverging from the scientific method, which is the only thing which is there to mitigate the effects of the researchers biases, errors and logical fallacies.

In practice, it means that the community has to redo work they thought was done correctly the first time, and fight the first, second and up to the nth level damage the divergence caused.

I’m glad that this shit got caught at a relatively early stage. The longer since the starting point of the divergence, the worse the effects of it will be. Even being 1° off will rack up a lot of distance over time. Imagine the effects of even a small divergence on a time scale of three or four decades.

Basically, when you diverge, the effects of biases, errors and fallacies only accumulate over time, the data becomes more and more corrupted, and any theories you form on the data become more and more “off”. In the end, you can easily end up in a situation where you get the opposite effect for the intended one.

Guys and gals, double-check my order, this should fit on a flatbed truck:

o Tables for flipping: Check
o Napalm A to assure table combustion: Check
o Tar for base coating of cheating scientist: Check
o Feathers for application to base coat on cheating no-good scientist: Check
o Popcorn for any spectator Lizardim: Check

Now, excuse me while I go to that corner over there and breathe fire for a bit…

2
Teukka  Jul 17, 2017 • 4:38:26am

re: #1 Teukka

Addendum: And the scientific community sure as hell doesn’t need shit like this with people skeptical of science in power.

3
Shropshire Slasher  Jul 17, 2017 • 5:04:09am
Aaron Blair, the scientist who led the IARC’s review panel on glyphosate, had access to data from a large study that strongly suggested that Roundup did not cause cancer after all—but he withheld that data from the RoundUp review panel. Weirder still: Blair himself was a senior researcher on that study.

Because things NOT causing cancer doesn’t make headlines. That is my guess.

4
carey94tt  Jul 17, 2017 • 7:57:00am

This is damaging on so many levels. Don’t forget the damage done to Monsanto, my former employer. The just helps elevate the anti-science crowd.


This page has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2023-04-04 11:11 am PDT
LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds

Help support Little Green Footballs!

Subscribe now for ad-free access!Register and sign in to a free LGF account before subscribing, and your ad-free access will be automatically enabled.

Donate with
PayPal
Cash.app
Recent PagesClick to refresh
Detroit Local Powers First EV Charging Road in North America The road, about a mile from Local 58's hall, uses rubber-coated copper inductive-charging coils buried under the asphalt that transfer power to a receiver pad attached to a car's underbelly, much like how a phone can be charged wirelessly. ...
Backwoods Sleuth
3 days ago
Views: 191 • Comments: 1 • Rating: 4