Fun with Science, or, The Origins of "Infallibility"

[OCinBuffalo]

Read: http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/science-isnt-broken/

 

Play with toy near middle of article. Find out that when you include all terms BUT GDP, Democrats are terrible for the economy == 0.01 p-value. Realize GDP is a dumb term because a) it's going to rise regardless of who is in office and b) flipping it off/on creates such a wild swing in results that there's something amiss here.

 

Read rest of article and realize that you're an umitigated moron, because all of your tweaking around with the terms of the raw data merely proves that, like I've said so many times on this board: In "analytics", if you go looking for a pattern, you're probably going to find it, but, 95% of the time it will be false. Real analytics is about letting patterns come to you.

 

Ultimately put 2 and 2 together: Science has a problem. This guy is trying to explain it objectively. He explains the gay marriage paper factually. He avoids the implications of that influential paper. He also avoids the fact that he's identified a problem across disciplines, and, that its legitimacy has been established: one journal has accepted the problem, as a problem, and is responding to it.

 

Why? Because this is yet another CYA/spin job for a leftist blog. Equating/excusing "fraud", with "hard"? You know that's wrong.

 

Given the current state of affairs:

1. Who wants to continue using science as the sole way to win the argument?

2. Who wants to continue to demand that we blindly listen to scientists...because they are scientists?

3. Ultimately, which of you idiots wants to contine pretending that all science is infallible? (While laughing at religious people? Irony.)

 

Given the gay marriage data-free paper, who wants to continue to pretend:

1. That there are no leftist agendas in science?

2. That a "consensus" can never merely be a political agenda en masse?

 

Rather, isn't it most likely that any time we hear the word consensus, in science, it almost definitely reflects an ulterior motive?

Edited August 19, 2015 by OCinBuffalo

[DC Tom]

The Nature paper they reference is very good, as well.

[B-Man]

Politics

 

+ Science

 

-------------

 

= politics

 

 

 

.

[LeviF]

Politics

 

+ Science

 

-------------

 

= politics

 

 

 

.

 

Essentially, yes.

 

A lot of disciplines have issues with reliable research nowadays (yes, including the hard sciences). Lots of money involved. And when there's money involved, somebody has a vested interest in certain results. Guaranteed.

[Tiberius]

It is the kind of technology that defense futurists have eyed for a long time and they want to help spur development of it in the private sector.

 

Were making the equivalent of a strategic bet on an important technology that we think could have broad applications for the future, a senior defense official said.

 

Mr. Carter focused on linking up with high-tech firms in Silicon Valley as a way to improve the Pentagons own ability to innovate.

 

Mr. Carter announced in April a new joint initiative known as the Defense Innovation Unit-Experimental, or DIUx, that aims to integrate technology firms in northern California with the Defense Department. Many companies dont want to do business with the Pentagons bureaucracy, and the DIUx is in part an effort to make it easier for those companies to work with the military.

 

The public-private partnership he is announcing at Moffett Field will benefit both the future warfighter and customers of a range of U.S. companies, helping the U.S. maintain leadership in manufacturing and innovation for years to come, Pentagon press secretary Peter Cook said in a statement.

 

http://www.wsj.com/articles/pursuing-electronics-that-bend-pentagon-advances-partnership-with-tech-firms-1440756002

 

Public/private. How government leadership leads to private companies doing well.

[birdog1960]

_{"The scientific method is the most rigorous path to knowledge, but it’s also messy and tough. Science deserves respect exactly because it is difficult — not because it gets everything correct on the first try. The uncertainty inherent in science doesn’t mean that we can’t use it to make important policies or decisions. It just means that we should remain cautious and adopt a mindset that’s open to changing course if new data arises. We should make the best decisions we can with the current evidence and take care not to lose sight of its strength and degree of certainty. It’s no accident that every good paper includes the phrase “more study is needed” — there is always more to learn."}

 

_{I doubt you'd find a scientist that disagrees with this conclusion.}

 

_{I used to believe that this anti science stuff was apocryphal and sensationalized. you all have certainly cured me of that misbelief.}

[B-Man]

Behind Science Fraud, Chapter 10

Time to update our series on science fraud from a few months ago, with news of a blockbuster research review effort that is making waves this week. The Chronicle of Higher Education reports today:

 

A decade ago, John P.A. Ioannidis published a provocative and much-discussed paper arguing that

most published research findings are false.

It’s starting to look like he was right.

 

The

results

of the

Reproducibility Project

are in, and the news is not good. The goal of the project was to attempt to replicate findings in 100 studies from three leading psychology journals published in the year 2008. The very ambitious endeavor,

led by Brian Nosek,

a professor of psychology at the University of Virginia and executive director of the

Center for Open Science,

brought together more than 270 researchers who tried to follow the same methods as the original researchers — in essence, double-checking their work by painstakingly re-creating it.

Turns out, only 39 percent of the studies withstood that scrutiny.

 

 

Here’s the complete report in Science magazine (out from behind Science’s usual paywall). It should be pointed out that not all of the failed replications are because of dishonesty or outright fraud on the part of the original researchers. But the careful Science magazine write up makes clear that there are significant problems with the social science publishing process:

 

No single indicator sufficiently describes replication success, and the five indicators examined here are not the only ways to evaluate reproducibility. Nonetheless, collectively these results offer a clear conclusion:

A large portion of replications produced weaker evidence for the original findings

despite using materials provided by the original authors, review in advance for methodological fidelity, and high statistical power to detect the original effect sizes. . .

 

Reproducibility is not well understood because the incentives for individual scientists prioritize novelty over replication

. Innovation is the engine of discovery and is vital for a productive, effective scientific enterprise. However, innovative ideas become old news fast. Journal reviewers and editors may dismiss a new test of a published idea as unoriginal. The claim that “we already know this” belies the uncertainty of scientific evidence. Innovation points out paths that are possible; replication points out paths that are likely; progress relies on both. (Emphasis added.)

 

 

But this ought to raise deeper questions about the probity of social science methodology itself—questions that are seldom much debated any more. Perhaps we’re coming to the point, like requiring DNA evidence for death penalty murder convictions, where replication by an outside party should be required before new findings can be published? (This might put a lot of climate science articles out of business.)

 

 

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2015/08/behind-science-fraud-chapter-10.php

Edited August 28, 2015 by B-Man

[birdog1960]

between years 1 and 2 in med school, I did research under the chair of the biochem dept. I strongly considered doing an md/phd with him as my mentor. then one day in my second year he was gone. no longer on faculty at all. he'd fudged data and several papers were rescinded. he was a very bright man but he got carried away and made some major judgement errors. and he paid or it dearly. with his career.

 

but his grad students and post docs have done some pretty amazing things. there have been multiple excellent papers published based on his ideas. understanding of his area of expertise has increased significantll and he is in part responsible for that.

 

the consequences he suffered are likely deserved. but lets not pretend that just because a few scientists cheat that all science or even most science is useless. that's plain stupid.

[DC Tom]

the consequences he suffered are likely deserved. but lets not pretend that just because a few scientists cheat that all science or even most science is useless. that's plain stupid.

 

It isn't. But it is often misunderstood, even amongst professionals (I see it a lot in grad students), and very much so in "soft" sciences where results aren't usually discrete or linear.

 

And particularly where money is thrown about, since it's hard to justify funding ambiguity. Climate change (on both sides of the issue) is the best current example of that, but not the only one.

[Chef Jim]

between years 1 and 2 in med school, I did research under the chair of the biochem dept. I strongly considered doing an md/phd with him as my mentor. then one day in my second year he was gone. no longer on faculty at all. he'd fudged data and several papers were rescinded. he was a very bright man but he got carried away and made some major judgement errors. and he paid or it dearly. with his career.

 

but his grad students and post docs have done some pretty amazing things. there have been multiple excellent papers published based on his ideas. understanding of his area of expertise has increased significantll and he is in part responsible for that.

 

the consequences he suffered are likely deserved. but lets not pretend that just because a few scientists cheat that all science or even most science is useless. that's plain stupid.

 

More common that most thought.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/28/science/many-social-science-findings-not-as-strong-as-claimed-study-says.html

[TPS]

Read: http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/science-isnt-broken/

 

Play with toy near middle of article. Find out that when you include all terms BUT GDP, Democrats are terrible for the economy == 0.01 p-value. Realize GDP is a dumb term because a) it's going to rise regardless of who is in office and b) flipping it off/on creates such a wild swing in results that there's something amiss here.

 

Read rest of article and realize that you're an umitigated moron, because all of your tweaking around with the terms of the raw data merely proves that, like I've said so many times on this board: In "analytics", if you go looking for a pattern, you're probably going to find it, but, 95% of the time it will be false. Real analytics is about letting patterns come to you.

 

Ultimately put 2 and 2 together: Science has a problem. This guy is trying to explain it objectively. He explains the gay marriage paper factually. He avoids the implications of that influential paper. He also avoids the fact that he's identified a problem across disciplines, and, that its legitimacy has been established: one journal has accepted the problem, as a problem, and is responding to it.

 

Why? Because this is yet another CYA/spin job for a leftist blog. Equating/excusing "fraud", with "hard"? You know that's wrong.

 

Given the current state of affairs:

1. Who wants to continue using science as the sole way to win the argument?

2. Who wants to continue to demand that we blindly listen to scientists...because they are scientists?

3. Ultimately, which of you idiots wants to contine pretending that all science is infallible? (While laughing at religious people? Irony.)

 

Given the gay marriage data-free paper, who wants to continue to pretend:

1. That there are no leftist agendas in science?

2. That a "consensus" can never merely be a political agenda en masse?

 

Rather, isn't it most likely that any time we hear the word consensus, in science, it almost definitely reflects an ulterior motive?

Where exactly in that article does it expose a "leftist agenda"? I'm also having difficulty finding where "this guy explains the gay marriage paper factually"? According to the link, the article was not so much about gay marriage, rather how direct interactions with people can change opinions.

 

I'm with you on the fact stats can be massaged by the researcher, and the bias could be explicit or implicit, but I'm having difficulty finding 2+2 = leftist agendas?

[DC Tom]

Where exactly in that article does it expose a "leftist agenda"? I'm also having difficulty finding where "this guy explains the gay marriage paper factually"? According to the link, the article was not so much about gay marriage, rather how direct interactions with people can change opinions.

 

I'm with you on the fact stats can be massaged by the researcher, and the bias could be explicit or implicit, but I'm having difficulty finding 2+2 = leftist agendas?

 

Integer addition discriminates against irrational numbers. The square root of 15.99 should be equally represented in math problems as 4.

[TPS]

Integer addition discriminates against irrational numbers. The square root of 15.99 should be equally represented in math problems as 4.

so, you're saying the leftist agenda is broader than 2+2?

[DC Tom]

so, you're saying the leftist agenda is broader than 2+2?

 

No, I'm saying 2+2 is a microaggression.