Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

TheNinjaPro t1_j6ssk2o wrote

Reply to comment by Jingle-man in How to be a sceptic | We have an ethical responsibility to adopt a sceptical attitude to everything from philosophy and science to economics and history in the pursuit of a good life for ourselves and others. by IAI_Admin

Youd be hard pressed to find peer reviewed, repeatable data that was intentionally fabricated.

4

Nebu_chad_nezzarII t1_j6sxmrq wrote

I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you meant «studies» as data itself is not «Peer reviewed»

Here is one example of how Peer review works in the real world:

https://www.nature.com/articles/515480a

You can also look into ghost writing, the replication crisis and regulatory capture as some keywords for how «science» works in this day and age. People are too naive and think the real world works like they read in some textbook instead of the complicated and profit-driven mess it is.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_ghostwriter

11

TheNinjaPro t1_j6sy4tc wrote

Both repeatability and peer review were my clauses for acceptability.

You have simply states that articles are unrepeatable, and peer reviews can be scams.

We put the two together and we get…..

−4

Nebu_chad_nezzarII t1_j6sylj9 wrote

You didn’t take the time to Even look at the links. I think that says it all really. The real world does not work like your textbook sats it works. «Peer review» is not some silver bullet if the whole process is largely corrupt.

10

TheNinjaPro t1_j6t0sv0 wrote

You really REALLY arent reading what im saying. I checked your links dont worry about that. Ive heard these lame excuses all the god damn time.

−5

Nebu_chad_nezzarII t1_j6t26cv wrote

real crises in what we call « science» are for you «lame excuses»? Excuses for what? Here’s another one that will Get your juices flowing, publication bias: also a real problem and a huge threat to «science» as we know it:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Publication_bias

The naive belief most People have in «science» borders on the absurd and betrays a profound lack of understanding of how the world actually works - i call this «scientism», it’s also akin to figuratively living in platos cave and actively denying that reality is more complex than the world of ideas. Reality is messy, and does not work like it says on the tin ;)

9

TheNinjaPro t1_j6t2c2l wrote

Really easy to put you in the looney bin because you cant keep putting whatever the hell around science.

−7

Nebu_chad_nezzarII t1_j6tagpu wrote

Got it! Don’t mess with mah science or imma call you a big meanie! ;)

9

TheNinjaPro t1_j6tb1de wrote

Go be a scientist, go dedicate your life to actually understanding things because apparently nobody else can do it.

Or you can just bitch and complain and be somehow more uselss.

−1

290077 t1_j6tc1d6 wrote

https://retractionwatch.com/the-retraction-watch-leaderboard/

You're telling me none of these passed peer review? Look at the timelines, several of these took over a decade between publication and retraction.

5

TheNinjaPro t1_j6tcgxm wrote

How the fuck is nobody reading my original comment.

Peer Reviewed + REPEATABLE Data meaning MULTIPLE studies from different groups came to the same result using the same parameters.

I am well aware of the abuse under the peer review system, but it does have an once of integrity and with the key word repeatable which everyone is overlooking, you can have some faith that it is correct.

−1

XiphosAletheria t1_j6udfh7 wrote

I think the point people are making is that the process as it currently exists often lacks repeatability, in the sense that many published studies don't actually have anyone trying to repeat the results. Like, sure, you have grasped how the scientific process is supposed to work in theory, but no one is naive enough to think science is like that in the real world.

7

TheNinjaPro t1_j6uh7e1 wrote

Its just a rule that a study is only as trustable as it is repeatable. Most meaningful science is repeatable, with potentially hundreds of scientists conducting the same experiments.

1