Large Amount of Scientific Papers Are B.S.

[Charlie Prime]

Kinda funny. BBC Radio 4 published this today:

BBC Radio 4 - Everything We Know Is Wrong

"A highly influential paper by Dr John Ioannidis at Stanford University called "Why most published research findings are false" argues that fewer than half of scientific papers can be believed, and that the hotter a scientific field (with more scientific teams involved), the less likely the research findings are to be true.

He even showed that of the 49 most highly cited medical papers, only 34 had been retested and of them 41 per cent had been convincingly shown to be wrong. And yet they were still being cited."

 

[Randall]

There's

Kinda funny. BBC Radio 4 published this today:

BBC Radio 4 - Everything We Know Is Wrong

"A highly influential paper by Dr John Ioannidis at Stanford University called "Why most published research findings are false" argues that fewer than half of scientific papers can be believed, and that the hotter a scientific field (with more scientific teams involved), the less likely the research findings are to be true.

He even showed that of the 49 most highly cited medical papers, only 34 had been retested and of them 41 per cent had been convincingly shown to be wrong. And yet they were still being cited."

I've run into similar reports and used them to remind the rabid skeptics who praise their science Gods that before they condemn the ufology community, that the scientific community is anything but lily white. They usually provide some weak counter like, "But that's not science itself". Of course anyone can use that rationale. Get rid of the frauds and charlatans or whatever problems there are in most any field, and it becomes fault-free too. The big difference is that when it comes to medicine and technology, human lives are at stake, and simply because some gigantic pharmaceutical company can afford to buy their way out of a class action lawsuit doesn't make them innocent. To my knowledge, I don't know of any genuine ufologist who has used their credentials as a ufologist in a way that has led directly to anyone's death or injury as a result of incompetence or wilful action.

 

[Red]

There's

I've run into similar reports and used them to remind the rabid skeptics who praise their science Gods that before they condemn the ufology community, that the scientific community is anything but lily white. They usually provide some weak counter like, "But that's not science itself". Of course anyone can use that rationale. Get rid of the frauds and charlatans or whatever problems there are in most any field, and it becomes fault-free too. The big difference is that when it comes to medicine and technology, human lives are at stake, and simply because some gigantic pharmaceutical company can afford to buy their way out of a class action lawsuit doesn't make them innocent. To my knowledge, I don't know of any genuine ufologist who has used their credentials as a ufologist in a way that has led directly to anyone's death or injury as a result of incompetence or wilful action.

People forgot that science does not make for good dogma. It is a process, a tool for seeing the world and often reverses on itself as our understanding of ourselves and the world expands. Scientists are not immune to bad data, confirmation bias, and manipulating data. Vice just had an article on how much of the data behind low-fat diets is just crap. It's a rather depressing prospect.

 

[technomage]

There's

I've run into similar reports and used them to remind the rabid skeptics who praise their science Gods that before they condemn the ufology community, that the scientific community is anything but lily white. They usually provide some weak counter like, "But that's not science itself". Of course anyone can use that rationale. Get rid of the frauds and charlatans or whatever problems there are in most any field, and it becomes fault-free too. The big difference is that when it comes to medicine and technology, human lives are at stake, and simply because some gigantic pharmaceutical company can afford to buy their way out of a class action lawsuit doesn't make them innocent. To my knowledge, I don't know of any genuine ufologist who has used their credentials as a ufologist in a way that has led directly to anyone's death or injury as a result of incompetence or wilful action.

One could argue that William Moore's behavior led to the mental illness and eventual death of Paul Bennowitz. I also thought Micah Hanks was responsible for Prince's death, but maybe it was Nick Redfern?

 

[Red]

One could argue that William Moore's behavior led to the mental illness and eventual death of Paul Bennowitz. I also thought Micah Hanks was responsible for Prince's death, but maybe it was Nick Redfern?

Well, it WAS Doty who was yanking everyone's chain at that point. And I think Moore realized that he had basically sold his soul to the devil.

I don't feel ufology is disputing that there are tons of bad science and falsified claims in this particular milieu, but rather that bad science can be had anywhere.

 

[victimized]

One could argue that William Moore's behavior led to the mental illness and eventual death of Paul Bennowitz. I also thought Micah Hanks was responsible for Prince's death, but maybe it was Nick Redfern?

If you are talking about the singer Prince, I would ask why he died when a real prince was visiting.

Mental health is also a condition caused by brain conditions, such as an increase of heavy metals, which is observed in a UFO manifestation of metallic orbs manifesting as a signal. Communication signals formed by the UFO condition as extra signals.

As Earth is protected by its atmospheric mass, why would any human allow it to be altered by nuclear conversion, especially when it was already advised by an ancient life attack to be consideration of holy? We gave holiness a review to teach ourselves to reverence the condition as a Creator review, as a protective condition.