Harvard Asks 31 FakeNews Papers be Retracted from Journals

[_Black Moclips]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZZNvT1vaJg

Here is an interesting podcast on point. Joe Rogan speaking with Peter Bohhossian and James Lindsay. They basically fabricated a multitude of academic research papers, and had many of them accepted and several of them published by academic journals. The titles and topics were truly ridiculous such as "Human reactions to rape culture and queer performativity at urban dog parks in Porland, Oregon", but because they fit into parts of the crazy progressive realm of social justice, no one questioned anything. They even mention in the editing and peer review process, the reviewers even made the papers crazier, if that is possible.

Anyway, just one amusing data-point in the world of academia.

[_Kevin Graham]

Anyway, just one amusing data-point in the world of academia.

For which your only familiarity comes from internet clips mocking it.

[_Themis]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZZNvT1vaJg

Here is an interesting podcast on point. Joe Rogan speaking with Peter Bohhossian and James Lindsay. They basically fabricated a multitude of academic research papers, and had many of them accepted and several of them published by academic journals. The titles and topics were truly ridiculous such as "Human reactions to rape culture and queer performativity at urban dog parks in Porland, Oregon", but because they fit into parts of the crazy progressive realm of social justice, no one questioned anything. They even mention in the editing and peer review process, the reviewers even made the papers crazier, if that is possible.

Anyway, just one amusing data-point in the world of academia.

This is old news. Academia has brought up these problems a long time ago and concerns about them. We know there are pseudo academic journals. In what way do you think this should impact scientific knowledge on things like climate change?

[_SteelHead]

When the evidence contradicts your pet bias - construct a straw man and tilt!

[_Black Moclips]

Anyway, just one amusing data-point in the world of academia.

For which your only familiarity comes from internet clips mocking it.

I wouldn't call the Joe Rogan podcast an "internet clip". In fact, he has a lot of great guests on his show, and ultimately leans more left that right from what I've seen. What makes him so popular and liked by people in various groups is because he is reasonable. He can have a conversation with someone he disagrees with and find common ground but also challenge them. He also isn't afraid to call out ridiculousness where he sees it, often times in his own party. This episode was just one example dealing with some of the academics on the crazy left. We all know its true, so I'm not sure why that bunches your panties.

I just happened to watch that episode (aired 10/30/18) from Joe Rogan the same day I saw this thread and it was an example of what Waterdog was getting at. And yes, I thought it was amusing so I shared.

[_Black Moclips]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZZNvT1vaJg

Here is an interesting podcast on point. Joe Rogan speaking with Peter Bohhossian and James Lindsay. They basically fabricated a multitude of academic research papers, and had many of them accepted and several of them published by academic journals. The titles and topics were truly ridiculous such as "Human reactions to rape culture and queer performativity at urban dog parks in Porland, Oregon", but because they fit into parts of the crazy progressive realm of social justice, no one questioned anything. They even mention in the editing and peer review process, the reviewers even made the papers crazier, if that is possible.

Anyway, just one amusing data-point in the world of academia.

This is old news. Academia has brought up these problems a long time ago and concerns about them. We know there are pseudo academic journals. In what way do you think this should impact scientific knowledge on things like climate change?

Old news? I saw the podcast yesterday so I posted. I casually suspected such things happen, but it was funny to listen to the description of someone purposefully punking the system.

How should this impact scientific knowledge on things like climate change? I think its just realizing that scientists and academics can be wrong and are embedded with motivations, biases, and agendas just like anyone else. We trust that they will set their personal politics and agendas aside for the sake of the work, but obviously, some do not.

[Guest]

Here is an interesting podcast on point. Joe Rogan speaking with Peter Bohhossian and James Lindsay. They basically fabricated a multitude of academic research papers, and had many of them accepted and several of them published by academic journals.

Be more specific, what academic journals?

How should this impact scientific knowledge on things like climate change? I think its just realizing that scientists and academics can be wrong and are embedded with motivations, biases, and agendas just like anyone else. We trust that they will set their personal politics and agendas aside for the sake of the work, but obviously, some do not.

You will get famous and win many prizes if you prove that climate change isn't happening.

But what does it take to win a Nobel Prize? Though there's no clear formula for success, there are certain traits common to many Nobel laureates. Above all, the prize favors people who seek to advance human knowledge or create solutions to the world's problems, with accomplishments ranging from Robert Koch's discovery of the bacterium responsible for tuberculosis to Martin Luther King Jr.'s leadership of the U.S. civil rights movement in the 1960s. People who create paradigm shifts, or major shifts in thinking for a field, are more likely to receive a Nobel Prize for their work.

https://science.howstuffworks.com/dicti ... -prize.htm

[_DoubtingThomas]

I wouldn't call the Joe Rogan podcast an "internet clip".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MRmAH9JhAxA

[_Chap]

I think its just realizing that scientists and academics can be wrong and are embedded with motivations, biases, and agendas just like anyone else.

Yup. Funnily enough, the people who are most aware of the possibility of personal biases influencing the analysis of research are - scientists themselves (I mean, who knew?).

That is why, since the 17th century, scientists have made big efforts to construct institutions and train students in habits that will allow for and as far as possible nullify the effects of the personal bias of individual scientists. And you know what? By and large, those efforts have been and continue to be hugely successful.

That's why science works very differently from religion, and there is now a huge mass of accumulated scientific results about which there is basically no serious dispute whatsoever amongst those with relevant qualifications. And that mass is continuing to grow.

Amongst that mass of accumulated scientific results about which there is basically no serious dispute whatsoever amongst those with relevant qualifications is the fact that human activity since the industrial revolution has begun to cause historically unprecedented climate change.

[_Themis]

How should this impact scientific knowledge on things like climate change? I think its just realizing that scientists and academics can be wrong and are embedded with motivations, biases, and agendas just like anyone else. We trust that they will set their personal politics and agendas aside for the sake of the work, but obviously, some do not.

WD was just making a strawman argument. Scientists are the ones who have been bringing up these kind of concerns for a very long time. WD ended up showing one of the best parts of academia which is it's self correcting mechanisms because of obvious imperfections of humans who are the scientists. WD is very anti any science he doesn't like. This is not how one is going to gain the best information on how the world works or how to make good decisions that can impact our lives.