No, you haven't shown that at all. I HAVE seen you attempt to refute claims of 90% agreement, or whatever, which have been made by various sources. But, you haven't challenged the point in any way that would refute the claimed agreement. You're one of the ones who wants to discredit Cook. But, Cook's methods could be all wrong, and that still doesn't change anything, as there are other independent studies of the depth of the consensus on anthropic climate change. I've posted others in the past. Plus, you haven't show any sort of agreement with YOUR personal theories.
Publisher retracts 400 papers at once for violations of ‘peer-review process policies’ The Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE) has retracted more than 400 papers “due to violations of IEEE’s peer-review process policies” after “a comprehensive internal investigation.” The papers formed the proceedings of the International Conference on Smart Cities and Systems Engineering from 2016 through 2018. All of the meetings were reported as being held in cities in China. The retraction notices read: Continue reading
Because being seen to support the right movements is much more important than things like facts and evidence. And the dumbing down for political purposes continues.
The top 10 retraction stories of 2022 What retractions grabbed the most attention in 2022? As we’ve now done for a decade, we took a look through the year’s stories about retractions for our friends at The Scientist and gathered the ten that seemed to most capture the limelight. As we write there, the cases ranged from “typo-laden code in psychedelics research to paper mills and plagiarism.” Continue reading
So…….. How many were not retracted? AND I KNOW I have posted this before but THIS IS WHY THE PROCESS OF SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS OF THE LITERATURE EXISTS
RW's value has again been recognized. Retraction Watch grows again, thanks to a $250,000 grant from the WoodNext Foundation
It seems to me that if you read it online, saw it on tv, heard it on a podcast or from an expert/professional, you should not believe it. [/sarcasm] Ok, sorta sarcasm. To a point, I think we should acknowledge that even Einstein could be wrong. I have not personally taken part in any of the studies done by climate criers or deniers. Sure, I can read their "findings," but how accurate is any of it? How do I know all the factors are relevant factors or have not been ignored? I've read many studies on how to teach students, and most of the time I'm arguing with the authors as I'm reading. The environments were too controlled or not controlled enough. Important factors were ignored. Conclusions seem to come out of some need to seem relevant. And the system selects what best reflects the system's assumptions and biases. I'm sure it's pretty much the same in all the other fields. One big irony was that honing the critical thinking skills of students was dismissed as unimportant. There were no test questions requiring critical thinking skills, and everything ultimately came down to collecting data. That seems like a great thing, but the data was limited by the types of test questions and it limited education to simplistic binary thinking. The message? Stop asking kids to think. And so here we are in a world that places more value on what a study says rather than how the study was conducted. It relies on us to choose which study is correct, and that's based on our limited knowledge and personal biases. Live long and be skeptical.
This is something that I have been saying all along. Those who go with the minority in things (anti vaxxers, people opposing CRT, deny the reality of transgenderism, etc.) are choosing which study to believe based on their limited knowledge and personal biases. In a highly technical world like ours where are current knowledge on subjects is based in decades (sometimes even centuries) of previous study it is impossible for most people to be educated enough to make sense of the various studies on various topics. The best we, as laypeople, can do is follow the consensus. To write off that consensus as "corrupt" is just more bias.
Aliens Cause Global Warming Thursday, January 31st, 2019 By Michael Crichton Caltech Michelin Lecture January 17, 2003 ". . . I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had. Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period. . . . "
Well that's complete BS. Consensus in science is the bedrock of the scientific method. Science only works because of peer review. It only works because a scientist opens up their study to other scientists for them to review and have them reproduce the results (if possible) If a hypothesis is offered and no one can reproduce the results then it is discarded. If, on the other hand, other scientists review it and agree with the conclusions (by repeating the experiment and getting the same results) that is consensus. That is how an idea moves to hypothesis and hypothesis moves to theory (which, in the scientific world is the pinnacle.) Claiming a scientific theory is just a "theory" in order to denigrate it just shows that the person does not understand what a scientific theory is. This is what I mean when I say "consensus". It's not just agreement. It's agreement reached because the idea has been rigorously tested and found to be sound.
Further from Crichton: ". . . In addition, let me remind you that the track record of the consensus is nothing to be proud of. Let’s review a few cases. In past centuries, the greatest killer of women was fever following childbirth . One woman in six died of this fever. In 1795, Alexander Gordon of Aberdeen suggested that the fevers were infectious processes, and he was able to cure them. The consensus said no. In 1843, Oliver Wendell Holmes claimed puerperal fever was contagious, and presented compelling evidence. The consensus said no. In 1849, Semmelweiss demonstrated that sanitary techniques virtually eliminated puerperal fever in hospitals under his management. The consensus said he was a Jew, ignored him, and dismissed him from his post. There was in fact no agreement on puerperal fever until the start of the twentieth century. Thus the consensus took one hundred and twenty five years to arrive at the right conclusion despite the efforts of the prominent “skeptics” around the world, skeptics who were demeaned and ignored. And despite the constant ongoing deaths of women. There is no shortage of other examples. In the 1920s in America, tens of thousands of people, mostly poor, were dying of a disease called pellagra. The consensus of scientists said it was infectious, and what was necessary was to find the “pellagra germ.” The US government asked a brilliant young investigator, Dr. Joseph Goldberger, to find the cause. Goldberger concluded that diet was the crucial factor. The consensus remained wedded to the germ theory. Goldberger demonstrated that he could induce the disease through diet. He demonstrated that the disease was not infectious by injecting the blood of a pellagra patient into himself, and his assistant. They and other volunteers swabbed their noses with swabs from pellagra patients, and swallowed capsules containing scabs from pellagra rashes in what were called “Goldberger’s filth parties.” Nobody contracted pellagra. The consensus continued to disagree with him. There was, in addition, a social factor — southern States disliked the idea of poor diet as the cause, because it meant that social reform was required. They continued to deny it until the 1920s. Result — despite a twentieth century epidemic, the consensus took years to see the light. Probably every schoolchild notices that South America and Africa seem to fit together rather snugly, and Alfred Wegener proposed, in 1912, that the continents had in fact drifted apart. The consensus sneered at continental drift for fifty years. The theory was most vigorously denied by the great names of geology — until 1961, when it began to seem as if the sea floors were spreading. The result: it took the consensus fifty years to acknowledge what any schoolchild sees. And shall we go on? The examples can be multiplied endlessly. Jenner and smallpox, Pasteur and germ theory. Saccharine, margarine, repressed memory, fiber and colon cancer, hormone replacement therapy. The list of consensus errors goes on and on. Finally, I would remind you to notice where the claim of consensus is invoked. Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E=mc2 . Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way. . . . "
My personal favorite: “Why 100? If I were wrong, one would have been enough." (In response to the book Hundred Authors Against Einstein) ― Albert Einstein
And if he was right then 1,000 would not have been enough. But we accept that Einstein was right because every other scientist who has come along has tested his hypothesis (now a theory) and has not been able to disprove it. We have a consensus in the scientific community because of the weight of the evidence. We have consensus in regards to COVID and the vaccine because of the weight of the evidence confirming it. In a way you are right...consensus is not proof that something is correct. We, as laypeople, can assume that they are correct because there is a consensus. There is a consensus because the weight of the evidence has convinced the majority (or in the case of COVID and the vaccines, the VAST majority) of people with knowledge about this that the vaccines work and are safe. When someone speaks out against the consensus they have a very heavy burden of proof to overcome. It's not just the evidence but it's the evidence AND the fact that majority has examined the evidence and agreed.
"Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled."
So we should automatically believe the opposite of what the consensus says? Being someone who does not have training in a subject how would you decide which side is correct?
Hell, he is the one that first speculated on black holes. But he himself considered it nothing more than speculation as he thought that the universe could not be so perverse as to allow something like that to exist.
You see, here is the thing that makes me not believe this. I read quite a bit in this page, and almost everything you said was coming from a very obvious political stance. You may not even realize it, but several of your posts pretty much screamed of your political bias. And such should have absolutely no influence in topics like history and science. So long as you can not separate your own political beliefs and bias, anything you say is largely tainted and to me should not be taken seriously.
This site proves that our record in veracity in science has been stupendous! I mean, just consider. Add up all the papers retracted and then divide by the total number of papers. THEN, consider that those papers retracted were found by SCIENCE. What other field of endeavor has that kind of record? It sure isn't right wing media, which NEVER retract stuff they say that is found to be 100% BS. It certainly isn't religion, where there is NO methodology for approaching validity in statements made. It isn't even engineering, where solutions designed are judged by whether they are successful by some measure such as profitability, ease of use, etc.
Real world consequences. J&J subsidiary alleges fraud in paper that linked cosmetic talc with mesothelioma A key paper linking use of talc-based baby powder to cancer contains fraudulent information, according to a new complaint against an author of the article who has testified on behalf of plaintiffs. A judge had previously allowed the release of a document confirming the identity of one of the patients in the article, who had claimed exposure to asbestos besides in baby powder, contrary to the authors’ claim that the cases in the series had no other exposures. The paper, “Mesothelioma Associated With the Use of Cosmetic Talc,” was published in the Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine in January 2020. It has been cited 22 times, according to Clarivate’s Web of Science. Corresponding author Jacqueline Moline of Northwell Health in Great Neck, N.Y., has also referenced the article in expert testimony for plaintiffs in talc litigation, as well as in remarks before Congress. Continue reading
The Whack-a-Mole problem: Hijacked journal still being indexed in Scopus even after discovery Have you heard about hijacked journals, which take over legitimate publications’ titles, ISSNs, and other metadata without their permission? We recently launched the Retraction Watch Hijacked Journal Checker, and will be publishing regular posts like this one to tell the stories of some of those cases. Hijacked journal: Linguistica Antverpiensia, New Series – Themes in Translation Studies What happened: The journal became a perfect target for hijackers when it expanded its title from “Linguistica Antverpiensia” and changed its web domain. Fraudulent publishers hijacked the journal in 2021, re-registering the old, expired domain under the original, shorter name Linguistica Antverpiensia. Continue reading
Paper with authorship posted for sale retracted over a year after Retraction Watch report A list of authorships available at Teziran.org More than a year after we reported on two websites advertising authorships of scientific papers for sale, one of the posted articles has been retracted, while publishers say they are still investigating others. The retracted article, “Dynamic simulation of moderately thick annular system coupled with shape memory alloy and multi-phase nanocomposite face sheets,” appeared in the journal Engineering with Computers, a Springer Nature title, in January 2021. The article has been cited 28 times, according to Clarivate’s Web of Science. Although the retraction notice doesn’t say as much, the journal’s publisher told us that it removed the article in part due its having been advertised for sale. After our September 2021 article on the websites selling authorships, the anonymous whistleblower “Artemisia Stricta” identified several papers from a cached version of one of the websites, Teziran.org, and notified the editors and publishers of the journals about the finding. Continue reading
https://www.science.org/content/art...act-fish-research-paper-despite-fraud-finding I am at the point now that I largely believe that most institutions no longer care.
I am a physician and I don't know anybody who knows what to believe half the time when reading journals [and this has been going on for at least 25-30 years]. The corporate/government health care system is rotten to its core. With all the woke non-sense going on, how can anybody trust that anything written in the professions does not have a political agenda or is simply bought and paid for? Just look at what took place [and still goes on] during the entire COVID fiasco.
