- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Scientific American dismisses Scientific Rigor
Posted on 12/1/23 at 5:56 pm
Posted on 12/1/23 at 5:56 pm
City Journal
This will help us make better more informed decisions! /sarc
quote:
Naomi Oreskes, a Harvard professor of the history of science, argued that by “prioritizing scientific rigor” in its mask studies, the Cochrane Library may have “misled the public,” such that “the average person could be confused” about the efficacy of masks. Oreskes criticized Cochrane for its “standard . . . methodological procedures,” as Cochrane bases its “findings on randomized controlled trials, often called the ‘gold standard’ of scientific evidence.” Since RCTs haven’t shown that masks work, she writes, “[i]t’s time those standard procedures were changed.”
This will help us make better more informed decisions! /sarc
Posted on 12/1/23 at 5:57 pm to TigersnJeeps
Trust the science… unless it goes against one of the tenets of our woke religion.
Posted on 12/1/23 at 5:59 pm to TigersnJeeps
SciAm is just an industry rag at this point. Their Covid origins propaganda was over the top. While we’re on the topic, Nature and Science also completely beclowned themselves.
Posted on 12/1/23 at 6:00 pm to TigersnJeeps
So she wants the standards changed, because they disprove what she believes. How in the hell does that bitch make it through a normal day?
Posted on 12/1/23 at 6:12 pm to TigersnJeeps
quote:
time those standard procedures were changed.”
Wow.
Let's change the way we do research to get the result we want.
I mean, we knew they did this all of 2020 but to flat out admit it is something
Posted on 12/1/23 at 6:14 pm to TigersnJeeps
quote:
This will help us make better more informed decisions! /sarc
I’ve said it before: these people have killed off the traditional American trust of expertise.
Posted on 12/1/23 at 6:15 pm to TigersnJeeps
quote:
Harvard professor of the history of science
So she wasn’t smart enough to actually learn and practice science so she learned about the history of science? And wants people to take her word on what makes good science? OK.
Posted on 12/1/23 at 6:17 pm to TigersnJeeps
I hate masks and I know they don’t work. That being said, I always assumed conservatives would be more apathetic about them because of the privacy they afford to the wearer.
Posted on 12/1/23 at 8:42 pm to udtiger
Bruer addresses this in his new routine and craps on science
Posted on 12/1/23 at 8:50 pm to TigersnJeeps
BTW, if you aren’t reading City Journal every month, you are doing it wrong.
Posted on 12/2/23 at 12:08 am to TigersnJeeps
Science is a tool that humanity can misuse or abuse like any other tool. It’s why those who place science above all else don’t realize that they are making an idol that is as fallible as mankind.
Posted on 12/2/23 at 12:10 am to TigersnJeeps
The US is a corpse in the dark ages.
Posted on 12/2/23 at 12:24 am to TigersnJeeps
I would be ok with an asteroid destroying every single Ivy League school.
Posted on 12/2/23 at 3:09 am to TigersnJeeps
quote:
Naomi Oreskes, a Harvard professor
In all seriousness, it's time to close this place and ignore everyone with a Harvard degree.
This piece reminds me of something that was published in Science, almost a decade ago. Authors from MIT and at least one Ivy got data from NIH that no one else was able to get, then conducted this analysis that was deliberately set up to demonstrate how much "value" the "elite" institutions add to science. It was a stepwise regression, which can be heavily biased depending on how you load the variables, and it just so happened that the loading was done in such a way that it produced numbers that supported their argument. What a shocking surprise!
This was essentially a response to the accusations that the game is rigged - which it is. The big name schools have people that are connected to gov, and thus all the major sponsors of research. They know what grant announcements are coming, often times write them themselves; they are on review panels; they are on editorial boards...and as expected they get all the funding, get published more than others etc. Everyone in research knows it's rigged, so these people set out to try and convince people that it isn't rigged. The work was not well done, and it was very shady to have data that no one else could access. And it wasn't a coincidence that it got published in the #1 journal (allegedly) in the world.
I don't know if people understand how bad science is in the US. There are some brilliant people in it, but there's a lot of corruption as well, and a tremendous amount of waste.
Posted on 12/2/23 at 3:14 am to SquaringCircles
quote:
SciAm is just an industry rag at this point. Their Covid origins propaganda was over the top. While we’re on the topic, Nature and Science also completely beclowned themselves.
All true. It's sad how political Nature and Science have gotten.
Posted on 12/2/23 at 5:26 am to TigersnJeeps
Progressive bros, where would humxnity be if it weren’t for us progressing humxnity forward?
Pretty frightening if you think about it.
Pretty frightening if you think about it.
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News