Thread: Science and Fakkers...

hi am not sure if this is right section for this... ok to the point... we hear of pretty many scientism research and analyses which get publicized... but its all faked just a big big story made... there are each year couple known... but who knows how many are fake but are unknown... probably 5x as much... how is it possible that such thing in 2013 still can occur...??? the real problem is that many other research are laying on those fake reaserches...

While you are trying to share something,the above is nonsense#

Originally Posted by merumario

While you are trying to share something,the above is nonsense#

I can understand... that people who write down their own results without achieving those results... would call it nonsense...

I assume English is not your first language? I'm not sure what your post is about... something to do with scientists faking results?

It happens, inevitably. After all scientists are human. But, in the long run, the scientific method should get rid of individual efects like this.

You might be interested n this: PLOS ONE: How Many Scientists Fabricate and Falsify Research? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Survey Data

This is the first meta-analysis of surveys asking scientists about their experiences of misconduct. It found that, on average, about 2% of scientists admitted to have fabricated, falsified or modified data or results at least once –a serious form of misconduct

And some discussion of it here:
Scientific Fraud: How Often and How Much?. In the Pipeline:

Originally Posted by Strange

I assume English is not your first language? I'm not sure what your post is about... something to do with scientists faking results?

It happens, inevitably. After all scientists are human. But, in the long run, the scientific method should get rid of individual efects like this.

You might be interested n this: PLOS ONE: How Many Scientists Fabricate and Falsify Research? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Survey Data

This is the first meta-analysis of surveys asking scientists about their experiences of misconduct. It found that, on average, about 2% of scientists admitted to have fabricated, falsified or modified data or results at least once –a serious form of misconduct

And some discussion of it here:
Scientific Fraud: How Often and How Much?. In the Pipeline:

interesting but 2% is just the top of the iceberg... thus people who admit it or have been caught... how about THE OTHERS... and SECOND HAND good sciencers relaying on those falsified researches... without any formula im thinking in about at least 40% probably incorrect

In surveys asking about the behaviour of colleagues, fabrication, falsification and modification had been observed, on average, by over 14% of respondents, and other questionable practices by up to 72%. Over the years, the rate of admissions declined significantly in self-reports, but not in non-self-reports.

Originally Posted by blackscorp

without any formula im thinking in about at least 40% probably incorrect

That is meaningful. Are you sure that result is not faked? Why not say 100% or 120%; it would be just as realistic.

If you want to panic about the state of science, you might like these:
http://phys.org/news/2013-09-science-crisis.html
http://www.economist.com/news/china/...oks-good-paper

And read some of Ben Goldacre's stuff on the pharmaceutical industry.

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by blackscorp

without any formula im thinking in about at least 40% probably incorrect

That is meaningful. Are you sure that result is not faked? Why not say 100% or 120%; it would be just as realistic.

If you want to panic about the state of science, you might like these:
Science is in a reproducibility crisis: How do we resolve it?
Scientific research: Looks good on paper | The Economist

And read some of Ben Goldacre's stuff on the pharmaceutical industry.

The pharmaceutical industry is definately plagued with terrible science.

Unfortunately, what you end up with in many industries which is perhaps what he is hitting on (I'm not really sure), is a company or group of subsidiaries or lobbying arm paying for research to meet goal X.

Problem being you have "scientists" who need work and money, and an offer to do a study that = X.

Whenever you come up against such obstacles the results will always be twisted, because the result is decided before the study is done. This is unfortunately common in the pharmaceutical industry and many studies involving statistics and meta-analysis. The problem I think you might have is with statistics themselves. Mark Twain said there are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics. Most people do not look at the bare facts when they look at reports, they look at the interpretations of the facts. Since there is a PHD or MD after the name on the study many times the interpretations are blindly accepted and put forth as dogma. This is the trouble you get in, in industries where they are paying to get the results they want with studies and statistics. I might be with you in a way, I think it happens far more often than people wish to admit lest we undermine the "godhood" of science, but I do think it happens fairly often when money is involved, and well, it generally is. The pharmaceutical industry really is a striking example.

It is unfair to categorize all "scientists" or many in the category, I think you tend to find it within more corporate structures. However, I believe I understand where you are coming from.

I don't want to panic... but it is one real big problem with a large arms... and we live in 2013... im just trying to understand how is this possible... because it is desarteus for whole humanity what we especialy don't wnot to do... is what the faith did last 2 milleniums... create a scientic faith... with here and there a story to fit to the big faith story