This infographic from www.clinicalpsychology.net is interesting. It speaks to President Eisenhower’s second warning in his famous farewell speech. More below.
Here’s the references as actual links:
http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124
http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0005738
http://techyum.com/2011/03/omg-aliens1-or-is-it-just-more-fake-science-news/
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=researchers-failing-to-make-data-public
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/blog/2011/aug/22/riot-control-newspapers-distorting-science
http://www.bmartin.cc/pubs/92prom.html
=============================================================
This WUWT post: Ike’s second warning, hint: it is not the “military-industrial complex” is well worth a read for the prescient context it provides to this infographic.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
MikeO says:
Anthony I follow links http://www.clinicalpsychology.net/ does not appear the above content, can you clarify. Did it come from somewhere else?
Google the two together & you’ll get: http://www.clinicalpsychology.net/bad-science/
Reblogged this on eunoiagoliath and commented:
Rather interesting, given the probabilities that i’m going to end up a scientist..
“Frank says:
February 7, 2012 at 7:09 pm
Too many of us have become complacent and just accept that scientists and engineers know what they are doing, and that published data is reliable. As anyone paying attention to this website has observed, a lot of published data is garbage.”
I think the real problem is not so much the scientist’s paper, its the press release. Far more weight is given to the distribution of the press release, than of the actual paper, its conclusions and data. As a result, the science isn’t actually being disseminated and absorbed by the public, but rather the marketing message. McLuhan would’ve have been proud…
At some point we started paying scientists for their opinions instead of solving problems (ie: Manhattan Project, Apollo Program). That’s when it started…
If you want better quality science, it would help if you could read and check the articles. Thus please support open-access publishing so that everyone can read all scientific papers. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) and Darrell Issa (R-CA) are trying to stop the growth of open-access publishing to protect the monopoly-style profit margins of scientific publishers. More information:
https://scienceblogs.com/denialism/2012/01/carolyn_maloney_d-ny_and_darre.php
I personally don’t believe that scientists are significantly different from the general population, so if they appear to be behaving differently then it is because either they operate in and respond to a significantly different environment, or we just haven’t examined everyone else’s behavior rigorously.
What would a credible survey of journalists reveal? We know some of them make up sources; how common is it really? Perhaps much of what I assume is perpetual sloppiness is really deceit and fabrication?
Then of course there is the field advertising; no more need be said.
I think we all know what a credible study of politicians would reveal.
The real problem with the CAGW panic is not the quality or even the honesty of the science; it’s that certain results provide various political factions what a justification to do what they want to do anyway. Lacking support from scientific research, they would still push the same policies for whatever other reasons appear effective.
It’s like the old joke about trial lawyers:
If the facts are on your side, argue the facts.
If the law is on your side, argue the law.
If neither facts nor law are on your side, abuse the witness!
This is of course no reason to give up on trying to get the science right.
Thank you for bringing this to my attention. It is so relevant today. I needed Ike’s words for a discussion I am having with a blogger and I hope you do not mind if I borrow from his speech. I will link to your blog.
jlue;
No one here can give you permission to quote Ike. You’ll have to get in touch direct, probably thru a good spiritualist medium. I don’t know if he’s taking calls, though.
@renowebb
A day or 2 late I know, but I wanted to make a slight apology- for being a bit harsh.
However, that was easily avoidable as has been mentioned- /sarc or lol goes a long way. But this subject is and should be particularly sensitive to ALL readers simply because of the magnitude of the problem and the implications therein with the failure of so-called practitioners of science and it’s education.
So yes in retrospect your comment would have been funny given the right connotation- sorry you left that out and sorry I took it the other way- but c’est la vie.
The future of mankind is dependent upon the ability of man to apply science properly and while there are amazing advancements being made on a regular basis we must remain vigilant to the principles and correct those that violate them- in the case of the “Team” for example.
Matt, I guess I wasn’t thinking when my hands were in motion, but when I take material from another person’s post I do not want them to feel their ideas have been stolen. I have been out-of-joint for sometime now over what scientists have been doing to further the leftist political agenda. I really liked your post and I congratulate you on it. It isn’t breaking copyright to quote from Ike, I just didn’t want you to think I was stealing your idea when I wrote about “bad science” and used the quote from Eisenhower. I did not know he said that. That was the message that I was trying to convey. Actually, I saw your apology before I saw your sarcasm, so no harm done.