We were unable to load Disqus. If you are a moderator please see our troubleshooting guide.

fahgettaboudit 2.0 • 7 years ago

""Fewer than 1 percent of papers published in scientific journals follow the scientific method""

How do ya think Climate Change...... remains at the forefront of the faulty science community ??!

Butchie Yost • 7 years ago

Feelings is the new science.

Jaime Allred • 7 years ago

This is what happens when Behavioral Science merges with Hard Sciences! = JUNK SCIENCE!

Kevin Sanders • 7 years ago

Non man controlled natural occurrences have been used by Churches in the past to instill fear and control people.

The Church of Warming is the latest iteration.

Craig • 7 years ago

Politics + science = predictable outcome

Spike • 7 years ago

Politics + science x $$ = paid for propaganda

T. H. Cobb • 7 years ago

Just like war strategy run from the White House. Liberals can't seem to figure that out.

Rowenna • 7 years ago

Nonsense. Social sciences (including behavioural science) can be scientific when the scientific method is applied.

The problem with social sciences, just like with hard science, is when you throw out the scientific method and instead go after convenient, politically correct findings so as to get the rewards of accolades and grant money.

The scientific method works for whatever field it is properly applied to - that is its beauty.

Jaime Allred • 7 years ago

Exactly!

Jam West • 7 years ago

What nonsense!The media loves to promote junk science in general, but it is very true in their reporting of the Behavioral Sciences - often the media make a big deal out of some crackpot idea while the vast majority of workers in this field think its stupid. Readers then believe that the medias narrative represents the consensus, but it does not. Kinda like politics - media+ ignorant reader = mistaken beliefs

LetsTalkFacts • 7 years ago

Kinda like when a marketing professor trys to explain "science" right?

Blazer14 • 7 years ago

And specious logic as well. "Everyone that I know who has died has eaten carrots." Conclusion: Carrots kill people.
(Where is my government research Grant??)

Hexagon • 7 years ago

Pull the plug! Stop wa$ting $$$ on junk "science."

curenado • 7 years ago

Medicine has been the same for awhile.

Slartibartfast • 7 years ago

We truly should call it what it really is: Political Science.

jtinevergreen • 7 years ago

Perfect!

Top Cat • 7 years ago

No politics merging with religion!

Guest • 7 years ago
Schrödinger's cat • 7 years ago

99% of 'research' is bogus. You can tell from the method they fail to use !!!

daggo77 • 7 years ago

Yep its bogus and the public believe them and send them the money so they enjoy a life of luxury while vomitting fake science. all these charities are in cahoots with them.

What Does it Mean? • 7 years ago

I wonder if J. Scott Armstrong follow the scientific method when he came out with these conclusions regarding the lack of scientific rigour and the motivations of those publishing it. I am looking forward to his data.

JustThinkLogically • 7 years ago

Some analysis doesn't need to use the scientific method. His analysis is basically binary.

robert97 • 7 years ago

What kind of analysis in scientific journals don't need to be scientific?

Jack Nimble • 7 years ago

In this context, the term "scientific" refers to Armstrong's standards.

Those standards, while nice, are overly narrow and cull out lots of well done good quality for poor reasons (e.g. valid but comlex methodology).

Any well done, good quality research of scientic merit should be published in a scientc joyrnsl even if it does not meet Armstong's unique standards for scientific.

Pettyfogger115 • 7 years ago

How handy that must be!

plkatk • 7 years ago

If you didn't flunk elementary school science, you would know how dumb your comment is.

What Does it Mean? • 7 years ago

LOL. I have a BS and a Masters in Engineering. I also graduated magna cum laude. Now, if you have any formal education in science or math you would know exactly what I am talking about. For instance, did he look at the actual studies or did he only look at published articles (there might be a big difference on what info is available)? Did he analyzed every single paper or did he just do a sampling? If he did a sampling, did he chose the articles analyzed randomly or did he have a method for selection? Did he do the analysis himself or did he have a team of researchers doing it? If he had a team of researchers, did he do a repeatability and reproducibility analysis? If he did, did the measured error kept him from getting meaningful results? Did he set up and independent peer study to eliminate the likelihood of subjectivity? What method did he use to measure the effect of incentives on individual authors? What standards did he use to determine statistical significance (i.e. confidence level)? Does his own study meet the standards for statistical significance? Since you are obviously uneducated, I can see where all these and other concepts might be beyond your consideration. Cheers!

ALCHESON • 7 years ago

Quite the Progressive, aren't you? Right away you start with the appeal to authority and then launch right into an insult. It would appear you graduated recently from a Progressive University and not surprisingly at the top of your class. The force is strong in you... your Progressive instructors are undoubtedly extremely proud of how well you took to the indoctrination.

Hal in Florida • 7 years ago

He was challenged for his credentials so he gave them and you then respond by bitterly rebuking his listing his credentials.

Wayne The Seine • 7 years ago

His credentials seem sketchy given all of the spelling and or grammatical errors.

erp617 • 7 years ago

I guess you don't know many scientists or engineers. That's how I KNOW he's for real. They don't bother with details like spelling and grammar, but are very careful with calculations and formulae. The grant writers who get the tax payer funds for "science" are great at creative writing, the real deals not so much.

Muellemar Reimizen • 7 years ago

These are the same questions asked of the "97% of scientists agree with man-made global warming" authors.

Rockhound • 7 years ago

"For instance, did he look at the actual studies or did he only look at published articles..."

I think this is the point of what he is saying. The focus of his study is on what is actually published in the journals. Also note his mention of how difficult it was for him to get the raw data for one review he was asked to do. This has been an ongoing problem with climate research. Remember from about 10 years ago, Climategate? We had emails go public in which climate researchers discussing destroying their data rather than allowing it to be released to the public. When they finally lost their freedom of information act cases, we found out that they had done just that.

Michelle K. • 7 years ago

There is no history of routinely publishing "raw data" in science, you ignoramus. That isn't the test. Repeatability of the findings by other independent parties is the test.

Watson and Crick did not publish or even make available the "raw data" when they discovered a little thing known as DNA. Do you think they didn't follow the "scientific method"??!

Literally none of Einstein's papers would have passed this idiot's arbitrary and ideologically driven criteria for the "scientific method" since
He never used experiments to source his findings (point 7 on this dunce's list).

So Einstein didn't follow the "scientific method", right? Right.

Cjoe C • 7 years ago

I publish the raw data. What other kind is there? Raw data is what the experiment yields. I can't get 4 for a result and publish 6. Someone repeats the experiment and gets 4 all the time. Then they question me on how I got 6. Read Einstein a lot, huh?

Michelle K. • 7 years ago

Right. You publish "raw data" when you color in the pattern on the back of the cereal box. Nobody does this. It isn't done. Period. If publishing "raw data" is your requirement for a study or paper to be valid then virtually none of them are. In any field. You might want to stop talking because you are making yourself look like a demonstrable idiot.

Emprah • 7 years ago

You certainly graduated with cum on you somewhere. I'm not saying you gave someone blowjobs but I'm not sayin' you didn't either....

Mzkitty2 • 7 years ago

I totally agree with you! Also it seems that the author includes ALL science. He must not be reading medical "peer reviewed" articles.

westriversd1 • 7 years ago

Why don't you ask him rather than running your mouth on here?

Justin Green • 7 years ago

Perhaps you should have proof read your document. I expected better out of someone claiming to be my better.

What Does it Mean? • 7 years ago

Good point. Though, I did not claim to know better. I just know science.

blink • 7 years ago

Ha ha. If only CAGW papers were challenged the same way you're challenging this one. THAT's his entire point. They aren't challenged. I have zero doubt that you've never once asked same questions about the pathetically weak Lewandowsky paper that claimed the widely cited 97% consensus. Oh wait, you didn't need to. Plenty of others have demonstrated that Lewandowsky didn't even come close to following a scientific process, but the warmists and Fake News media don't care.

Hal in Florida • 7 years ago

I agree.

samkent122@hotmail.com • 7 years ago

A very valid point, but it is clear that an identifiable political perspective is not using the scientific method to drive what may ultimately be a an unscientific conclusion. And I agree that in principle it is better to err on the side of caution. As a scientist with a half century of experience, I do not think that CO2 is the culprit.

BlueVets • 7 years ago

Environmental scientists/engineers don't make enough money to live a life of luxury.

JustThinkLogically • 7 years ago

Wanna bet. Face the fact that funded research has bastardized the honest research society relies on to direct the future. It's now politicized and essentially worthless. Sad thing is, it's been that way for decades. The cigarette companies paid for research to assure the public that smoking was safe and we know how that turned out.

fereal2 • 7 years ago

Everybody knew that smoking cigarettes was bad for your health. At some point, a warning label was added to every pack of cigarettes. Most people ignored the label because they already knew... But the liberals ignored all of that and sued the tobacco companies. How could they sue when it was common knowledge that smoking was not healthy, and their was a warning label on every pack of cigarettes? This was nothing more than a new, creative source of revenue to fund their social programs, because they knew more tax increases would not work. The legislation would not have passed. Plus, smoking was legal and still is. Global Warming is the same thing... A liberal money grab, coz they are running out of money for their social vote-buying schemes. Socialism needs an ever-increasing amount of revenue to fund their social programs.

jtinevergreen • 7 years ago

Bingo! And the NWO is also at play here. It all wealth re-distribution.

Jack Nimble • 7 years ago

"How could they sue when it was common knowledge... a cigarettes?"

If you mean the lawsuit by 46 state AGs in the late 90s (Not exactly a clique of liberals!), they were suing for tobacco related health care costs based on deceptive and fraudulent practices by tobacco companies over many decades which misled the public about smoking risks, second hand smoke risks, addictiveness, etc.

Sam Scot • 7 years ago

"The cigarette companies paid for research to assure the public . . ." But don't forget--the anti-smoking lobbies paid for research to scare the daylights out of the public, including claims that turned out to be silly and unfounded, such as the alleged dangers of second-hand cigarette smoke.
I've never been a smoker, by the way, and I don't like second-hand smoke. I just find that bleeding-heart liberal causes (such as anything promoted by the Ad Council) always push scientific claims into the "too-good-to-be-true" category.
I tell you--the phoniness, it burns!