“Why Most Published Research Findings Are False”

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

In the unrealistically low fuel prices.
Why do you hate clean industries that provide good jobs for Americans?

you really don't do the real math on the jobs vs cost analysis did you .
I'm not against clean energy i'm against stupid expensive energy.
You want good clean cheap energy its nuclear power .
( side note in less than a year my state will be coal free power generation wise )
aside from the fact that pure electric from renewables for everything including vehicles is not possible.
Where if I you get the idea that switching to renewables would create jobs . It would actually cost jobs.

[senormechanico]

Originally Posted by letsgetsailing3

Yet I'm going to guess that you drive a car, or that your boat is powered by fossil fuels.

But you're right, we really should be paying more for fuel. It's just that we don't want to.

It is ironic, but after over ten thousand posts on the Cruiser's Forum, John doesn't even HAVE a boat.
Also ironic, he seems to try to convince everyone that he's an expert on LiFePo4 batteries, but still doesn't own any.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by senormechanico

John doesn't even HAVE a boat, but he seems to try to convince everyone that he's an expert on lithium batteries.

you forgot 2 words there
" for boats"
Fixed.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by letsgetsailing3

Somehow, I just KNEW that a statement like that would end up with the proposal that all healthcare and college should be free, but that ultimately it would be some kind of redistribution argument.

So it's not so much that fiat money is imaginary, but that the wrong people have it.

And certainly there's an argument to be made for that, but why hide it behind something else?

you missed the first and most important part of the CRAP test. Look at the sources.
All are left leaning .

[RaymondR]

In Australia fuel taxes were originally levied in order to pay for the building and maintenance of highways. The logic of this, readily accepted by everyone, was that those who used the roads most would pay most. In line with this philosophy those who used fuel without using the roads, such as farmers and fishermen and any others who could demonstrate that their fuel usage was non highway got a refund on the taxes paid.

Moving this into modern times these non highway fuel users no longer get a "refund" of the taxes paid on their non highway fuel usage they now get a "subsidy".

This perversion and corruption of the language is primarily perpetrated by the fans of renewable energy, who generally support the left side of politics, to justify the actual subsidies being paid to the renewables scammers for electricity they don't actually produce.

[leftbrainstuff]

Originally Posted by RaymondR

In Australia fuel taxes were originally levied in order to pay for the building and maintenance of highways. The logic of this, readily accepted by everyone, was that those who used the roads most would pay most. In line with this philosophy those who used fuel without using the roads, such as farmers and fishermen and any others who could demonstrate that their fuel usage was non highway got a refund on the taxes paid.

Moving this into modern times these non highway fuel users no longer get a "refund" of the taxes paid on their non highway fuel usage they now get a "subsidy".

This perversion and corruption of the language is primarily perpetrated by the fans of renewable energy, who generally support the left side of politics, to justify the actual subsidies being paid to the renewables scammers for electricity they don't actually produce.

Published research findings and academic papers are designed to describe the outcomes of scientific work. That's it. Nothing more.

Numerous mechanisms exist to ensure that published works are rigorous. Peer review, respected journals, etc.*Note that this does not imply they are perfect, won't become obsolete or are the last word on any subject.*

Unfortunately the majority of people, the media and politicians fail to understand context, relevance and application. The misuse, misquoting, ignoring of*and hijacking of good papers is one of those things that are annoying to say the least.

There are four frames of reference any person, group, herd or cult may adopt.*

1) Facts are verifiable. This is a premise of those that apply the scientific method.

2) Opinions are judgements based on facts. Selective filtering of facts can lead to varying degrees of bias from minor to batsh#t crazy.

3) A*belief is a conviction based on cultural or personal faith, morality, or values. These are almost impossible to dispute because facts are simply ignored. Most of the bad things through history occurred because of beliefs.

4) Finally a prejudice is*a half-baked opinion based on insufficient or unexamined evidence. Unlke beliefs prejudices are testable.

As an engineer I'm obviously interested in fact based information. Anything else is just noise and mostly irrelevant but sometimes entertaining.*

Like most experienced and pragmatic people I Also have a very well tuned bus detector. In the current climate

I avoid 3), enjoy debating with 2) with and love to mess with 4).

[Singularity]

Originally Posted by leftbrainstuff

...Numerous mechanisms exist to ensure that published works are rigorous. Peer review, respected journals, etc...

...Unfortunately the majority of people, the media and politicians fail to understand context, relevance and application. The misuse, misquoting, ignoring of*and hijacking of good papers is one of those things that are annoying to say the least...

Let's say that medication A is proven by study and history to be 99.1% effective.

Let's then say that medication B, treating the same condition as medication A, is invented and studied. In the study on medication B, the authors compared medication B not to medication A, but instead medications p,q,r....that haven't been used in 100 years. And the study finds that medication B is superior to medications p,q,r, and is 99% effective at treating the condition. The study for medication B is done technically correct and gets published.

Clearly shenanigans, but this happens all the time in peer-reviewed research that is published. Real peer-review would say "go back to the bench and compare against current standards" but this does not happen. This assumes that the "peers" are professional custodians of the public trust on the subject matter.

I agree that the paper as written is a fair representation of what the authors saw at the bench. But one must understand, I think, that the whole peer-review deck is too-frequently stacked to allow "easy for laypeople to misinterpret" stuff to get published....and that this effectively dumbing down/effective misinformation trickles back into the professional community that the study is meant to service in the first place. Peer review doesn't mean what it used to in any field I'm familiar with.

[transmitterdan]

Originally Posted by leftbrainstuff

3) A*belief is a conviction based on cultural or personal faith, morality, or values. These are almost impossible to dispute because facts are simply ignored. Most of the bad things through history occurred because of beliefs.

Faith is also responsible for about 99.9% of all good things done by people. Some would argue that without Faith there would be zero good things done ever simply because we would have no concept of good or bad.

[transmitterdan]

Deleted duplicate...

[Singularity]

Originally Posted by transmitterdan

Faith is also responsible for about 99.9% of all good things done by people. Some would argue that without Faith there would be zero good things done ever simply because we would have no concept of good or bad.

And the people arguing this would invariably be promoting a certain faith's way of thinking.

Good vs bad is really, in psych terms, a System 1 determination (i.e. a thinking fast process) that nearly by definition fails to consider long-term consequences. This is where System 2 processing (i.e. thinking slow) comes to the rescue (hopefully). In the West there's been a proverb since antiquity that states "think twice before you speak" presumably recognizing that the first-blush assessment (System 1) will be different than the "after I ruminated a bit" assessment (System 2). But culture in the West has all but forgotten this proverb, while otherwise drowning 24/7/365 in a System 1 processing stream. Most people default to System 1 processing under stress while certain dominant faiths demand it. But others under stress default to System 2...a different story...

The Eastern philosophy take on good vs bad, cut/pasted from another site:
One day his horse runs away. And his neighbor comes over and says, to commiserate, “I’m so sorry about your horse.” And the farmer says “Who Knows What’s Good or Bad?” The neighbor is confused because this is clearly terrible. The horse is the most valuable thing he owns.
But the horse comes back the next day and he brings with him 12 feral horses. The neighbor comes back over to celebrate, “Congratulations on your great fortune!” And the farmer replies again: “Who Knows What’s Good or Bad?”
And the next day the farmer’s son is taming one of the wild horses and he’s thrown and breaks his leg. The neighbor comes back over, “I’m so sorry about your son.” The farmer repeats: “Who Knows What’s Good or Bad?”
Sure enough, the next day the army comes through their village and is conscripting able-bodied young men to go and fight in war, but the son is spared because of his broken leg.
And this story can go on and on like that. Good. Bad. Who knows?

And so published research too can be conducted so as to not consider long-term consequences of the subject matter observed and reported upon...even when the authors and peer reviewers are honest people without a conscious agenda. This is really, I think, the underlying point of the paper referenced in the initial post.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Singularity

And the people arguing this would invariably be promoting a certain faith's way of thinking.

Good vs bad is really, in psych terms, a System 1 determination (i.e. a thinking fast process) that nearly by definition fails to consider long-term consequences. This is where System 2 processing (i.e. thinking slow) comes to the rescue (hopefully). In the West there's been a proverb since antiquity that states "think twice before you speak" presumably recognizing that the first-blush assessment (System 1) will be different than the "after I ruminated a bit" assessment (System 2). But culture in the West has all but forgotten this proverb, while otherwise drowning 24/7/365 in a System 1 processing stream. Most people default to System 1 processing under stress while certain dominant faiths demand it. But others under stress default to System 2...a different story...

The Eastern philosophy take on good vs bad, cut/pasted from another site:
One day his horse runs away. And his neighbor comes over and says, to commiserate, “I’m so sorry about your horse.” And the farmer says “Who Knows What’s Good or Bad?” The neighbor is confused because this is clearly terrible. The horse is the most valuable thing he owns.
But the horse comes back the next day and he brings with him 12 feral horses. The neighbor comes back over to celebrate, “Congratulations on your great fortune!” And the farmer replies again: “Who Knows What’s Good or Bad?”
And the next day the farmer’s son is taming one of the wild horses and he’s thrown and breaks his leg. The neighbor comes back over, “I’m so sorry about your son.” The farmer repeats: “Who Knows What’s Good or Bad?”
Sure enough, the next day the army comes through their village and is conscripting able-bodied young men to go and fight in war, but the son is spared because of his broken leg.
And this story can go on and on like that. Good. Bad. Who knows?

And so published research too can be conducted so as to not consider long-term consequences of the subject matter observed and reported upon...even when the authors and peer reviewers are honest people without a conscious agenda. This is really, I think, the underlying point of the paper referenced in the initial post.

The entire article which included your cut/paste was a worthwhile read. (https://medium.com/@davidgallan/who-...t-8404344779ce)

There are, of course, certain human behaviors that are undisputedly "good" and "bad," but personal values, selfish interests, unintended consequences, and "System 1" thinking often render the distinctions blurry. One poignant example is how international legal bodies have struggled first to define and then to apply the crime of genocide following WW2.

Whether it's in the field of scientific research or in the political realm, I don't think most of the people lining up on one side or the other are dishonest people without sincere agendas, or any agenda at all. Instead, it's political, business, and other predictably selfish interests using "morality" to garner support from people who have equally predictable personal needs to be "good," to believe they are morally or otherwise superior to others, or otherwise have something to be gained from adopting the particular point of view. We now have political leaders with little actual expertise, experience, or historical awareness who nevertheless advocate support for certain positions simply because it's "the right thing to do." And of course their sycophants who are unwilling and/or unable to engage in "System 2" thinking, as we get to frequently witness here on CF. For example . . .

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Why do you hate clean industries that provide good jobs for Americans?

Whether it gets displayed in unquestioning religious faith, rigid political ideology, cult followings, or otherwise, there is a deep-seated human need for group acceptance, "moral" superiority, and an emotional need to make one's self "feel better" at the expense of others. Some of these traits can result in positive outcomes, but history shows that the seductive desire to simplify the world into good & evil requires a lack of humility which more often than not ends badly.

[Singularity]

Originally Posted by Exile

...sycophants who are unwilling and/or unable to engage in "System 2" thinking, as we get to frequently witness. . .

True, but I'd guesstimate that 100% of us are as guilty as the other 100% in not naturally attempting to adapt the system 2 thinking of another into our own heuristic. To do so goes against our survival instinct and understanding of how the world works. There are conceptual measures for peoples' willingness to "think outside their box"...most routinely referred to as typically intellectual engagement (TIE), generally under the "Openess to experience" heading under the "Big 5" personality traits that are abbreviated with the OCEAN [ironic] acronym.

Whether it gets displayed in unquestioning religious faith, rigid political ideology, cult followings, or otherwise, there is a deep-seated human need for group acceptance, "moral" superiority, and an emotional need to make one's self "feel better" at the expense of others. Some of these traits can result in positive outcomes, but history shows that the seductive desire to simplify the world into good & evil requires a lack of humility which more often than not ends badly.

Evolutionary biology operates on the principle of segregation where drawing distinction vs others ultimately ensures survival of the entire species. If everyone were in the same clan and disease struck...the entire species would be extinct. If people self-segregate....maybe have all the better-looking, more fun to be around people on one side of the island, the multi-hull owners on the other...if disease/lightning strikes one side of the island...sailors survive.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Singularity

True, but I'd guesstimate that 100% of us are as guilty as the other 100% in not naturally attempting to adapt the system 2 thinking of another into our own heuristic. To do so goes against our survival instinct and understanding of how the world works. There are conceptual measures for peoples' willingness to "think outside their box"...most routinely referred to as typically intellectual engagement (TIE), generally under the "Openess to experience" heading under the "Big 5" personality traits that are abbreviated with the OCEAN [ironic] acronym.

Couldn't agree more. Have many family & friends from opposing sides of the political divide, and find it telling that I more often hear from both how they "can't understand" how the other side can think they way they do, as opposed to why they simply disagree. It definitely goes way beyond the merits or demerits of particular issues, or even overarching philosophies.

Evolutionary biology operates on the principle of segregation where drawing distinction vs others ultimately ensures survival of the entire species. If everyone were in the same clan and disease struck...the entire species would be extinct. If people self-segregate....maybe have all the better-looking, more fun to be around people on one side of the island, the multi-hull owners on the other...if disease/lightning strikes one side of the island...sailors survive.

So true. Much if not all of it is innate. You'd think we could have evolved out of these sorts of destructive species traits at this point. But then that requires historical perspective among other things, and that in turn requires being properly educated into HOW to think, as opposed to being indoctrinated into WHAT to think.

To maybe advance your analogy further, it's one thing to have sincere, honest beliefs that a multi-hull is superior/inferior to a monohull, and therefore try to parlay those opinions to others who may not understand the differences and/or be irrationally biased in their views. But to take it personally and bring an emotional component into the issue when others don't agree? Especially when, as in this (rather silly) example, the end goals are exactly the same?? This is the sad part of human nature that can be difficult to understand, and what I would call pure, unthinking, and often irrational partisanship. Is it worse these days or am I just (hopefully) more attuned to it?

[Singularity]

Originally Posted by Exile

...You'd think we could have evolved out of these sorts of destructive species traits at this point. But then that requires historical perspective among other things, and that in turn requires being properly educated into HOW to think, as opposed to being indoctrinated into WHAT to think.

If everyone learned how they think...if everyone transcended their innate processing...then entire segments of religion/business/industry would be rendered mostly obsolete and we'd be in a Star Trek reality. But it's sort of unnatural to evolve in a manner that works against what people understand to be survival.

But to take it personally and bring an emotional component into the issue when others don't agree?

This is just how the brain, particularly limbic system, is wired. It's not just like we learn something that is written on a piece of paper placed on a shelf in our head. If the observation (lesson on reality) is important, it will be hard-wired to your gut, your hormone system, disrupt your sleep, distract you during the day.

This is the sad part of human nature that can be difficult to understand, and what I would call pure, unthinking, and often irrational partisanship. Is it worse these days or am I just (hopefully) more attuned to it?

You're just more attuned to it. For sure nothing new here. I see 2 major differences now vs 30 year ago. The first is the economy; when things are prosperous, people don't have the time/interest to worry about the future. The second is the peer-reviewers (i.e. the custodians/moderators of information) are routinely not as impartial/intellectual as in times past, such that nowadays partisanship is promoted/allowed by the peer reviewers, subjecting the masses to partisan information. The more independent of a thinker you are, the more your gut/brain, etc, reacts.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

Whether it's in the field of scientific research or in the political realm, I don't think most of the people lining up on one side or the other are dishonest people without sincere agendas, or any agenda at all. Instead, it's political, business, and other predictably selfish interests using "morality" to garner support from people who have equally predictable personal needs to be "good," to believe they are morally or otherwise superior to others, or otherwise have something to be gained from adopting the particular point of view. We now have political leaders with little actual expertise, experience, or historical awareness who nevertheless advocate support for certain positions simply because it's "the right thing to do." And of course their sycophants who are unwilling and/or unable to engage in "System 2" thinking, as we get to frequently witness here on CF. For example . . .

Whether it gets displayed in unquestioning religious faith, rigid political ideology, cult followings, or otherwise, there is a deep-seated human need for group acceptance, "moral" superiority, and an emotional need to make one's self "feel better" at the expense of others. Some of these traits can result in positive outcomes, but history shows that the seductive desire to simplify the world into good & evil requires a lack of humility which more often than not ends badly.

Well. Good afternoon to you too.

The "system" framework classification system we're apparently using as shorthand seems to lack one class - the self-deluding hypocrite who maintains a pretense of being the Last Rational Man™ and an honest debater, while simply deflecting or ignoring real issues and unfailingly rushing to the defense of the very few outliers and contrarians that support their unacknowledged denial.

Their obsession with the character and motivations of others, and not the others arguments, is also a pretty clear tell.

But hey, let's ignore your decontextualizing of my comment, and the short, sharp nature of most debates with newhaul. Let's even ignore the comment's obvious construction as a pretty lightweight retort, complete with popcorn bag.

What's wrong with creating good jobs in clean, sustainable industries?

[edit] by purest coincidence - while writing, I have been listening to an excerpt from a podcast called "Conversations with People Who Hate Me".