Do you Compartmentalize?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
11-05-2016, 10:31 AM (This post was last modified: 11-05-2016 10:36 AM by TheBeardedDude.)
RE: Do you Compartmentalize?
(11-05-2016 09:42 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(11-05-2016 07:43 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Science defines what scientists do, scientists DON'T define what science is by doing whatever they want.

That’s just magical thinking. Science is purely human endeavor, defined by what scientists do. If scientists don’t define what scientists do, then who does? Science? Science is not a being, it defines nothing.

Quote:No, that is where conflict of interest can occur for companies that employ technicians who use methods derived by science to produce a product.

Companies that employee scientists. Are you trying to suggest the scientists they employee are not scientists but technicians? Are you gonna engage in a bit of no true scotsman here, and suggest that scientist that work for private industries, are not true scientist? And perhaps only the handful who work in public sector, in academia qualify as scientists?

Quote:Scientists work within the context and framework of the peer reviewed scientific method. This isn't a no true scotsman, nor is it even a generalized statement. It is what the definition is for a scientist.

Fewer than 1% of scientists manage to publish a paper in any given year. Those seeking to get published, are seeking to appeal to the editorial boards of any particular journal, by producing studies the editorial boards find “sexy”, appealing to their reader base, draws attention to their particular journal, gets media attentions, increases their brand recognition. The sort of editorial decisions dictate the sort of studies that get published, these publications have an interest in the research as well as the results too. Research and conclusions that would likely entice further readership. These journals are not particularly interested in whether your particular study holds valid upon reproduction, hence why when these studies are researched independently, they fail more often than succeed on replication. These journals are also bias, in preferring studies that yield positive results, over negative ones.

Quote:The reality is that many people hold science degrees and work for organizations performing tests, but these people are better classified as science TECHNICIANS as opposed to SCIENTISTS.

No true scotsman fallacy.

At this rate, we might as well only consider about 1/10 of those who devoted themselves to acquiring advance science degrees, as scientists. And I don't think the large swath of these individuals who work for private industries, who strived as hard as everyone else to obtain their degrees, would say they're not scientist.


Quote:Their research is NOT defined by or assigned by the university. There is no pressure to do a certain type of test, reach a specific conclusion, or push the university's agenda (whatever that may be). The researcher is not beholden to the university with respect to their scientific research.

The university has an explicit interest in why they fund such research in the first place. You serve their interest, regardless if your aware of it or not. They don't pay the bills, so that you can do whatever you want. Your purpose whether you're aware of it or not, is to increase enrollment, to increase the university prestige, it's ranking, etc.... You're an entirely a tool in this endeavor, nor is it required that you acknowledge this, for it to be true. Universities don't fund research programs, for selfless reasons. Only in your imagination is this true.

Quote:YOU don't understand how science actually works nor how the scientific community polices itself.

And you don't understand how larger organizations that foot the bill work, because you're a tool, living in a fantasy world of your own making.

Quote:Once again, this is patently false. Academic institutions don't hire research scientists to keep them beholden to an agenda. Once again, this is why TENURE is a thing that exists too.

Your beholden to their agenda. They don't fund your research, for selfless reasons. They foot the bill for entirely selfish reasons, because they serve the interest of the universities themselves. The tool need not acknowledge this though.

Quote:But you also clearly don't know how scientists are hired at academic institutions. Scientists (the other research faculty) in a department are the ones who do the interviewing and decide on which candidate gets the job. The scientists within academia, are beholden (with respect to their science) to their peers. Department heads are SCIENTISTS. Faculty are SCIENTISTS. Departments run themselves and they are populated by SCIENTISTS.

I know enough to debunk your belief in this self-contained, autonomous department, as nothing more than elaborate fictions you tell yourself.

Quote:Attracting donors. Yep, departments and universities are definitely interested in that. And no, that doesn't change how or what science the researchers do. Instead, they promote the research they are already doing to attract donors or alumni donations.

Whether you like it or not a universities research department the type of studies that get funded, have to be able to attract donors, increase enrollment, serve the universities bottom line. You as an employee of that university don't have to know that of course, those a part of organizational management do. If you're failing in this regard you'd likely get the boot, or have funding withdrawn.

"That’s just magical thinking. Science is purely human endeavor, defined by what scientists do. If scientists don’t define what scientists do, then who does? Science? Science is not a being, it defines nothing."

What the fuck are you even talking about? Science is defined by humans, but science isn't defined as "anything a scientist does." A scientist is a scientist because they actually do SCIENCE. So a definition of SCIENCE comes BEFORE a SCIENTIST does SCIENCE.

It isn't "magical thinking," this is the way DEFINITIONS work.

"Companies that employee scientists. Are you trying to suggest the scientists they employee are not scientists but technicians? Are you gonna engage in a bit of no true scotsman here, and suggest that scientist that work for private industries, are not true scientist? And perhaps only the handful who work in public sector, in academia qualify as scientists? "

I am explicitly saying that the narrow way in which YOU have tried to define scientists (by equating science technicians with being representative of scientists) is wrong.

"Fewer than 1% of scientists manage to publish a paper in any given year."

Irrelevant

"Those seeking to get published, are seeking to appeal to the editorial boards of any particular journal, by producing studies the editorial boards find “sexy”, appealing to their reader base, draws attention to their particular journal, gets media attentions, increases their brand recognition. "

You have no clue how peer reviewed science gets published in academic journals.

There is no "editorial board" for journals. There are editors (who are scientists) who send the papers out for review to experts in the field.

"The sort of editorial decisions dictate the sort of studies that get published, these publications have an interest in the research as well as the results too. "

Journals select articles they publish = NO FUCKING SHIT

Paleobiology (the journal) will select specific topics for publication because the journal has guidelines for what types of subjects it publishes on. ALL journals do that and is the reason that there are thousands of journals on various topics and subtopics.

"Research and conclusions that would likely entice further readership."

Once again, you fail to understand how journals select articles. Journals aren't magazines. They select articles that have good science and are relevant to the mission statement of the journal. Journal editors for peer-reviewed science, are NOT doing the same job that editors of newspapers or popular magazines are. This is YOUR ignorance of science showing its face.

"These journals are not particularly interested in whether your particular study holds valid upon reproduction, hence why when these studies are researched independently, they fail more often than succeed on replication. These journals are also bias, in preferring studies that yield positive results, over negative ones. "

Horse shit. This indicates that YOU don't read peer-reviewed science. Studies are almost always publishing negative results or results that conflict with other studies or invalidate other studies. They are almost always in the context of new data supporting a different conclusion.

YOU assume studies are only evidence positive or observational for proving a new conclusion. Or that they are evidence negative for proving a previous study wrong. This is not only a gross oversimplification, it's just plain ignorant of the scientific literature. This is why papers have background sections and discussion sections, because papers almost always include discussions of PREVIOUS work and seek to support or refute previously published research.

"No true scotsman fallacy.

At this rate, we might as well only consider about 1/10 of those who devoted themselves to acquiring advance science degrees, as scientists. And I don't think the large swath of these individuals who work for private industries, who strived as hard as everyone else to obtain their degrees, would say they're not scientist. "


You don't know what a no true scotsman fallacy is.

Having a degree in something, does not automatically qualify you as an expert on something. Nor does having a degree in a science, make you a scientist. YOU trying to oversimplify what a scientist is to fit into your straw man, does not mean I am presenting a no true scotsman.

"The university has an explicit interest in why they fund such research in the first place."

Once again, you demonstrate your misunderstanding of how research is funded and why. Universities pay professors and graduate students to teach, but the money to fund the research is most often NOT from the university itself. Universities might have some limited research funding, or provide start-up money to professors establishing labs. But NONE of this comes with any caveat about WHAT they study or WHY or what conclusions should be reached.

Funding is most often, at universities, from taxpayer funded grants (like from NSF or NASA) or from private donors (which can be corporations).

In either case, the research must STILL go through the scientific vetting process. So regardless of who is funding the research, the science must still be unbiased in order to get published in peer-reviewed science journals.

"You serve their interest, regardless if your aware of it or not."

There you go again, telling me what I do and why because apparently I don't know but you do. This is such a stupid fucking comment, I just want to post it again so people can read this level of stupid one more time as great case study: "You serve their interest, regardless if your aware of it or not."

"They don't pay the bills, so that you can do whatever you want."

Yeah, they do. That's actually how this works. I am sitting in my lab right now enjoying the electricity and access to online journals while they pay me to teach AND stay out of my research because the university administration doesn't dictate in any way what I research or why.

"Your purpose whether you're aware of it or not, is to increase enrollment, to increase the university prestige, it's ranking, etc.... "

They pay me to TEACH. They do NOT pay me to do research. They simply provide access that allows me to do research. The university is NOT directly involved in my research in any way. The university only has control over what I teach. Period. Once again, YOUR failure to understand how universities work is on full display.

"Universities don't fund research programs, for selfless reasons."

Research programs doing research is the only reason universities fund them. You still fail to understand that universities exist TO fund individual research and teaching programs. YOU assume an ulterior motive but YOU haven't validated that bullshit opinion with anything other than a constant stream of ignorance and assumption derived from said ignorance.

"And you don't understand how larger organizations that foot the bill work, because you're a tool, living in a fantasy world of your own making. "

Holy shit, you're off on so many moronic tangents that you can't even grasp what is being said to you.

"Your beholden to their agenda. They don't fund your research, for selfless reasons. "

They (the university) don't fund my research you ignorant twat. My research is funded by the National Science Foundation and the Geological Society of America.

"They foot the bill for entirely selfish reasons, because they serve the interest of the universities themselves. The tool need not acknowledge this though. "

The stupid just keeps going.

Universities exist to serve the interests of the professors and students. YOU assume something else.

"I know enough to debunk your belief in this self-contained, autonomous department, as nothing more than elaborate fictions you tell yourself. "
Laugh out load
It is better to be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.

You've displayed an amazing lack of knowledge about the following:
1) science
2) scientists
3) universities
4) research programs
5) professors
6) graduate students
7) research funding


You've displayed this ignorance in the stupid comments you make.

Why are they stupid? Because you assert your opinion as if it is valid and based on fact, when the ignorance is obvious and has been pointed out to you numerous times by numerous people, yet you continue to assert that you actually know something.

You are at the peak of "Mt. Stupid" to left of the diagram below:
[Image: screenshot_799.png]

"Whether you like it or not a universities research department the type of studies that get funded, have to be able to attract donors, increase enrollment, serve the universities bottom line. You as an employee of that university don't have to know that of course, those a part of organizational management do. If you're failing in this regard you'd likely get the boot, or have funding withdrawn."

I've already point out multiple times how your misunderstanding of how I (and other graduate students, researchers, and professors) am employed by the university is flawed and flat-out wrong. You can keep saying it, but it just makes you look dumb Drinking Beverage

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes TheBeardedDude's post
11-05-2016, 10:46 AM (This post was last modified: 11-05-2016 11:22 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Do you Compartmentalize?
(11-05-2016 07:41 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  There is no compelling evidence to suggest that the scientific method and peer review eliminate individual bias.

You made a positive claim. Somehow you (claim) to have evidence to demonstrate that "peer review does not eliminate individual bias".
If there is no "compelling evidence", then you must have evidence, that you judge to be *non-compelling*, (or you are, as usual, talking out your ass.)

Prove it.
Give us examples of peer reviewed BIASED studies where the bias was not addressed or removed in the review.

Put up, or shut up.

Then explain for us, how all this crap from you in this thread, fits in with your (claimed) assertion, that you are just here to find out how others think.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Bucky Ball's post
11-05-2016, 11:05 AM
RE: Do you Compartmentalize?
(11-05-2016 10:31 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Once again, you fail to understand how journals select articles. Journals aren't magazines. They select articles that have good science and are relevant to the mission statement of the journal. Journal editors for peer-reviewed science, are NOT doing the same job that editors of newspapers or popular magazines are. This is YOUR ignorance of science showing its face.

lol, more like your a victim of buying your own bullshit.

You take the same study published by a prestigious institution, and one by a no-name institution, the former is likely to be accepted while the later is likely to be rejected, on name alone, though the rejection letters from the journal won't state that.

"The most famous piece of evidence on bias against authors comes from a study by DP Peters and SJ Ceci.6 They took 12 studies that came from prestigious institutions that had already been published in psychology journals. They retyped the papers, made minor changes to the titles, abstracts, and introductions but changed the authors' names and institutions. They invented institutions with names like the Tri-Valley Center for Human Potential. The papers were then resubmitted to the journals that had first published them. In only three cases did the journals realize that they had already published the paper, and eight of the remaining nine were rejected—not because of lack of originality but because of poor quality. Peters and Ceci concluded that this was evidence of bias against authors from less prestigious institutions."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1420798/


"But researchers and the journals in which they publish are not very interested in negative results. They prefer to accentuate the positive, and thus the error-prone. Negative results account for just 10-30% of published scientific literature, depending on the discipline. This bias may be growing. A study of 4,600 papers from across the sciences conducted by Daniele Fanelli of the University of Edinburgh found that the proportion of negative results dropped from 30% to 14% between 1990 and 2007. Lesley Yellowlees, president of Britain’s Royal Society of Chemistry, has published more than 100 papers. She remembers only one that reported a negative result."

http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/2...ot-trouble


***bought to go on lunch, don't have time to read your entire post, so I just responded to this particular one.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-05-2016, 11:10 AM
RE: Do you Compartmentalize?
(11-05-2016 11:05 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(11-05-2016 10:31 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Once again, you fail to understand how journals select articles. Journals aren't magazines. They select articles that have good science and are relevant to the mission statement of the journal. Journal editors for peer-reviewed science, are NOT doing the same job that editors of newspapers or popular magazines are. This is YOUR ignorance of science showing its face.

lol, more like your a victim of buying your own bullshit.

You take the same study published by a prestigious institution, and one by a no-name institution, the former is likely to be accepted while the later is likely to be rejected, on name alone, though the rejection letters from the journal won't state that.

"The most famous piece of evidence on bias against authors comes from a study by DP Peters and SJ Ceci.6 They took 12 studies that came from prestigious institutions that had already been published in psychology journals. They retyped the papers, made minor changes to the titles, abstracts, and introductions but changed the authors' names and institutions. They invented institutions with names like the Tri-Valley Center for Human Potential. The papers were then resubmitted to the journals that had first published them. In only three cases did the journals realize that they had already published the paper, and eight of the remaining nine were rejected—not because of lack of originality but because of poor quality. Peters and Ceci concluded that this was evidence of bias against authors from less prestigious institutions."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1420798/


"But researchers and the journals in which they publish are not very interested in negative results. They prefer to accentuate the positive, and thus the error-prone. Negative results account for just 10-30% of published scientific literature, depending on the discipline. This bias may be growing. A study of 4,600 papers from across the sciences conducted by Daniele Fanelli of the University of Edinburgh found that the proportion of negative results dropped from 30% to 14% between 1990 and 2007. Lesley Yellowlees, president of Britain’s Royal Society of Chemistry, has published more than 100 papers. She remembers only one that reported a negative result."

http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/2...ot-trouble


***bought to go on lunch, don't have time to read your entire post, so I just responded to this particular one.

Holy sheep-shit Batman! A RED HERRING! Who would have fucking guessed?!!!!

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-05-2016, 11:49 AM
RE: Do you Compartmentalize?
(11-05-2016 11:05 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  lol, more like your a victim of buying your own bullshit.

You take the same study published by a prestigious institution, and one by a no-name institution, the former is likely to be accepted while the later is likely to be rejected, on name alone, though the rejection letters from the journal won't state that.

You *claimed* that science has inherent bias.
Now, ..... unable to support that bullshit, with any facts or examples, you move the goal posts to discuss the publishing world.

Nice try.

Fail.

Dodgy

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
11-05-2016, 11:54 AM
RE: Do you Compartmentalize?
(11-05-2016 11:49 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  You *claimed* that science has inherent bias.
Now, ..... unable to support that bullshit, with any facts or examples, you move the goal posts to discuss the publishing world.

You mean peer reviewed journals.

Are you suggesting that biases in peer reviewed scientific journals, wouldn't be biases in science?

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-05-2016, 11:59 AM
RE: Do you Compartmentalize?
(11-05-2016 10:46 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(11-05-2016 07:41 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  There is no compelling evidence to suggest that the scientific method and peer review eliminate individual bias.

You made a positive claim. Somehow you (claim) to have evidence to demonstrate that "peer review does not eliminate individual bias".

Lol, I'm arguing against those who believe it does, against those who claim that peer review process, doing science, eliminates individual bias, which was Stevil suggestion.

If you can't support this claim, then thats that.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-05-2016, 12:09 PM
RE: Do you Compartmentalize?
(11-05-2016 11:59 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(11-05-2016 10:46 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  You made a positive claim. Somehow you (claim) to have evidence to demonstrate that "peer review does not eliminate individual bias".

Lol, I'm arguing against those who believe it does, against those who claim that peer review process, doing science, eliminates individual bias, which was Stevil suggestion.

If you can't support this claim, then thats that.

So you have no examples. That's what I thought.
YOU made the claim, as anyone can read. YOU have nothing to support your claim.
(And now, you try to weasel out of the fact you made a bald face claim, and you made it up).

Why are you here, again ?

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
11-05-2016, 12:16 PM
RE: Do you Compartmentalize?
(11-05-2016 11:59 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(11-05-2016 10:46 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  You made a positive claim. Somehow you (claim) to have evidence to demonstrate that "peer review does not eliminate individual bias".

Lol, I'm arguing against those who believe it does, against those who claim that peer review process, doing science, eliminates individual bias, which was Stevil suggestion.

If you can't support this claim, then thats that.

YOU made claim. YOU support YOUR claim.

Want evidence of Stevil's claim that science and peer review are both processes that seek to eliminate biases? There is a lot of it...published every year...by scientists...

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-05-2016, 12:19 PM
RE: Do you Compartmentalize?
(11-05-2016 12:16 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
(11-05-2016 11:59 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Lol, I'm arguing against those who believe it does, against those who claim that peer review process, doing science, eliminates individual bias, which was Stevil suggestion.

If you can't support this claim, then thats that.

YOU made claim. YOU support YOUR claim.

Want evidence of Stevil's claim that science and peer review are both processes that seek to eliminate biases? There is a lot of it...published every year...by scientists...

So show me, show me a published study, in which the researcher had a strong bias going into it, which his/her bias was eliminated in process of peer review. You claim there's a lot. Show me some.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: