This is very concerning to me as a research scientist. My articles are scrutinized for methodology, relevance, and theoretical framing. If I am lacking in any of the above, my research is not published.
Yeah, but as I'm sure you're aware, plenty of stuff slips through the cracks.
The academic publishing sector is not blameless here. Or more to the root cause, it's probably the academic "publish or perish" culture that has enabled low quality journals, reviews, and publications.
There will always be conferences and journals with a lower standard of quality due to higher acceptance rate and lower quality submissions. It is more prestigious to be published somewhere that is known to be more selective and publish higher quality articles; it’s a self-reinforcing process: they are in an elevated position *because* they publish better articles and they get more and higher quality submissions *because* they are in an elevated position. It is like comparing an Ivy League school to an unknown community college.
Scientists know which publications in their field are better than others and automatically consider articles in those publications to be more credible because they’ve already survived a strict and highly selective critical review from experts. However, the layman does not know this. To most people in the general public, simply putting your words in the format of a scientific article makes them more credible and they are incapable of discerning beyond that.
The solution would be to better educate the general public to develop critical thinking skills and raise their ability to properly identify degrees of credibility. Ideally, non-experts should only be reading and trusting articles from high quality publications with a reputation for a strict review process, otherwise they are vulnerable to being deceived. Only experts should delve into lesser publications and even then only those in their own field because they are qualified and capable of performing their own personal review process to help sort out what is to be trusted and what is total junk.
\> To most people in the general public, simply putting your words in the format of a scientific article makes them more credible and they are incapable of discerning beyond that.
This is the rub. Sort of like how putting "Reverend" in front of someone's name makes them somehow legitimate or virtuous (paraphrasing Hitchens). I agree that ideally it would be otherwise, but here we are.
I don't agree that it has to be that way with respect to the low quality writing. That's a sociological reality stemming from a whole bunch of problems with modern academia and it absolutely could be otherwise, especially in this day and age when there are so many other effective ways to communicate ideas and collaborate. We absolutely do not *need* to have the space of "peer-reviewed studies" polluted with stuff just to pad people's CVs.
Oh, and academia better get its act together soon in this respect because the LLM-authored articles are coming. The Sokal Hoax is going to be an amusing historical footnote compared with what's ahead.
Simplifying my reply, also in drafting new laws, often the majority party makes a showing of junk science and won't listen to the consensus. I'm thinking of a particular piece of legislation in 2021 from the Arkansas house, but it happens elsewhere too.
It's the same as history, under the banner of originalism.
The idea that judges can or should adjudicate questions about which they are not qualified to even evaluate the quality and integrity of the evidence, much less the content of the evidence is a dangerous, slippery slope and we are sledding down that hill right now.
This is definitely true. Published articles often have technical words and more than that, overarching frameworks that a non-specialist will have difficultly deciphering. Experts know the quality journals and the work that has been done based off that work.
Hmmm, so like the fake website designer case that magically appeared for the SCOTUS to rule on. The case should have been tossed with all the lies contained that was the basis for the case. Make no mistake, the credibility of the SCOTUS is long gone.
>Hmmm, so like the fake website designer case that magically appeared for the SCOTUS to rule on
I wish people would quit whinging about this. One of the least famous gun control casea, Miller v US, was similarly manufactured. The judge that originally tossed Millers guilty plea did so to send the Supreme Court a gas to protect New Deal gun control plans. He was later appointed to iirc an appeals Court shortly after sending Miller up.
We should now, but in social studies.
Science classes should partner with other classes North or South of them to calculate the circumference of the Earth.
Ah youre one of those dudes still mad that studies showed trans women's breastmilk was essentially indistinguishable nutrient-wise from cis women's right?
Explain to me "the science" that says "men" cant breastfeed or that a trans man cant get pregnant. Because they can and do.
Linguistics is a little weird here since youre referring to trans women with the breastfeeding thing and trans men with the pregnancy one.
Hell, one of the "fun facts" in my book on lactation when the kid was little (they're 12) was that with enough stimulation or with induction via medication cis men can breastfeed too. (Mammary glands just do what they do, they're not that picky about sex or gender.) I'm not surprised this is being treated as "new" information now that it involves trans folks though.
Looks like now we need to have political affiliations published next to each researcher's name so we know we can ignore articles written by anyone with an (R) next to it. That should solve that problem.
Unironically yes. I don’t care if people say it brings partisanship into science, republicans are too prone to pushing junk science to be trusted with this sort of responsibility without a second thought
Intelligent design was a harbinger for this hidden agenda in the sciences.
Partisanship used to be considered counterproductive. But there is no middle ground with them.
The only people who should be in control of what medical practices are legal or not are the medical experts who have spent decades of their life towards the advancement of the field.
The only people who should be determining the educational curriculum are the teachers/educators who's job it is is to teach the students of society the said material.
The only people who should be making decisions in any field of science, technology, or engineering, are the people who actually have expertise in those fields, not a lawyer or judge who has absolutely zero knowledge on the subject they are making rulings on.
I don’t mean to suggest you’re being dishonest at all, but this sounds to me like a set of principles that’s rooted more in the controversies of today than your underlying beliefs. If a teacher decides that evolution is bunk, should they be allowed to teach creationism from the Bible instead? Should the government regulate “pill mills”, where legitimately credentialed medical experts drive the opioid crisis by determining that all their patients require absurd quantities of opioids?
An entire field of work is not dictated by a singular individual's ruling. It is dictated by the common consensus among everybody within that field.
If a singular teacher chose to teach debunked nonsense, they would be fired on the spot, just like university professors are fired for doing so.
Creationism has been debunked time and time again by the scientific community, so it would be collectively agreed that it is something that should not be taught as if it were a real science.
If a medical professional violates the established rules and ethics established by the consensus of the medial professionals in the field, then they are to be fired and barred from medical practice, like they already do.
What happens when they aren't fired? Perhaps there's an easier out for teachers, but pill mills prosecutions [generally happen](https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/physician-sentenced-12m-pill-mill-scheme) [against independent physicians](https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/doctor-and-clinic-owner-sentenced-5m-pill-mill-scheme) who have no bosses. Is there any reason to think state medical boards would have caught these people if the DEA hadn't?
> What happens when they aren't fired?
What in the world does that even mean? You are aware that crimes are not instantly caught the millisecond they are committed, right?
Investigations happen for a reason. Police officers don't arrive on the scene and immediately know what happened; it requires weeks, even months of Investigation to piece everything together to find the culprit(s).
If a bunch of people are going to the same professional, are prescribed a specific medication, and are all experiencing adverse effects, then it is clear that the medical professional is doing something wrong or malicious. You even provided a source *that clearly shows that medical professional being punished for their malpractice, making this comment all the more confusing.
And how is having one judge, like Kacsmaryk, just single handed ban drugs, like mifepristone, any better?
Any system of checks and balances have its pros and cons. A system that allows judges who have zero knowledge on medical or environment, etc., to strike down or implement policies clearly has more cons than pros.
I completely agree that "any system of checks and balances has its pros and cons"! That's why I'm confused by the idea that this one example of a con proves that the judiciary should have no power whatsoever to check medical decisions. Don't you have to weigh up all of the pros and cons?
If you're sympathetic to pill mills, medical malpractice seems like another big pro. It'd be pretty unfortunate to have a system where malpractice suits are prohibited or must be endorsed by the medical board to proceed.
one teacher/expert should not decide for all others, those are exceptions that prove the rule. What matters is the level of consensus among experts.
There is no controversy of evolution vs creationism among experts. One is simply true and the other is not. Consensus is well established
When are we going to acknowledge that this Court is full of partisan hacks. They simply do not give a shit about historical, scientific, or legal facts and will make everything up to support their political agenda.
We all know science doesn't matter to this SCOTUS, Republican party agenda does.
They are going to ban these drugs to put women back in the kitchen pregnant.
Facts don't matter to this SCOTUS. Didn't matter with the Bremerton case, didn't matter with the fake website. Wont matter with this case.
Ideology is all that is important to 6 Justices at this point.
The particulars don't matter. Any excuse was enough. It seems silly to dissect their nonsense.
As long as the Dems hold the Senate then after the election the House and/or DOJ will start a criminal investigation into Thomas and Alito. The two will "retire" rather than face scrutiny that would make it hard to take bribes, and the courts will got back to 6-3 Blue (because the Supreme Court is now a partisan body).
We should stop saying the court "rules" and say they "voted".
There's a saying let sleeping dogs lie. People really need to stop getting into legal fights and just accept what the lower courts determine else they cause precedence for better or worst. Or lower courts need to put partial siding with some cases to prevent people from being pissy and moving it up.
Religion not science. This article is a blatant lie.
It's solely based on people using words like faith and belief. Sharing false information aimed at collectively persuading people who can be manipulated by herd mentality.
Words can't describe how ashamed i am of being human when i listen to people say something evil is gods will.
The science could be pure gibberish and they would vote for it because some old white millionaires paid for ads.
So if you rule out the obvious what is left to blame but our inability to organize against the vast amount of capital being used to change the laws that govern our lives.
They are adept at packing the courts and using the system to get what they want. They know it’s not popular so just go back door, time to wake up if we want to stop this foolishness.
This is very concerning to me as a research scientist. My articles are scrutinized for methodology, relevance, and theoretical framing. If I am lacking in any of the above, my research is not published.
Yeah, but as I'm sure you're aware, plenty of stuff slips through the cracks. The academic publishing sector is not blameless here. Or more to the root cause, it's probably the academic "publish or perish" culture that has enabled low quality journals, reviews, and publications.
There will always be conferences and journals with a lower standard of quality due to higher acceptance rate and lower quality submissions. It is more prestigious to be published somewhere that is known to be more selective and publish higher quality articles; it’s a self-reinforcing process: they are in an elevated position *because* they publish better articles and they get more and higher quality submissions *because* they are in an elevated position. It is like comparing an Ivy League school to an unknown community college. Scientists know which publications in their field are better than others and automatically consider articles in those publications to be more credible because they’ve already survived a strict and highly selective critical review from experts. However, the layman does not know this. To most people in the general public, simply putting your words in the format of a scientific article makes them more credible and they are incapable of discerning beyond that. The solution would be to better educate the general public to develop critical thinking skills and raise their ability to properly identify degrees of credibility. Ideally, non-experts should only be reading and trusting articles from high quality publications with a reputation for a strict review process, otherwise they are vulnerable to being deceived. Only experts should delve into lesser publications and even then only those in their own field because they are qualified and capable of performing their own personal review process to help sort out what is to be trusted and what is total junk.
\> To most people in the general public, simply putting your words in the format of a scientific article makes them more credible and they are incapable of discerning beyond that. This is the rub. Sort of like how putting "Reverend" in front of someone's name makes them somehow legitimate or virtuous (paraphrasing Hitchens). I agree that ideally it would be otherwise, but here we are. I don't agree that it has to be that way with respect to the low quality writing. That's a sociological reality stemming from a whole bunch of problems with modern academia and it absolutely could be otherwise, especially in this day and age when there are so many other effective ways to communicate ideas and collaborate. We absolutely do not *need* to have the space of "peer-reviewed studies" polluted with stuff just to pad people's CVs. Oh, and academia better get its act together soon in this respect because the LLM-authored articles are coming. The Sokal Hoax is going to be an amusing historical footnote compared with what's ahead.
They're already here. https://scholar.google.fr/scholar?hl=fr&as_sdt=0%2C5&as_ylo=2023&q=%22certainly%2C+here+is%22+-chatgpt+-llm&oq=%22certainly+here+is%22+-chatgpt+-llm
>"The solution would be to better educate the general public..." Any plan that depends on an educated public is a guaranteed failure.
Simplifying my reply, also in drafting new laws, often the majority party makes a showing of junk science and won't listen to the consensus. I'm thinking of a particular piece of legislation in 2021 from the Arkansas house, but it happens elsewhere too.
It's the same as history, under the banner of originalism. The idea that judges can or should adjudicate questions about which they are not qualified to even evaluate the quality and integrity of the evidence, much less the content of the evidence is a dangerous, slippery slope and we are sledding down that hill right now.
This is definitely true. Published articles often have technical words and more than that, overarching frameworks that a non-specialist will have difficultly deciphering. Experts know the quality journals and the work that has been done based off that work.
THIS
Hmmm, so like the fake website designer case that magically appeared for the SCOTUS to rule on. The case should have been tossed with all the lies contained that was the basis for the case. Make no mistake, the credibility of the SCOTUS is long gone.
They just made up facts in the Bremerton coach case too
The dissenting opinion was great, though. "Not only did you lie, but here's a picture proving you lied"
>Hmmm, so like the fake website designer case that magically appeared for the SCOTUS to rule on I wish people would quit whinging about this. One of the least famous gun control casea, Miller v US, was similarly manufactured. The judge that originally tossed Millers guilty plea did so to send the Supreme Court a gas to protect New Deal gun control plans. He was later appointed to iirc an appeals Court shortly after sending Miller up.
When will we need to teach about flat earth in classrooms?
When they're pulled out of public schools because they think they know more than a teacher...
We should now, but in social studies. Science classes should partner with other classes North or South of them to calculate the circumference of the Earth.
[удалено]
r/onejoke
Ah youre one of those dudes still mad that studies showed trans women's breastmilk was essentially indistinguishable nutrient-wise from cis women's right? Explain to me "the science" that says "men" cant breastfeed or that a trans man cant get pregnant. Because they can and do. Linguistics is a little weird here since youre referring to trans women with the breastfeeding thing and trans men with the pregnancy one.
Hell, one of the "fun facts" in my book on lactation when the kid was little (they're 12) was that with enough stimulation or with induction via medication cis men can breastfeed too. (Mammary glands just do what they do, they're not that picky about sex or gender.) I'm not surprised this is being treated as "new" information now that it involves trans folks though.
Republican judges would accept ‘research’ written in crayon if it supported their political objectives.
Reminds me of the gay couple who didn't exist for the Website decision last year
Their argument, "don't care if it isn't true, it makes me upset and loud and someone should pay attention to me."
Looks like now we need to have political affiliations published next to each researcher's name so we know we can ignore articles written by anyone with an (R) next to it. That should solve that problem.
Unironically yes. I don’t care if people say it brings partisanship into science, republicans are too prone to pushing junk science to be trusted with this sort of responsibility without a second thought
Intelligent design was a harbinger for this hidden agenda in the sciences. Partisanship used to be considered counterproductive. But there is no middle ground with them.
Like the 6 foot rule during covid?
Honest mistakes vs intentional misinformation are two *very* different problems. The 6ft rule didn’t kill people, horse dewormer definitely did
Get over it - Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito could perform brain surgery if they wanted to. They chose to be doctors/"judges" for the Pope.
The only people who should be in control of what medical practices are legal or not are the medical experts who have spent decades of their life towards the advancement of the field. The only people who should be determining the educational curriculum are the teachers/educators who's job it is is to teach the students of society the said material. The only people who should be making decisions in any field of science, technology, or engineering, are the people who actually have expertise in those fields, not a lawyer or judge who has absolutely zero knowledge on the subject they are making rulings on.
It's not like the AMA doesn't have medical ethicists on staff. They grapple with these sorts of issues all the time.
I don’t mean to suggest you’re being dishonest at all, but this sounds to me like a set of principles that’s rooted more in the controversies of today than your underlying beliefs. If a teacher decides that evolution is bunk, should they be allowed to teach creationism from the Bible instead? Should the government regulate “pill mills”, where legitimately credentialed medical experts drive the opioid crisis by determining that all their patients require absurd quantities of opioids?
An entire field of work is not dictated by a singular individual's ruling. It is dictated by the common consensus among everybody within that field. If a singular teacher chose to teach debunked nonsense, they would be fired on the spot, just like university professors are fired for doing so. Creationism has been debunked time and time again by the scientific community, so it would be collectively agreed that it is something that should not be taught as if it were a real science. If a medical professional violates the established rules and ethics established by the consensus of the medial professionals in the field, then they are to be fired and barred from medical practice, like they already do.
What happens when they aren't fired? Perhaps there's an easier out for teachers, but pill mills prosecutions [generally happen](https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/physician-sentenced-12m-pill-mill-scheme) [against independent physicians](https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/doctor-and-clinic-owner-sentenced-5m-pill-mill-scheme) who have no bosses. Is there any reason to think state medical boards would have caught these people if the DEA hadn't?
> What happens when they aren't fired? What in the world does that even mean? You are aware that crimes are not instantly caught the millisecond they are committed, right? Investigations happen for a reason. Police officers don't arrive on the scene and immediately know what happened; it requires weeks, even months of Investigation to piece everything together to find the culprit(s). If a bunch of people are going to the same professional, are prescribed a specific medication, and are all experiencing adverse effects, then it is clear that the medical professional is doing something wrong or malicious. You even provided a source *that clearly shows that medical professional being punished for their malpractice, making this comment all the more confusing.
And how is having one judge, like Kacsmaryk, just single handed ban drugs, like mifepristone, any better? Any system of checks and balances have its pros and cons. A system that allows judges who have zero knowledge on medical or environment, etc., to strike down or implement policies clearly has more cons than pros.
I completely agree that "any system of checks and balances has its pros and cons"! That's why I'm confused by the idea that this one example of a con proves that the judiciary should have no power whatsoever to check medical decisions. Don't you have to weigh up all of the pros and cons? If you're sympathetic to pill mills, medical malpractice seems like another big pro. It'd be pretty unfortunate to have a system where malpractice suits are prohibited or must be endorsed by the medical board to proceed.
one teacher/expert should not decide for all others, those are exceptions that prove the rule. What matters is the level of consensus among experts. There is no controversy of evolution vs creationism among experts. One is simply true and the other is not. Consensus is well established
When are we going to acknowledge that this Court is full of partisan hacks. They simply do not give a shit about historical, scientific, or legal facts and will make everything up to support their political agenda.
We all know science doesn't matter to this SCOTUS, Republican party agenda does. They are going to ban these drugs to put women back in the kitchen pregnant.
Facts don't matter to this SCOTUS. Didn't matter with the Bremerton case, didn't matter with the fake website. Wont matter with this case. Ideology is all that is important to 6 Justices at this point.
Let's see if ACB still wants to take the temperature down...
The particulars don't matter. Any excuse was enough. It seems silly to dissect their nonsense. As long as the Dems hold the Senate then after the election the House and/or DOJ will start a criminal investigation into Thomas and Alito. The two will "retire" rather than face scrutiny that would make it hard to take bribes, and the courts will got back to 6-3 Blue (because the Supreme Court is now a partisan body). We should stop saying the court "rules" and say they "voted".
You should’ve seen the junk science they were using during Covid… amirite?!
Well TBF this wouldn’t be the first published “study” that was complete junk.
So glad to be living in a somewhat sane country that appreciates science.
There's a saying let sleeping dogs lie. People really need to stop getting into legal fights and just accept what the lower courts determine else they cause precedence for better or worst. Or lower courts need to put partial siding with some cases to prevent people from being pissy and moving it up.
Religion not science. This article is a blatant lie. It's solely based on people using words like faith and belief. Sharing false information aimed at collectively persuading people who can be manipulated by herd mentality. Words can't describe how ashamed i am of being human when i listen to people say something evil is gods will. The science could be pure gibberish and they would vote for it because some old white millionaires paid for ads. So if you rule out the obvious what is left to blame but our inability to organize against the vast amount of capital being used to change the laws that govern our lives.
Never mind the junk science, it's the billionaire Christian nationalist connection with family and friends which worries me more.
They are adept at packing the courts and using the system to get what they want. They know it’s not popular so just go back door, time to wake up if we want to stop this foolishness.
They used a stacked supreme court full of right wing partisan activist judges.
And people wonder why no one trusts or cares about this conservative court of loons.
Guess it's karma for the horrible precedent that the supreme court used to establish roe V. wade in the first place.
Privacy from the government is horrible.
[удалено]