Prejudice, science, etc.

[zenmaster]

Just found out about it today and planning on watching it this week sometime - still not sure why it's called "Medical, Inc." here and at the local theater "Doctored". I doubt the film will actually establish a conspiracy, however I'm sure it will raise some good points albeit probably in an overly dramatic and stretched manner in order to impress. Like other battling philosophical viewpoints, such as politics, there tend to be strengths and weaknesses on both sides.

[Tenet Nosce]

I doubt the film will actually establish a conspiracy,

In your opinion, what sort of criteria must be satisfied to establish a conspiracy?

[Tenet Nosce]

I found this to be both timely and relevant...

Misconduct Widespread in Retracted Science Papers, Study Finds

In the new study, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, two scientists and a medical communications consultant analyzed 2,047 retracted papers in the biomedical and life sciences. They found that misconduct was the reason for three-quarters of the retractions for which they could determine the cause.

... and I also found this at the end of the article...

Correction: October 1, 2012

An earlier version of this story misstated the federal agency housing the Office of Research Integrity. It is the Department of Health and Human Services, not the National Institutes of Health. The earlier version also misstated the reason cited in the study for three-quarters of the retractions for which researchers could determine the cause. It was misconduct, not fraud. (Fraud or suspected fraud accounted for 41.3 percent of retractions; other forms of misconduct made up the rest.)

Hmm. So a scientist and a journalist walk into a bar...

No wonder the public doesn't know who to believe anymore.

[Cyan]

"Only about one in 10,000 papers in PubMed have been officially retracted, he noted."

*sighs*

0.01% error rate inside the veil.

You really cant make some people happy =(

[Tenet Nosce]

0.01% error rate inside the veil.

If it were an error rate that would be fine. But it is a misconduct rate, and only the known misconduct rate at that. For example, I would suspect that a complete audit of pharmaceutical research (if it could be done) would turn up a misconduct rate much higher than that. Or how about this: How about we just start with Monsanto?

[Cyan]

0.01% error rate inside the veil.

If it were an error rate that would be fine. But it is a misconduct rate, and only the known misconduct rate at that. For example, I would suspect that a complete audit of pharmaceutical research (if it could be done) would turn up a misconduct rate much higher than that. Or how about this: How about we just start with Monsanto?

Miconduct and fraud. Misconduct means unintentinal messing with the end results (most common is jumping to conclusion and having faulty test equipment (age or lack of fine detail maintanance) (sound familiar anyone,,, lack of maintanance or attention))

Fraud means intentional messing with the end result.

Thats essentialy the 2 categories that science admits errors in papers.

Misconduct is a gentlemans way of saying "he was in error and we promise to keep an eye on him" and fraud is a gentlemans way of saying "I hope no one believes him again"

Reported means that you order a copy of the study, you read it, you say if it has errors in your opinion, and if so, where, and send it back. To enter you must have a accepted basic level education in the field and access to the arena.

Even if we assume 10 times more errors than what has been found (unlikely since most theories arent strictly found to be wrong, simply, only found to be accurate for the time period and the methods used, little more) then we'll still only get to under 1%. Most stuff that science has built like mobile phones have a success rate of assuming its well built intenionally (corporations are fraudsters, but i mean if you built it around the principle of just testing a cellphone as many times as possible) you could get it to maybe 1:1000 connections, your cellphone is less scientific than the peer review process.

Science cant, by default, be accurate, anyone who says it can is a bad scientist, period. What science can be, is a method thats used to filter and organize data according to a common language. When you understand science as a language/method not as a "opinion/group" you'll get what i mean.

Channeling is a language, Ra is a topic (kind of)

Science is a language, Fraud is a topic (kind of)

to clarify, what people like monsanto do is not fraud data (thats the stupid way) what they do is they have something like 1000 different people do studies on their chosen topic, THEN they corralate all those studies and remove 90%+ and just leave the pro monsanto ones. They can do that with sufficient money without resorting to fraud. If you simply went through all the published studies on GM (the data, not just the conclusion, and recalculated the conclusions based on the data, since its easy to buy the guy who writes the conclusions (IPCC anyone) and not so easy to buy the whole research lab (though possible, but less secure information that way), you would most likely find a strong correlation between GM and Illhealth, but what science needs is people between the method (the massive amount of published material that no one can actually go through anymore) and the person interpreting the world.

As a scientist myself, what we need in the field is a understanding of the proper "social interactions for specialized field intelligence data distribution" thats a fancy way of saying, the data is now out there, what we need is special interest groups (ra is a good example) that somehow manage to go through all the data and comeup with a scientifically based theory as to why their idea and gnosis is best.

Dont rag the language for the speaker, dont rag science for the corruption of man.

M'kay!

Thats all, i'll hush now and let you wiser creatures continue debating

[Patrick]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2719747/

Consensus Science and the Peer Review

I recently reviewed a lecture on science, politics, and consensus that Michael Crichton—a physician, producer, and writer—gave at the California Institute of Technology in Pasadena, CA, USA on January 17, 2003. I was struck by the timeliness of its content. I am quite certain that most of us have been—in one way or another—exposed to the concept (and consequences) of “consensus science.” In fact, scientific reviewers of journal articles or grant applications—typically in biomedical research—may use the term (e.g., “....it is the consensus in the field...”) often as a justification for shutting down ideas not associated with their beliefs.

I have always had a negative gut reaction to the concept of “consensus science.” But Michael Crichton explains it best when he said:

I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.

And he continues:

Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What are relevant are reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period.

It is indeed hard to disagree with Mr. Crichton. The historical track record of scientific consensus is nothing but dismal. Many examples can be cited, but there are some classical ones. Nicholas Copernicus and his follower, Galileo Galilei, experienced the effects of consensus when they advanced theories that planet Earth was not the center of the Universe. The sixteenth and seventeenth centuries were not the right time to go against established dogmas.

Today, the methods for exacting consensus have changed but the result could be the same: The death of the spirit. The use and abuse of “consensus science” is at least partially responsible for the current crisis in the scientific and medical peer review system. Although peer review may be considered one of the sacred pillars of the scientific edifice, it has been under fire for some time now because peer review controls access to publications and funding, thus bringing the problem into sharp focus.

On one extreme, some believe that the current peer review system “is a non-validated charade whose processes generate results little better than does chance” [1]. Responding to generalized concerns, the NIH has recently produced new rules for grant writing and reviews, mainly with the intent to stimulate formulation of new ideas, but in the end it is us who must forcefully strive for the honest debate of truthful facts for the benefit of all. It is our responsibility as scientists, physicians, reviewers, and/or editors to be alert and always remember that “...consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E=mc2. Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way” (M. Crichton).

[Tenet Nosce]

Miconduct and fraud. Misconduct means unintentinal messing with the end results (most common is jumping to conclusion and having faulty test equipment (age or lack of fine detail maintanance) (sound familiar anyone,,, lack of maintanance or attention))

Fraud means intentional messing with the end result.

Yes, well you might be surprised to learn that I actually have a degree in science. And what I observed, even at the undergraduate level, was complicity in the tendency to "massage the data" in order to produce the desired result. That's bad news.

Most stuff that science has built like mobile phones have a success rate of assuming its well built intenionally (corporations are fraudsters, but i mean if you built it around the principle of just testing a cellphone as many times as possible) you could get it to maybe 1:1000 connections, your cellphone is less scientific than the peer review process.

Well of course! I think you may have misread my post if you think I was trying to throw the entire group of scientists under the bus. What I was attempting to say is- look at how the misbehavior of a few jack things up for everybody else.

Science cant, by default, be accurate, anyone who says it can is a bad scientist, period.

Well that is what I was talking about earlier. Perhaps you missed it. But what I was discussing was the tendency for unproven theories to be presented to the public as facts, simply because they are the consensus view. And then worse, for policies to be built around them. That's bad science, and IMO anybody who is party to this kind of behavior should not only be ashamed with themselves, but stripped of their credentials.

What science can be, is a method thats used to filter and organize data according to a common language. When you understand science as a language/method not as a "opinion/group" you'll get what i mean.

Yes, I get it. But thanks for clarifying.

to clarify, what people like monsanto do is not fraud data (thats the stupid way) what they do is they have something like 1000 different people do studies on their chosen topic, THEN they corralate all those studies and remove 90%+ and just leave the pro monsanto ones. They can do that with sufficient money without resorting to fraud. If you simply went through all the published studies on GM (the data, not just the conclusion, and recalculated the conclusions based on the data, since its easy to buy the guy who writes the conclusions (IPCC anyone) and not so easy to buy the whole research lab (though possible, but less secure information that way), you would most likely find a strong correlation between GM and Illhealth, but what science needs is people between the method (the massive amount of published material that no one can actually go through anymore) and the person interpreting the world.

Well, fine. Then I stand corrected and its even worse than I thought.

As a scientist myself, what we need in the field is a understanding of the proper "social interactions for specialized field intelligence data distribution" thats a fancy way of saying, the data is now out there, what we need is special interest groups (ra is a good example) that somehow manage to go through all the data and comeup with a scientifically based theory as to why their idea and gnosis is best.

Yes. That sounds like a great solution!

M'kay!

M'kay!

---

Yeah, what Patrick said!

Science is not a democracy, and a consensus view does not "create reality". IMO- Argumentum ad populum is running out-of-control in scientific circles. As is false skepticism.

If the percentage of scientists that engage in these logical fallacies is actually much smaller than what I perceive it to be, then I do heartily apologize. But in that case it is long past due time for the REAL scientists to stand up and speak the truth.

[Parsons]

Thanks for the interesting dialog TN / zm. TN's words are nearly identical to the caveats with science I was attempting to convey.

*Thanks also to Patrick as what he said/ quoted is also in line with what I was trying to explain.

[Shin'Ar]

If the percentage of scientists that engage in these logical fallacies is actually much smaller than what I perceive it to be, then I do heartily apologize. But in that case it is long past due time for the REAL scientists to stand up and speak the truth.

You might find some satisfaction in reading some of Rupert Sheldrake's work.

He is definitely stepping into the taboos of his science community.

[zenmaster]

In your opinion, what sort of criteria must be satisfied to establish a conspiracy?

I'd go with the legal definition, which basically involves proving beyond a reasonable doubt that people were knowingly involved in criminal activity. For better or worse here, we legally allow people to behave in a manner which opposes certain ideals or standards yet which are unrestricted by law.

---

I found this to be both timely and relevant...

You do realize that this is quite rare?

---

You might find some satisfaction in reading some of Rupert Sheldrake's work.

Sheldrake has some good videos available online as well. I'd also add Christopher Bache's work with collective consciousness.

Christopher Bache - The Living Classroom
Teaching and Collective Consciousness (book)

Christopher Bache - The Individual and Matrix Consciousness Pt 1/2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ouyAGS6zbd8

Christopher Bache - The Individual and Matrix Consciousness Pt 2/2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RlxqPI3RYTc

Rupert Sheldrake - The Extended Mind: Recent Experimental Evidence
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JnA8GUtXpXY

[Parsons]

In your opinion, what sort of criteria must be satisfied to establish a conspiracy?

I'd go with the legal definition, which basically involves proving beyond a reasonable doubt that people were knowingly involved in criminal activity. For better or worse here, we legally allow people to behave in a manner which opposes certain ideals or standards yet which are unrestricted by law.

How would you factor in the ones committing the conspiracy being literally the richest people in the world? Rich enough to buy new laws that make their illegal activity legal? What if they made bribery itself legal through unlimited campaign contributions? How would these people ever get caught 'beyond a reasonable doubt' if the majority of the population thought similarly to you?

Answer: they wouldn't and they haven't gotten caught so far. And won't get caught until they realize the very system of laws meant to 'protect' them has been rigged against their basic human rights and designed to make the criminal's actions legal.

[Patrick]

...What if they made bribery itself legal...

That is the whole point of lobbying. I seriously do not understand why people are not more offended by that.

It creates a Corporatocracy.

[Tenet Nosce]

I'd go with the legal definition, which basically involves proving beyond a reasonable doubt that people were knowingly involved in criminal activity. For better or worse here, we legally allow people to behave in a manner which opposes certain ideals or standards yet which are unrestricted by law.

Aha! Well that is certainly a perfectly valid definition. Though I don't think that we all would include the criminality aspect as necessarily to establishment of a conspiracy. Maybe that's why so many debates here keep going round and round.

See, when I am talking about "conspiracy" I am generally referring to people colluding to screw others over for their own personal gain. Whether or not it is legal. And also- I don't mean to imply that "everybody is in on it". Three people is enough to constitute a conspiracy in my book.

You do realize that this is quite rare?

Oh sure. I think we discussed this earlier. Something like 0.01%? But the point isn't the prevalence, it is the context and the reporting. 99.99% of studies might be legit... but somehow, someway, that BS study about the "dangers of vitamin C" is the one that leads on the nightly news. That's what I'm griping about.

[Patrick]

The war against dietary fat is a good example of epidemiology gone wrong. The correlations in between dietary fat and heart disease is less strong than the correlations in between sucrose and heart disease. And since sucrose and dietary fat are often taken together in excess they should never have concluded it was the fault of dietary fat alone. In fact we have evidence now that sucrose is the culprit and dietary fat itself not even being an issue.

[Tenet Nosce]

The war against dietary fat is a good example of epidemiology gone wrong. The correlations in between dietary fat and heart disease is less strong than the correlations in between sucrose and heart disease. And since sucrose and dietary fat are often taken together in excess they should never have concluded it was the fault of dietary fat alone. In fact we have evidence now that sucrose is the culprit and dietary fat itself not even being an issue.

Yes, exactly. Also worth mentioning is that there was no differentiation between plant and animal fat.

[Cyan]

but somehow, someway, that BS study about the "dangers of vitamin C" is the one that leads on the nightly news. That's what I'm griping about.

Selective reporting and cognitive bias by by reporters towards valuing own group more than others will create this.

[Tenet Nosce]

but somehow, someway, that BS study about the "dangers of vitamin C" is the one that leads on the nightly news. That's what I'm griping about.

Selective reporting and cognitive bias by by reporters towards valuing own group more than others will create this.

That, and also a complicated money trail linking transnational corporations, research institutions, and multimedia conglomerates.