🧵 Junk sciences
Anonymous at Fri, 19 Apr 2024 22:49:50 UTC No. 16136574
What's the scientific reason why an obviously fraudulent research get published and was under suspicion for a decade but only recently get retracted?
>duplicated image patches
>811 citations btw
lmao, their whole field is so fake and gay that possibly thousands of "experts" read this paper and none of them bother to check.
Anonymous at Fri, 19 Apr 2024 22:51:09 UTC No. 16136578
>>16136574
https://www.removepaywall.com/https
Anonymous at Fri, 19 Apr 2024 22:54:57 UTC No. 16136585
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126
Anonymous at Fri, 19 Apr 2024 22:56:52 UTC No. 16136590
Remember when Kary Mullis nobel winner and inventor of PCR technology proved the journal system to be a fraudulent joke in the 1990s?
Anonymous at Fri, 19 Apr 2024 23:12:43 UTC No. 16136612
>>16136590
sauce?
Anonymous at Fri, 19 Apr 2024 23:18:22 UTC No. 16136616
>>16136612
Some interview he gave where he discussed it.
Jesus, googling his name now the results have really gotten worse and more politicised
Anonymous at Fri, 19 Apr 2024 23:25:52 UTC No. 16136620
>>16136616
this one?
https://www.planksip.org/there-are-
Anonymous at Fri, 19 Apr 2024 23:32:20 UTC No. 16136630
>>16136620
>there-are-no-old-wise-men-at-the-t
not checked it but that's definitely the quote I remember him making about it.
He submitted several papers that were wrong to see if they were published without challenge
🗑️ Anonymous at Sat, 20 Apr 2024 22:36:13 UTC No. 16137935
>>16136630
epic trolling
what a chad
>>16136590
did he pull that off before or after the bogs did their soience heist?
Anonymous at Sun, 21 Apr 2024 01:07:51 UTC No. 16138177
>>16136630
How can I become a paper challenger?
Anonymous at Sun, 21 Apr 2024 01:20:57 UTC No. 16138197
I remember the feminist paper where they took Mein Kampf and replaced jews with men then submitted it to a journal
Anonymous at Sun, 21 Apr 2024 01:35:23 UTC No. 16138210
>>16138197
link
Anonymous at Sun, 21 Apr 2024 14:12:09 UTC No. 16138898
>>16136574
>What's the scientific reason why an obviously fraudulent research get published
That happens constantly because of how flawlessly the peer review system works.
Anonymous at Mon, 22 Apr 2024 01:29:24 UTC No. 16139738
>>16138210
https://www.timesofisrael.com/duped
Anonymous at Mon, 22 Apr 2024 22:08:35 UTC No. 16141230
>>16139738
omg its real lmao
Anonymous at Tue, 23 Apr 2024 07:10:42 UTC No. 16141770
>>16139738
If you publish a rewrite of mein kampf as a jewish manifesto you end up with The Protocols of the Elders of Zion
Anonymous at Wed, 24 Apr 2024 02:02:09 UTC No. 16143088
>>16136590
imagine how much worse it is now than it was then
Anonymous at Wed, 24 Apr 2024 22:52:46 UTC No. 16144454
>>16143088
Right, 1990s science was relatively ethical compared to how it is now
Anonymous at Wed, 24 Apr 2024 22:58:09 UTC No. 16144460
>>16144454
the COVID panic showed how garbage these "sciences" are:
https://retractionwatch.com/retract
also, look at the most high profile retraction and notice that they all belong to "the science (TM)" that we should all entrust our health and future to:
https://retractionwatch.com/the-ret
Anonymous at Thu, 25 Apr 2024 20:33:27 UTC No. 16145785
>>16141770
LOL
Its funny because its true
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Apr 2024 07:09:45 UTC No. 16146479
>>16136574
>thousands of "experts" read this paper and none of them bother to check.
They didn't call it out as fraudulent because they didn't want their own fraudulence called out, which is the price they would have paid.
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Apr 2024 23:48:55 UTC No. 16147626
>>16146479
Is this the power of peer review?
Anonymous at Sat, 27 Apr 2024 00:59:36 UTC No. 16147770
>>16147626
Is it possible to learn this power?
Anonymous at Sat, 27 Apr 2024 01:08:25 UTC No. 16147779
>>16136574
good question. why is all the climate junk science published?
Anonymous at Sat, 27 Apr 2024 11:29:52 UTC No. 16148314
>>16144454
And that was the era when the Bogs got their PhDs
Anonymous at Sat, 27 Apr 2024 23:48:51 UTC No. 16149207
>>16148314
Black soiyence man got his fraudulent PhD in the 1990s too
Anonymous at Sun, 28 Apr 2024 23:34:22 UTC No. 16150770
>>16149207
in the 1980s he was a professional baseball player
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Apr 2024 02:51:02 UTC No. 16151078
>>16136590
Wasn't entirely fair how he did it but he definitely wasn't wrong at all.
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Apr 2024 06:09:50 UTC No. 16152779
>>16136574
Really makes you wonder how much other fraudulent research there is out there that hasn't yet been retracted.
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Apr 2024 23:41:14 UTC No. 16153933
Anonymous at Wed, 1 May 2024 20:19:48 UTC No. 16155238
>>16149207
From Columbia University
Anonymous at Thu, 2 May 2024 06:50:03 UTC No. 16156065
>>16155238
what a prestigious institution
Anonymous at Fri, 3 May 2024 00:31:50 UTC No. 16157118
>>16136574
>>811 citations btw
How many of the papers citing the fraudulent research got retracted?
Anonymous at Fri, 3 May 2024 19:28:29 UTC No. 16158102
>>16157118
none, for some reason soience considers papers which are based on fraudulent research and false premises to still somehow be valid.
Anonymous at Sat, 4 May 2024 05:44:10 UTC No. 16158595
>>16143088
No need to imagine, we're living in it
Anonymous at Sat, 4 May 2024 23:51:41 UTC No. 16159876
>>16153933
We might not have seen the majority of it, but everyone knows its there
Anonymous at Sat, 4 May 2024 23:58:24 UTC No. 16159890
>>16136574
People would rather focus on themselves than fix things that they know are wrong.
Anonymous at Sun, 5 May 2024 17:33:45 UTC No. 16160905
>>16138177
Check PubPeer.
Anonymous at Sun, 5 May 2024 17:45:14 UTC No. 16160922
>>16159890
How do you suggest we "fix" the fact that the majority of scientists are low IQ and behave immorally?
Anonymous at Sun, 5 May 2024 18:35:56 UTC No. 16161000
why were so many low IQ fake papers like this get accepted? shouldn't publishers have some kind of automatic software to check for those kind of thing? it should be a simple image processing task. even if there is no automated program, shouldn't the reviewers catch something like this at first glance?
Anonymous at Sun, 5 May 2024 18:39:08 UTC No. 16161005
>>16161000
The reviewers and publishers are also low IQ. What do you expect?
Anonymous at Sun, 5 May 2024 19:10:54 UTC No. 16161061
>>16161005
I mean, they can't be low IQ enough to not do basic pattern matching, right?
Anonymous at Sun, 5 May 2024 21:51:19 UTC No. 16161342
Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 17:48:47 UTC No. 16162541
>>16160922
cut out their tongues if they lie, cut off their hands if they steal, cut off their dicks if they fuck dogs
Anonymous at Tue, 7 May 2024 04:24:06 UTC No. 16163538
>>16136590
No.
Anonymous at Tue, 7 May 2024 17:49:31 UTC No. 16164253
>>16136612
pasta sauce
Anonymous at Tue, 7 May 2024 23:56:45 UTC No. 16164956
>>16136574
>What's the scientific reason why an obviously fraudulent research get published
Scientists are a class of extremely dishonest people, they're on par with politicians in that regard
Anonymous at Wed, 8 May 2024 01:10:14 UTC No. 16165036
There needs to be more incentive for people to replicate published experiments. Muh novelty and muh publish or perish inherently incentivizes publishing bullshit photoshopped Westerns or fraudulent superconductors. There also needs to be more severe consequences for falsifying data.
Anonymous at Wed, 8 May 2024 19:40:12 UTC No. 16166227
>>16165036
>Muh novelty
Ernest Jones, in 1913, was the first to construe extreme narcissism, which he called the "God-complex", as a character flaw. He described people with God-complex as being aloof, self-important, overconfident, auto-erotic, inaccessible, self-admiring, and exhibitionistic, with fantasies of omnipotence and omniscience. He observed that these people had a high need for uniqueness.
emphasis on that final sentence
🗑️ Anonymous at Thu, 9 May 2024 01:17:27 UTC No. 16166658
I found this medium articles about widespread collusion in CS conferences by Chinese authors. it's real lol.
https://medium.com/@tnvijayk/potent
CS researchers don't like to publish in journals so conferences are the most prestige venues.
🗑️ Anonymous at Thu, 9 May 2024 01:18:28 UTC No. 16166659
>>16166658
fuck, wrong thread
Anonymous at Thu, 9 May 2024 18:34:28 UTC No. 16167734
>>16162541
they all fuck dogs
Anonymous at Thu, 9 May 2024 20:11:20 UTC No. 16167892
>>16136574
>811 citations
So over
Anonymous at Fri, 10 May 2024 05:19:37 UTC No. 16168562
>>16167892
Its extremely retarded that citing a source that gets retracted doesn't have cascading effects on all the papers which cite the retracted source. It makes it all too clear that the people publishing those papers do not care even slightly about publishing accurate scientific papers
Anonymous at Fri, 10 May 2024 22:11:37 UTC No. 16169747
>>16168562
>Its extremely retarded that citing a source that gets retracted doesn't have cascading effects on all the papers which cite the retracted source
If that were the case then well over 99% of all publications would have been retracted
Anonymous at Sat, 11 May 2024 16:36:40 UTC No. 16170938
>>16169747
Weeding out that much sure would make finding the needle in a haystack that represents decent publications a lot easier.
Anonymous at Sun, 12 May 2024 04:39:49 UTC No. 16171811
>>16170938
it would be both hilarious and very useful to have academic publishing thinned down as weeded out down to the few dozen or so useful publications that aren't based on lies
Anonymous at Sun, 12 May 2024 22:48:18 UTC No. 16172969
>>16136574
If it takes 10 years to get a paper retracted how come the vetting process to get it published to begin with isn't equally thorough?
Do scientists just not care at all about accuracy and truthfulness?
Anonymous at Mon, 13 May 2024 07:53:31 UTC No. 16173519
>>16172969
>If it takes 10 years to get a paper retracted how come the vetting process to get it published to begin with isn't equally thorough?
scientists just do not care at all about accuracy and truthfulness, they only care about the ego boost of getting published in the academic vanity press
Anonymous at Tue, 14 May 2024 03:50:05 UTC No. 16174944
>>16136590
Bogs did that too
and there has been no reform since
Anonymous at Tue, 14 May 2024 21:00:25 UTC No. 16176090
>>16174944
>there has been no reform since
Thing now at actually way worse than they were back in the 1990s
Anonymous at Wed, 15 May 2024 08:58:46 UTC No. 16176835
>>16173519
>6 billion publications
>0 discoveries of meaningful use to value
what a bad joke those useless wasters are
Anonymous at Wed, 15 May 2024 09:47:45 UTC No. 16176873
>>16172969
This is the twenty-first century and we move at the speed of Science. There's no time for things like accuracy and verification. Science moves too quick for such things.
Anonymous at Wed, 15 May 2024 23:35:58 UTC No. 16177660
>>16139738
...
Anonymous at Thu, 16 May 2024 20:05:16 UTC No. 16178810
>>16139738
>oy vey dis iz like da holocaust all over again!!
Anonymous at Fri, 17 May 2024 05:38:40 UTC No. 16179403
>>16176835
yep, they're worthless
Anonymous at Fri, 17 May 2024 22:46:00 UTC No. 16180643
>>16176835
>0 discoveries of meaningful use
if they make a discovery thats useful, it doesn't get published, nobody is going to give away a lucrative discovery for free, anything useful would be kept secret until it could be commercialized by the discoverer or sold
Anonymous at Sat, 18 May 2024 06:14:13 UTC No. 16181108
>>16176090
The soience faggots sweep all evidence of their dishonesty under the rug because the reason they're employed is to shill lies. Thats why they never address the issue
Anonymous at Sat, 18 May 2024 23:16:35 UTC No. 16182119
>>16136574
>(((Glimcher)))
Anonymous at Sun, 19 May 2024 00:22:10 UTC No. 16182178
>>16180643
>nobody is going to give away a lucrative discovery for free
the real scientists in the previous centuries did give all for free.
albert einstein charged nothing, newton charged nothing. mathematician, physicists and computer scientists gave all the knowledge for free. in fact in computer sciences most research are open sourced and source code published.
it's only a certain new breed of "scientists" in certain fields that are subhuman greedy money seeking frauds.
Anonymous at Sun, 19 May 2024 22:16:00 UTC No. 16183390
>>16182178
>albert einstein charged nothing
he delivered nothing, he was seeking fame and the media controlled by his racial brethren delivered it to him. nothing he did resulted in anything that resulted in the creation of a valuable commercial property unless you want to count stupid soiyence fiction comic books about muh black holes
Anonymous at Mon, 20 May 2024 08:25:22 UTC No. 16184135
>>16183390
He was the Black Soiyence Man of his day, just a popular media figure not genuine intellect
Anonymous at Tue, 21 May 2024 00:26:36 UTC No. 16185353
>>16184135
he wasn't even popular, he was a forced meme
Anonymous at Tue, 21 May 2024 21:12:12 UTC No. 16186758
>>16185353
>he was a forced meme
Forced by his fellow jews in the media industry who were trying to portray jews as the same "doctors and engineers" meme they currently use to promote immigration of jeets
bodhi at Tue, 21 May 2024 21:53:35 UTC No. 16186836
>>16136590
This was my favorite. This professor actually gave up his tenure because academia is such a joke
https://www.insidehighered.com/news