Anonymous at Mon, 21 Oct 2024 12:40:38 UTC No. 16442462

>>16442461
The paper (links in OP)

Anonymous at Mon, 21 Oct 2024 13:34:48 UTC No. 16442512

7 in 7 are fake

Anonymous at Mon, 21 Oct 2024 14:01:18 UTC No. 16442552

So this is a science paper that encourages not trusting science papers, including the very same paper? So science is trustworthy. Carry on.

Anonymous at Mon, 21 Oct 2024 14:11:17 UTC No. 16442561

>>16442461

Anonymous at Mon, 21 Oct 2024 14:28:36 UTC No. 16442582

>>16442462

Anonymous at Mon, 21 Oct 2024 14:46:03 UTC No. 16442600

>>16442461
They're all fake now. There's no paper involved at all anymore.

Anonymous at Mon, 21 Oct 2024 14:48:16 UTC No. 16442602

>>16442461
Only?

Anonymous at Mon, 21 Oct 2024 14:54:31 UTC No. 16442605

>1/7
bump it up to 5/7.
1/7 is old news reformatted
other 1/7 is actual science

Anonymous at Mon, 21 Oct 2024 15:48:02 UTC No. 16442669

>>16442552
This. Just check the source and avoid the paper mills mentioned in this paper.

>>16442512
>>16442582
>>16442600
>>16442600
>>16442602
>>16442605
This thread is a dog whistle for science deniers.

Anonymous at Mon, 21 Oct 2024 21:23:52 UTC No. 16443118

>>16442461
>only 1 in 7

Anonymous at Mon, 21 Oct 2024 21:49:17 UTC No. 16443160

>>16442461
Reproducibility crisis. Science is a constant method, not a one and done type of thing. Biology evolves because of quantum physics, dna, and white holes/black holes altering reality. That means sometimes experiments will not be able to reproduced and sometimes they were straight up lies for the scientists numbers to go up like manipulating a stock.

Anonymous at Mon, 21 Oct 2024 21:51:44 UTC No. 16443166

>>16443160
Yeah black holes exist, that means white holes exist, white holes are mathematically proven to exist. But since black holes exist anyway you don't even need to prove white holes exist because of sacred geometry and as above so below geometry. Microcosm and macrocosm.

Anonymous at Mon, 21 Oct 2024 23:24:36 UTC No. 16443308

>multiple analyses suggest 15% or more of published science is fake or fraudulent
>Option 1: Acknowledge problem and try to do better
>Option 2: Deny, cope, seethe, and threaten the non-believers with an eternity in science hell

Anonymous at Mon, 21 Oct 2024 23:56:26 UTC No. 16443337

>>16443308
Option 3 which is the easiest one. Let people publish whatever the fuck they want and stop with the science monopoly. Let brainlets die for being low IQ monkeys, let high IQ chads survive

🗑️ Anonymous at Mon, 21 Oct 2024 23:57:43 UTC No. 16443339

>the morons on this board are STILL SEETHING about the lockdowns

🗑️ Anonymous at Tue, 22 Oct 2024 00:57:20 UTC No. 16443384

>>16443339
>4 years
>zero accountability
Why would we stop seething?

🗑️ Anonymous at Tue, 22 Oct 2024 01:54:24 UTC No. 16443444

>>16442669
>science deniers
How bout that covid vaccine and the people you forced into getting it, against their will, how are they all doing?

Anonymous at Tue, 22 Oct 2024 01:58:02 UTC No. 16443448

and i bet 99.99% of the fake paper slop from china or india. not a hit for science, just another confirmation that 3rd-world garbage is polluting the western world

🗑️ Anonymous at Tue, 22 Oct 2024 02:05:53 UTC No. 16443460

>>16443444
>Gets called out for science denial
>Continues in science denial.
Everyone who got the vaccine is doing just fine. Two more weeks before everyone who got vaccinated just drops dead though, right?

🗑️ Anonymous at Tue, 22 Oct 2024 02:21:46 UTC No. 16443476

>>16443460
No, two more weeks (and one day) until you drop dead of rage.

Anonymous at Tue, 22 Oct 2024 03:51:59 UTC No. 16443536

>>16442552
only about 6/7 of the time

Anonymous at Tue, 22 Oct 2024 04:11:38 UTC No. 16443567

>>16443536
If you read the paper the estimates come from studies only looking for the types of problems detectable by someone without intimate knowledge of the field or specific research, for example shooped or reused images or data that's mathematically impossible. The actual amount of fraud is almost certainly much higher.

Anonymous at Tue, 22 Oct 2024 08:43:00 UTC No. 16443821

So that paper can be trusted at a rate of 1 in 7. Nice.

Anonymous at Wed, 23 Oct 2024 03:45:57 UTC No. 16445256

>>16442512
thats only 99.999999% tho

Anonymous at Wed, 23 Oct 2024 06:30:15 UTC No. 16445367

>>16443166
>white holes are mathematically proven to exist
string theorists come up with all sorts of equations but literally ZERO evidence of strings or any of that crap has been found in decades

Anonymous at Wed, 23 Oct 2024 15:46:10 UTC No. 16445845

>>16442461
This is a meme or what?

Anonymous at Thu, 24 Oct 2024 10:47:00 UTC No. 16447009

>>16443337

>fell for the survival of the fittest meme

kek. i mean yea its true but youll only wind up with retards in the end.

Anonymous at Thu, 24 Oct 2024 10:55:04 UTC No. 16447020

>>16442461
can we trust op?

Anonymous at Thu, 24 Oct 2024 15:03:37 UTC No. 16447249

>>16443160
We're not allowed to publish results from reproducing science if it refutes an Israeli scientist

Anonymous at Fri, 25 Oct 2024 00:46:12 UTC No. 16448104

>o fug this study casting doubt on other studies might embolden the chuds
>not to worry I'll use the brilliant word games I learned in journalism school to deboonk it with its own conclusion!
>but wait, if the study is fake then it must mean my deboonk is fake meaning the study is real but if the study is real then the deboonk is real meaning the study is fake but if the study is fake then...
AAAAHHHH WHAT DO WE DO SHILLBROS??

Anonymous at Fri, 25 Oct 2024 00:49:01 UTC No. 16448107

But I can trust your paper though, right?

🗑️ Anonymous at Sat, 26 Oct 2024 01:12:31 UTC No. 16449848

>>16448107
Read the conclusion on page 20 and then reflect on your own unwillingness to devote resources to verifying the author's findings.

Anonymous at Sat, 26 Oct 2024 01:42:45 UTC No. 16449913

>>16442461
It's FAR higher than that.

Anonymous at Sat, 26 Oct 2024 01:43:48 UTC No. 16449915

>>16442552
Just like how paleontologists faked Archaeoraptor but Tetrapteryx- EXCUSE ME! Microraptor is still totally legit.

🗑️ Anonymous at Sat, 26 Oct 2024 01:44:48 UTC No. 16449918

>>16443339
Your family is going on crosses and women are going back in chains.

🗑️ Anonymous at Sat, 26 Oct 2024 23:16:04 UTC No. 16451363

>>16442461
Why are so many science papers fake?
Why are so many scientists liars?

Anonymous at Sun, 27 Oct 2024 06:20:47 UTC No. 16451811

>>16442552
It said 1 in 7 are NOT to be trusted. There is a 6/7 chance this is a trustworthy paper.

🗑️ Anonymous at Mon, 28 Oct 2024 04:02:13 UTC No. 16453179

>>16451811
just because 1/7 is not to be trusted doesn't necessarily mean 6/7 are trustworthy, could just as easily mean 1/7 is not to be trusted and the other 6/7 are confirmed fakes

Anonymous at Mon, 28 Oct 2024 04:36:37 UTC No. 16453195

>>16442461
>ONE IN SEVEN SCIENCE PAPERS FRAUDULENT

It's because 57.4 percent of all statistics are made up.

Anonymous at Mon, 28 Oct 2024 09:04:10 UTC No. 16453363

>>16442461
Politically motivated/ideology poisoned science.

Anonymous at Tue, 29 Oct 2024 02:31:30 UTC No. 16454340

>>16445367
the only think a singularity in an equation proves is that the equation is nonfunctional

Anonymous at Tue, 29 Oct 2024 02:38:48 UTC No. 16454347

>>16442461
Is this at all surprising?
Virtually anyone I have known who is really really knowledgeable in their field will say most people in their field are full of shit. In and out of academia.

Anonymous at Tue, 29 Oct 2024 03:33:55 UTC No. 16454399

>>16454347
1 in 7 chance they were lying

Anonymous at Wed, 30 Oct 2024 03:24:50 UTC No. 16455552

>>16454399
but whats the lie? if its not most scientists who are full of shit then that could mean that its all of them who are

Anonymous at Thu, 31 Oct 2024 02:41:25 UTC No. 16456564

>>16442552
the whole point is that you need to look for consensus and reproducibility. You need to see your claim evidenced by multiple lines of evidence across contexts, funding sources, etc. People who pull out a single study trying to claim something are pseuds.

Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 02:37:51 UTC No. 16457702

>>16456564
>consensus
reality isn't a democracy, makes no difference if you get a bunch of chumps to vote the wrong way, they'll still be wrong

Anonymous at Sat, 2 Nov 2024 03:22:53 UTC No. 16459250

>>16453363
Atheists can't do science because atheists can't be honest. Atheism is a subset of communism, so its not ideology in general, its one particular ideology. Its not like this same pattern of events didn't all play out before in the USSR.

Anonymous at Sat, 2 Nov 2024 15:25:03 UTC No. 16459707

To be fair all of science is an endeavor to be less wrong over time. Consensus over even major stuff had flip flopped multiple times in the past. The only area I can think of that is yet to receive its "actually..." gotcha is thermodynamics.

Anonymous at Sun, 3 Nov 2024 22:13:27 UTC No. 16461470

>>16457702
you don't understand. It's not a blind consensus. Every single scientific paper is an argumentative work. You need to evaluate their methods and the data presented and decide if you agree or are convinced. If something is consistently evaluated properly, replicable, and observed across contexts, it becomes irrefutable due to the body of vetted evidence (that scientists are trained to evaluate). We don't even give heed to the "discussion" sections of the author's interpretation of their results; we focus on the raw results themselves. The outcomes of a single paper mean nothing to us; it only raises suspicion for further research to be done on the subject. The example of global warming hysterics is in the minority and riddled with poor quality evidence compared to the vast towering data supporting otherwise.

Anonymous at Sun, 3 Nov 2024 22:40:14 UTC No. 16461491

One in seven people is Chinese

Anonymous at Sun, 3 Nov 2024 22:59:08 UTC No. 16461500

>>16443337
What's stopping anyone to publish? Just host the articles on your own website, or web service

Anonymous at Sun, 3 Nov 2024 23:30:22 UTC No. 16461538

>>16442461
What if I disregard Indian and Chinese papers? What is the ratio then?

Anonymous at Sun, 3 Nov 2024 23:33:41 UTC No. 16461542

I trust toilet paper more than I trust science papers

Anonymous at Mon, 4 Nov 2024 15:56:22 UTC No. 16462253

bump

Anonymous at Mon, 4 Nov 2024 15:58:36 UTC No. 16462254

No. NO. NOOOoooooooooo TRUST THE BASEDENCE GOYS!!!

Anonymous at Mon, 4 Nov 2024 16:12:21 UTC No. 16462266

>>16445845
by my calculations the irony is almost certainly lost on approximately 102% of /sci/, regardless of meme status

Anonymous at Mon, 4 Nov 2024 19:23:55 UTC No. 16462538

>>16442461
> one in seven
it is affraid
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gNtQmpcNge0#t=1m40s
> at least half, if not 80 to 90 percent of the papers published in this field, are wrong.

Anonymous at Tue, 5 Nov 2024 03:34:50 UTC No. 16463114

🗑️ Anonymous at Wed, 6 Nov 2024 05:17:21 UTC No. 16464447

>>16462538
(((longevity experts))) have a lower life expectancy than the general population does

Anonymous at Fri, 8 Nov 2024 02:48:03 UTC No. 16466703

SCIENCE NO LONGER CREDIBLE
>‘The situation has become appalling’: fake scientific papers push research credibility to crisis point
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2024/feb/03/the-situation-has-become-appalling-fake-scientific-papers-push-research-credibility-to-crisis-point

Anonymous at Fri, 8 Nov 2024 08:39:41 UTC No. 16466937

>trust the science
>the science tells you to not trust the science

Anonymous at Fri, 8 Nov 2024 08:42:56 UTC No. 16466939

>>16466703
It always circles back to Chud Derangement Syndrome with the Grauniad.
>th-the chuds are using the science wrong, s-stop!

🗑️ Anonymous at Fri, 8 Nov 2024 14:39:10 UTC No. 16467183

>>16466937
What do I do??? Do I trust science not to trust science? Or do I not trust science ans therefore trust it?????

AAAAA RED WAVE BABY JESUS ANTIVAXXERS SAVE MEEEE

Anonymous at Fri, 8 Nov 2024 14:56:35 UTC No. 16467197

>>16442461
Artificial intelligence was a mistake, I bet more even more papers today are written either completely, or with some assistance of a large language model tool.

Anonymous at Sun, 10 Nov 2024 00:49:29 UTC No. 16469026

>>16467197
>oy vey someone found out science is all fake
>quick lets cast blame on an intimate object so we don't have to take responsibility for our own action

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Nov 2024 03:13:52 UTC No. 16470340

>>16466703
Thats what happens when you do away with the Christian scientific method in favor of peer review.

Anonymous at Tue, 12 Nov 2024 03:08:17 UTC No. 16471577

>>16470340
>peer review.
rule by committee AKA soviet
"soviet" is russian for "committee"

🗑️ Anonymous at Wed, 13 Nov 2024 05:26:25 UTC No. 16472991

>>16442461
It is way, way more than 1 in 7
if it were only 1 in 7 then science would be advancing at breakneck speed instead of being stuck in a stagnant rut for 50 years

Anonymous at Thu, 14 Nov 2024 02:41:51 UTC No. 16474249

It is way, way more than just one in 7

Anonymous at Fri, 15 Nov 2024 02:57:27 UTC No. 16475583

>>16474249
TSMT
1 in 7 is known to be wrong, the other 6 are only suspected of it

Anonymous at Fri, 15 Nov 2024 23:57:38 UTC No. 16477122

>>16445256
lol

Anonymous at Sat, 16 Nov 2024 04:34:53 UTC No. 16477482

>>16442461
a complete universal field model. I submit this video for peer review.
https://youtu.be/noBldW3A5IU?feature=shared

Anonymous at Sun, 17 Nov 2024 02:49:30 UTC No. 16478500

why should anyone bother reading a science paper if there is a 15% chance its fake

Anonymous at Sun, 17 Nov 2024 03:18:32 UTC No. 16478524

I just started reading this paper and I bet that the huge majority of falsified research is going to be of the statistical analysis type — because it’s easy for 3rd worlders to massage and fake data sets to get a desired result or just to outright plagiarize someone else’s results.

Anonymous at Sun, 17 Nov 2024 04:06:41 UTC No. 16478554

Super interesting little tidbit — there are some data forensics people who think the amount of faked work is MUCH higher than the median estimate. That’s interesting because in my experience people who confidently call outlier figures are the best, most dedicated to their field and don’t mind calling the high number where the field prefers to play it safe. Also going by the author’s methodology he’s probably under-shooting the actual rate of fakery — and I bet he thinks so too based on the fact he decided to include the highlighted snippet at all.

Anonymous at Sun, 17 Nov 2024 04:21:25 UTC No. 16478561

>>16478554
Spoke too soon, the author concludes admitting that his methodology should be seen as a MINIMUM and the actual fraud level is much higher.

Wow boys, the jeet hell is the real deal.

Anonymous at Sun, 17 Nov 2024 04:25:37 UTC No. 16478563

>>16442461
One is seven people are Indians... coincidence?

Anonymous at Sun, 17 Nov 2024 08:01:03 UTC No. 16478697

>>16478563
and another 1 in7 are Chinese

Anonymous at Sun, 17 Nov 2024 08:43:18 UTC No. 16478727

>paper mills
must be even worse at the big money owned journals like nature and science