thinksense

You have read me many times saying that at least 1/2 of :"Scientific Papers" are totally bogus.

Here is an example of one totally bogus paper that was written by 2 scientists to demonstrate that total idiotic nonsnse would be accepted and published by medical journals....

"The authors tell us: The paper was ridiculous by intention, essentially arguing that penises shouldn’t be thought of as male genital organs but as damaging social constructions…We assumed that if we were merely clear in our moral implications that maleness is intrinsically bad and that the penis is somehow at the root of it, we could get the paper published in a respectable journal.[15]

And they did. After completing the paper, and being unable to identify what it was actually about, it was deemed a success and ready for submission, which went ahead in April 2017. It was published the next month after some editorial feedback and additional tweaking. To illustrate how deliberately absurd the paper is, a quote is in order:
We conclude that penises are not best understood as the male sexual organ, or as a male reproductive organ, but instead as an enacted social construct that is both damaging and problematic for society and future generations… and is the conceptual driver behind much of climate change.[16]


In plain English, they (seemingly) argued here that a penis is not a male sexual organ but a social construct; the “conceptual penis” is problematic for “gender (and reproductive) identity,” as well as being the “conceptual” driver of climate change. No, really. How this ever got published is something to ponder. The paper is filled with meaningless jargon, arrant nonsense, and references to fake papers and authors.
As part of the hoax, none of the sources that were cited were even read by the hoaxers. As Boghossian and Lindsay point out, it never should have been published. No one?—?not even Boghossian and Lindsay?—?knows what it is actually saying.
Almost a third of the sources cited in the original version of the paper point to fake sources, such as created by Postmodern Generator, making mock of how absurdly easy it is to execute this kind of hoax, especially, the authors add, in “‘academic’ fields corrupted by postmodernism.”[17]

Another...

I can’t help but cringe when I hear people ask if a study has been “peer-reviewed.” The response this question most often deserves is simply, “Who cares?”

1. The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness.?—?

Richard Horton, Offline: What is medicine’s 5 sigma? The Lancet, 11 April 2015, thelancet.com (Horton is editor of The Lancet
In the words of John Ionnidis, “Most scientific studies are wrong, and they are wrong because scientists are interested in funding and careers rather than truth.”

1. [24]
If most studies are wrong, and most scientists are more interested in their own careers and funding than getting at the truth?—?while journals daily allow bogus and flawed pharmaceutical research to be published and promoted?—?then why would anyone in their right mind believe the claims made by doctors about the efficacy of products based upon “peer review” or pharmaceutical “studies”? What does a term like “safe and effective” even mean in this world of deception and subterfuge?

Returning specifically to the arena of (mainstream) medicine, a quote in PLoS Medicine, states:
1. “Journals have devolved into information laundering operations for the pharmaceutical industry”, wrote Richard Horton, editor of the Lancet, in March 2004. In the same year, Marcia Angell, former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine, lambasted the industry for becoming “primarily a marketing machine” and co-opting “every institution that might stand in its way”…Jerry Kassirer, another former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine, argues that the industry has deflected the moral compasses of many physicians, and the editors of PLoS Medicine have declared that they will not become “part of the cycle of dependency…between journals and the pharmaceutical industry”.[23]

The Spectacular Success of Hoax Papers and Non-existent Authors

1. In April 2010, Cyril Labbé of Joseph Fourier University in Grenoble, France, used a computer program called SCIgen to create 102 fake papers under the pseudonym of Ike Antkare. SCIgen was created in 2005 by researchers at MIT in Cambridge in order to demonstrate that conferences would accept such nonsense…as well as to amuse themselves.

Labbé added the bogus papers to the Google Scholar database, which boosted Ike Antkare’s h-index, a measure of published output, to 94?—?at the time, making Antkare the world’s 21st most highly cited scientist.[18]
So a non-existent scientist has achieved the distinction of being one of the world’s most highly cited authors?—?while “authoring” papers consisting of utter gibberish. Congratulations are certainly in order. In February 2014 it was reported that Springer and the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE), were removing over 120 such bogus papers from their subscription services after Labbe identified them using his own software.



You might want to read the whole article here:

https://www.newstarget.com/2018-02-19-science-is-broken-and-the-peer-review-process-produces-utter-bullst-parading-around-as-real-science.html

Richard Rowland

Thanks, thinksense. Interesting! One wonders, in what other areas is this fakery being conducted?

thinksense

In just about everything you can think of. Food , transportation, ground and air, including private transportation.
Everything you think you know is fake in one way or another.

Supported and created by our good old MSM.

Btw, after nearly 50 years in the so called "healing arts" and having run into the problems created by the Political AMA, I am very cognoscent of the control of doctors and the lies that the public is told by the MSM/AMA/Pharma/Govt. complex. You would not believe how crooked this conglomerate mess is and the terrible effect this has on the people's health, health care costs, holding back advances in healthcare and true longevity.

PeterS

So if all scientific studies are wrong because all scientists are on the take? Doesn't that principle apply to the scientists who are saying that all scientist are wrong? As for science being broken I don't think it's science that's broken but conservatives who are terrified that science will upend their very odd and fragile world. Whether we are talking about global warming or evolution the first challenges their wallets and the second challenges their beliefs. Since your only ability to challenge science is with fallacies away you go with a never ending line of BS. It's not science that's the problem but you cons who simply lack the ability to live in a real world...

Peewee Loc: San Antonio, TX

How many alias names do you have Kev, I figured you got drunk last night celebrated Rev Graham's passing.

Richard Rowland

Good one, PeeWee. There is no doubt that many probably wish Reverand Graham could have been silenced long ago. Also, that PeteS would use thinksense's topic, which many probably find plausible, to segue into trashing conservatives isn't surprising.

PeterS

And why would I care if Graham were alive or dead? It's not like someone of any import passed away...