- #1
- 19,551
- 10,300
I agree, I was thinking the same thing.Bystander said:Looks like something that'd be worth pinning here and there around the forum, barring copyright problems, of course.
We make a joint analysis of BICEP2 and recently released Planck HFI 353 GHz dust polarization data, and find that there is no evidence for the primordial gravitational waves
We now know there was no evidence (yet discovered), no confirmation of gravitational waves from inflation, and therefore no confirmation (yet) of the deep connection between QM and GR,Researchers from the BICEP2 collaboration today announced the first direct evidence for this cosmic inflation...Finally, the data confirm a deep connection between quantum mechanics and general relativity.
O come on, there would be nobody left...edward said:Part of that guide could be applied to politicians
I'm brushing up on how to spot bad science, watching "Warehouse 13" for the third time around on Netflix, just can't figure out why Joanne Kelly makes me feel like Kaw-Liga ?OmCheeto said:Perhaps we should ( @RonL ) add a poster of how to ( @RonL ) spot good science. hmmmm?
View attachment 77350
RonL said:I'm brushing up on how to spot bad science, watching "Warehouse 13" for the third time around on Netflix, just can't figure out why Joanne Kelly makes me feel like Kaw-Liga ?
I got the two alerts, they took me to my profile, does that mean they were successful ?OmCheeto said:That's somewhat humorous, as I've been brushing up on my science by watching the 1st season of the Twilight Zone. (1959 edition. good stuff! episode 7 sparked an idea on how to get to Mars and back.)
I do not know what "Warehouse 13" is, who Joanne Kelly is, nor what a, um, "Kaw-Liga" is supposed to be.
Anyways... This was an experiment in how the new forum software works. Did you get 1 or 2 alerts?
How about in a Signature?Greg Bernhardt said:I agree, I was thinking the same thing.
OmCheeto said:I don't think this one applies. Although I am somewhat scientifically literate, scientists expert in various fields have vocabularies which I find incomprehensible.
In the following, I've bolded the phrases I am not familiar with:So do I label Chet a kook, based on the fact that he's talking technobabble?
Or do I look at his credentials? He's a mentor, and they're usually reliable. So perhaps I should google his babble, and maybe learn something.
ps. I was the one who first dropped the term "isosceles", after having to google it. I blame it on the Scarecrow.
hmmm... I know I can ignore certain members. I wonder if there is a way to ignore certain forums. As, once in awhile, I accidentally wander into threads where I absolutely do not belong.
It's a long running joke between Drakkith and myself. I'm pretty sure it started before that post.edward said:You wandered into that thread last June and you still remember it? That in itself puts you into a category of intellect that leaves me thinking "How the H-ll does he do that." :D
I'm so slow, :( I think I just figured it out... If I do @Drakkith , and @OmCheeto , you both get an alert to look at this post, no matter what forum it might be in ? right :)OmCheeto said:It's a long running joke between Drakkith and myself. I'm pretty sure it started before that post.
I liken it to jumping into the deep end of the pool, and realizing that I'm just going to have everyone eventually laugh at me, trying to get out, not knowing how to swim, so I ask the nearest person; "Please get me out of here".
Which he did that day.
@Drakkith , do you remember the first time? I surely don't.
Bad.RonL said:I got the two alerts
No. That means there's a bug in the software. This is why I used to write all of my own., they took me to my profile, does that mean they were successful ?
I googled those terms this morning. My responses: If you say so, yes, and yes. :)Warehouse 13 is a fun spoofy Si-Fi TV series, Kaw-Liga was a wooden indian, Joanne Kelly is just HOT .
RonL said:
To be fair, this is common practice if the field is dominated by large collaborations. They have their internal review processes and get close to 100% approval rate from journals anyway.Garth said:12. Journals and Citations That's the point - there weren't any! The Havard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics went public before they had published in a peer reviewed reputable journal.
OmCheeto said:@Drakkith , do you remember the first time? I surely don't.
Hi mfb!mfb said:To be fair, this is common practice if the field is dominated by large collaborations. They have their internal review processes and get close to 100% approval rate from journals anyway.
Conference talks or similar presentations are the usual way to make important results public, everything else appears on arXiv long before a journal publishes it.I disagree with point 5 in the first post. Good scientists won't use "we are sure that Y" unless they are really, really certain (an extremely rare case). They will prefer "X is evidence for Y", "X suggests Y", "X could mean Y" or "we observed X" (and leave the conclusions out).
I don't think so. The stuff that makes science "bad science" is the same that makes a good politician.edward said:Part of that guide could be applied to politicians
I think you mean to say "successful". A successful politician many times is not a good one.Nikitin said:The stuff that makes science "bad science" is the same that makes a good politician.
Yes I meant good as in skilled, successful. And IMO lying and manipulation is the main trait of a successful politician. Nowadays the politicians in charge are running their campaign, not their country.Greg Bernhardt said:I think you mean to say "successful". A successful politician many times is not a good one.
Nikitin said:And IMO lying and manipulation is the main trait of a successful politician.
I'm interested in these and other observations on lies. My hypothesis is that sometimes a lie is preferable to an ugly truth. I think three kinds of lie can be justified: beautiful lies, useful lies, and necessary lies.WWGD said:And the statement that they lie all the time is nonsense; one must choose when to lie, or one may then never be believed and thus be completely ineffective.
Dotini said:I'm interested in these and other observations on lies. My hypothesis is that sometimes a lie is preferable to an ugly truth. I think three kinds of lie can be justified: beautiful lies, useful lies, and necessary lies.
But Jordan is particularly proud of “Why Can’t We Be Friends?” The song immediately made history when NASA beamed it to the Apollo-Soyuz Test Project in 1975. As Soviet cosmonauts and U.S. astronauts joined together in the cooperative effort, Jordan watched the drama unfold on television with his track playing up in the heavens. “My mind was blown when I heard it playing in space,” Jordan says, still thrilled at the memory. “I love space travel. I haven’t done it physically, but my music has.”
"A Rough Guide to Spotting Bad Science" is a resource that provides tips and tools for identifying poor or unreliable scientific information. It aims to help individuals distinguish between reliable and questionable sources of information in the vast and often confusing world of science.
Being able to identify bad science is crucial for making informed decisions and avoiding misinformation. It allows us to critically evaluate scientific claims and not be misled by false or biased information, which can have serious consequences in areas such as healthcare, public policy, and personal beliefs.
There are several red flags that may indicate bad science, such as lack of peer review, cherry-picking or misrepresentation of data, overgeneralization of results, and conflicts of interest. Other warning signs include the use of emotional or sensational language, failure to cite sources, and the absence of a control group in experiments.
Becoming a better critical thinker and developing a basic understanding of scientific methods can help improve your ability to spot bad science. It is also important to be aware of your own biases and to fact-check information from multiple sources. Familiarizing yourself with common tactics used to manipulate or distort scientific information can also be helpful.
Unfortunately, even reputable sources can have instances of bad science. It is important to remember that science is an ongoing process and can sometimes produce conflicting or incomplete results. It is always a good idea to evaluate the evidence and consider multiple sources before accepting any scientific claim as fact.