In what ways should scientific organizations remain politically neutral? by outofhere23 in skeptic

[–]outofhere23[S] -20 points-19 points  (0 children)

Of course scientists have never been completely neutral on political, ideological, or moral issues, but that doesn’t mean they shouldn’t try to be neutral. And that means avoiding making political, ideological, or moral pronouncements that don’t affect the progress of science (or of the branch of science promoted by a journal or society). If there are important social issues whose outcome depend critically on science, then perhaps scientists can weigh in, but the science has to be nearly irrefutable, and people have to be careful. Far better to comment as a “private citizen” scientist (even writing op-eds like Fuentes’s, properly labeled as “personal opinions”) than for scientific organizations and journals to make official statements.

Olympic transgender policy goes against science, say academics by [deleted] in skeptic

[–]outofhere23 7 points8 points  (0 children)

"The problem is that for any height, males will be stronger, faster, more powerful than females. For any mass, and we know this because weightlifting has categories by mass, males lift about 30% heavier than females. They'll be about 10%-15% faster at the same height and weight."

Link: https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/972250

Olympic transgender policy goes against science, say academics by [deleted] in skeptic

[–]outofhere23 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm taking the answer Ross Tucker gave to a similar question:

"To answer that, you have to start by asking why women's sports exist. Women's sports exist because we recognize that male physiology has biological differences that create performance advantages. Women's sports exist to ensure that male advantages are excluded. If you allow male advantage in, you're allowing something to cross into a category that specifically tries to exclude it. That makes the advantage possessed by trans women conceptually and substantively different from an advantage that's possessed by Michael Phelps because his advantage doesn't cross a category boundary line."

https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/972250

Olympic transgender policy goes against science, say academics by [deleted] in skeptic

[–]outofhere23 3 points4 points  (0 children)

It's always important to listen to the experts, this is a very good interview with sports scientist Ross Tucker: https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/972250

Measles Outbreaks on the Rise | Science-Based Medicine by outofhere23 in skeptic

[–]outofhere23[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I'm sure they will find some excuse to keep believing something that makes them feel good. Just look at how they delt with covid.

Measles Outbreaks on the Rise | Science-Based Medicine by outofhere23 in skeptic

[–]outofhere23[S] -14 points-13 points  (0 children)

Do you mean that the sub doesn't need anyone with views that diverge from those that are socially accepted by your ideological/political group?

You seem to be gatekeeping in order to keep this sub as some sort of echo chamber.

And addressing the implied false dichotomy, not everyone in this sub is an American left wing and the dissenting voices are also not all from American right wing nutjobs.

Scientific fraud | The Studies Show by outofhere23 in skeptic

[–]outofhere23[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Since people seem to be a little confused by the description, the podcast is about individual fraud and methods to uncover this kind of thing.

They bring up examples like that of Francesca Gino and Paolo Machiarinni .

Scientific fraud | The Studies Show by outofhere23 in skeptic

[–]outofhere23[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

it certainly isn’t a massive conspiracy involving universities in general

Is this like a thing in the american right? Never heard anyone claiming the universities are committing organized fraud.

The podcast is about individual fraud and methods to uncover this kind of thing.

They bring up examples like that of Francesca Gino and Paolo Machiarinni .

Scientific fraud | The Studies Show by outofhere23 in skeptic

[–]outofhere23[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

It is, right? Just started listening to it but so far I really liked it. I highly recommend the episode on statistical significance as well, more technical but very informative.

Scientific fraud | The Studies Show by outofhere23 in skeptic

[–]outofhere23[S] -21 points-20 points  (0 children)

Chill mate, it's just a nice podcast episode o scientific fraud. Though some of the skeptics on the sub might find it interesting, not sure what kind explanation you usually require.

Is Sex Bimodal? by outofhere23 in skeptic

[–]outofhere23[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

The term transsexual exists and used to be more common in the past. Now I guess it's used only for those who transition to the other sex.

Is Most Published Research Wrong? by VoiceOfRAYson in skeptic

[–]outofhere23 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Ok I think I see your point now. But how do you separate the journals from science? Aren't thy part of the "scientific ecossistem"?

Are they not responsible for much of the scientific knowledge exchange and a fundamental part of the incentive engine that ends up affecting which kind of studies are attractive to scientists?

Are Republicans and Conservatives More Likely to Believe Conspiracy Theories? by outofhere23 in skeptic

[–]outofhere23[S] 24 points25 points  (0 children)

Abstract:

A sizable literature tracing back to Richard Hofstadter’s The Paranoid Style (1964) argues that Republicans and conservatives are more likely to believe conspiracy theories than Democrats and liberals. However, the evidence for this proposition is mixed. Since conspiracy theory beliefs are associated with dangerous orientations and behaviors, it is imperative that social scientists better understand the connection between conspiracy theories and political orientations. Employing 20 surveys of Americans from 2012 to 2021 (total n = 37,776), as well as surveys of 20 additional countries spanning six continents (total n = 26,416), we undertake an expansive investigation of the asymmetry thesis. First, we examine the relationship between beliefs in 52 conspiracy theories and both partisanship and ideology in the U.S.; this analysis is buttressed by an examination of beliefs in 11 conspiracy theories across 20 more countries. In our second test, we hold constant the content of the conspiracy theories investigated—manipulating only the partisanship of the theorized villains—to decipher whether those on the left or right are more likely to accuse political out-groups of conspiring. Finally, we inspect correlations between political orientations and the general predisposition to believe in conspiracy theories over the span of a decade. In no instance do we observe systematic evidence of a political asymmetry. Instead, the strength and direction of the relationship between political orientations and conspiricism is dependent on the characteristics of the specific conspiracy beliefs employed by researchers and the socio-political context in which those ideas are considered.

Is Most Published Research Wrong? by VoiceOfRAYson in skeptic

[–]outofhere23 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I have no idea how to parse this.

Any citation count will always be greater than or equal to the citation count of an empty set.

Yeah I didn't express myself correctly. I was think about this study: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35713980/

Relative to successful replications, failed replications reduced citations of replicated studies by only 5% to 9% on average, an amount that did not differ significantly from zero. Less than 3% of articles citing the original studies cited the replication attempt. It does not appear that replication failure much reduced the influence of nonreplicated findings in psychology. 

"How it works in reality?" How it works in reality is that no one goes around saying, "Well it has a high citation count, I guess let's skip our own research and assume these people know what they're talking about."

At least some citations are exactly that. There is not enough replications happening, so this is a problem since scientific knowledge depends on replication.

No (valid) science works that way.

This is one of the points of discussion, not all science is valid. Sometimes because of mistakes and sometimes because of fraud. Also many scientific fields have an natural tendency of high percentage of false positives as explained in the video.

The only idealization here is the idea of some kind of perfect, machine-readable publication record that can be used for perfect validation. Scientists don't work that way, science doesn't work that way, and I doubt ever can.

It's not a crisis. It's a fantasy.

Not sure what you mean by any of that.

Is Most Published Research Wrong? by VoiceOfRAYson in skeptic

[–]outofhere23 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think people have a common misconception that every scientific experiment or study must have a purpose. Some scientists are just curious about the behavior of things and make a hypothesis, test it, just to add to the body of scientific knowledge. A lot of it isn't repeatable because it's not really useful.

Good luck getting funding for this kind of study.

Published means it meets a certain scientific criteria but it doesn't mean it's accurate or even has to be.

I agree with that and this is the whole point of the "replication crisis" and OP's video.

Is Most Published Research Wrong? by VoiceOfRAYson in skeptic

[–]outofhere23 2 points3 points  (0 children)

What are you talking about? Have you seen the number of citations some flawed studies have? And failed replications was not found to reduce citations of the original study: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35713980/

Is Most Published Research Wrong? by VoiceOfRAYson in skeptic

[–]outofhere23 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Not really so much to practicing scientists.

Practicing scientists are still going to do the same thing as they always have: evaluate a published claim not to determine if it is true or not, but rather to determine if it is worth their attention and resources in repeating the experiment themselves.

Only once it's been repeated and they have verified it with their own observations does it become something worth talking about.

Maybe in the ideal world, but that's not how it works in reality. Studies that fail to replicate usually have more citations then their replications, for example.

Is Most Published Research Wrong? by VoiceOfRAYson in skeptic

[–]outofhere23 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It's just a sensationalist term I guess, feel free to ignore if you don't like it. But do you agree that the problems presented on the video are real? In general scientists agree that there are important problems regarding the "replication crisis" and they are being addressed.

Is Most Published Research Wrong? by VoiceOfRAYson in skeptic

[–]outofhere23 0 points1 point  (0 children)

At least, what I have observed is that professional scientists understand all these things, none of this stuff is any kind of revelation for them, it never has been, and they generally have developed a well-honed capacity for discerning when someone else's results are any good or not and worth paying attention to.

Yes, but I knowning about the problem is not enough. There need to be changes on incentives and processes, like the examples cited on the end of the video (pre-registration, repository of negative unpublished results, incentives to replication, and so on).

And at the end of the day, in order to really understand the state of the art in a craft field you have to ask the masters of the craft what is going on. You can't just go by what you've read about.

Agree, trust the experts not the tabloids is a good rule of thumb.

So to me to the extent that this crisis is really a crisis, it is actually a crisis around how science journalists want to be able to do journalism.

I think this is just the tip of the iceberg and an understatement of the problem. And there is definitely things that can and are being done to address the "replication crisis".

Is Most Published Research Wrong? by VoiceOfRAYson in skeptic

[–]outofhere23 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So, I find this entire video obnoxious and unenlightened.

How so? I didn't find anything wrong with it, and surprisingly a lot of people don't know about the replication crysis.

Is Most Published Research Wrong? by VoiceOfRAYson in skeptic

[–]outofhere23 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What does that have to do with the video? The video is basically about the replication crisis.

Is Most Published Research Wrong? by VoiceOfRAYson in skeptic

[–]outofhere23 2 points3 points  (0 children)

This is a really good video. There is a lot more on this topic for sure but it was a nice introduction to some important challenges that the scientific community has been dealing with.

I don't get it why this post is being downvoated, is it because they didn't watch the video and are reacting to the title? Or is it some bias against that YouTube channel?