Why so many scientific studies refute their own conclusions

[Legion]

A map is not the terrain.

An abstract is not the study.

In the age of government and corporate financed science driven by grants, sinecure, and sponsorship, scientists face a difficult set of choices.

They must, if they wish to continue receiving largess, toe the party line of state or commercially sponsored science.

Who pays the piper calls the tune, and producing work that does not suit “the narrative” is career suicide. Your funding will dry up.

So may your position, your prospects for advancement, and even your tenure.

You will not be asked to join committees, interviewed for articles, cited, or supported.

But scientists also face another constraint: if a review finds that not only are you doing no useful work (apart from serving propagandists) that will reveal that you have sold out scientific integrity for filthy lucre, and that is the end of peers taking you seriously.

The need to thread this needle and appease both masters has led to an odd practice: many times, the claims made in abstract or conclusions are not supported by the actual data.

This odd compromise sort of works, but mostly, it doesn’t.

It throw those who fund studies and the journals who curate them for ideological purity a bone. the abstract says “X means Y.” this is what they want for the press releases and for waving around.

It also puts the actual data out into the world. This is what other researchers actually need. They can see the facts and will not be gulled by any shaky claims in the conclusion, as they are adept at drawing conclusions from the supporting data.

This leads to the weird outcome of the public and the politicians frequently having one idea about what a study says, and scientists in the field having more or less the opposite take.


https://boriquagato.substack.com/p/telling-the-truth-in-the-age-of-sponsored

 

[saltydancin]

A map is not the terrain.

An abstract is not the study.

In the age of government and corporate financed science driven by grants, sinecure, and sponsorship, scientists face a difficult set of choices.

They must, if they wish to continue receiving largess, toe the party line of state or commercially sponsored science.

Who pays the piper calls the tune, and producing work that does not suit “the narrative” is career suicide. Your funding will dry up.

So may your position, your prospects for advancement, and even your tenure.

You will not be asked to join committees, interviewed for articles, cited, or supported.

But scientists also face another constraint: if a review finds that not only are you doing no useful work (apart from serving propagandists) that will reveal that you have sold out scientific integrity for filthy lucre, and that is the end of peers taking you seriously.

The need to thread this needle and appease both masters has led to an odd practice: many times, the claims made in abstract or conclusions are not supported by the actual data.

This odd compromise sort of works, but mostly, it doesn’t.

It throw those who fund studies and the journals who curate them for ideological purity a bone. the abstract says “X means Y.” this is what they want for the press releases and for waving around.

It also puts the actual data out into the world. This is what other researchers actually need. They can see the facts and will not be gulled by any shaky claims in the conclusion, as they are adept at drawing conclusions from the supporting data.

This leads to the weird outcome of the public and the politicians frequently having one idea about what a study says, and scientists in the field having more or less the opposite take.


https://boriquagato.substack.com/p/telling-the-truth-in-the-age-of-sponsored

As this Christian Nation national religion obsessive - compulsive "man is God" lynching enforcement under color of law Nazi economics Peter Principle pyramid scheme business in Islam medical human reproduction pseudoscience of a fabricated virgin Mary misnomer for an immaculate son of Allah Jesus the Christ conception from SCOTUS granting standing to suicidal Christiananality pedophilia super egos continuing thieving US Constitution - old glory - old testament arsonists as a perpetual interpretation of "one nation under God with equal justice under law" certainly made America a waste of time as it's still all organized crime of those Klues Klucks duh Klans deep state more perfect union of "serve the Pope or die" crusades with Islam "death to the infidels" pseudoscience jihads.

 

[Legion]

In the age of the Internet, the practice of science™ for sale sets up a bizarre and deeply frustrating conflict: those who can and do read studies are constantly having to pick them apart and explain to the “Google and spam” crowd who just skim the lead paragraph of a study why the research they just cited without reading does not prove what they think it does.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

In the Electronics Age, this is becoming what passes for "Science" in the public's eyes:

 

[Legion]

In the Electronics Age, this is becoming what passes for "Science" in the public's eyes:

When governments and Big Pharma fund science™, they control science™.

And the ideologically loyal mass media and social media corporate giants make certain that the non-scientific community never understands that science™ is a constant questioning of accepted narratives.

 

[Legion]

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

The author makes a claim and then doesn't provide us with any examples to support that claim? What abstract isn't supported by the data? Where is the evidence?

Or maybe this is meant to be its own example of a claim not being supported by any data. Irony at its finest.

 

[Legion]

The author makes a claim and then doesn't provide us with any examples to support that claim? What abstract isn't supported by the data? Where is the evidence? Or maybe this is meant to be its own example of a claim not being supported by any data. Irony at its finest.

.

Lack of evidence is not evidence of it not happening.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

.

Lack of evidence means there is no evidence for or against.

Both of these are true:
Lack of evidence is not evidence of it happening.
Lack of evidence is not evidence of it not happening.



If someone is arguing that something happened then they should provide evidence of it happening. Failure to provide that evidence means we have no way to know if it is happening or not.

 

[Legion]

Lack of evidence means there is no evidence for or against. Both of these are true: Lack of evidence is not evidence of it happening. Lack of evidence is not evidence of it not happening.
If someone is arguing that something happened then they should provide evidence of it happening. Failure to provide that evidence means we have no way to know if it is happening or not.

Is that so?

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(22)00089-7/fulltext#seccestitle10

Let’s see what the data says.

This was a big study, but also a retrospective study with post facto matching. the matching was by age, sex, and municipality.

It is tainted by the ever-present “we counted no one as vaccinated until 14 days post dose 2” issue which will inevitably deeply favor vaccine efficacy through a mathematical rig job (especially in the short run) and can even produce it from zero VE and looks to have had large effects in Canadian data.

So, we have some ingrained Bayesian issues with our cohorts that may inject serious bias toward making vaccines look effective.

The data itself was rendered quite challenging to read. (Heavy text, few graphics).

It was also truncated in a somewhat misleading fashion.

If you read it closely, you’ll see that even the longest follow-ups on infection data were lumped after 210 days, several were 180 (before it really gets bad), others were 120.

This is just typical Bayesian data-crime and presentation bias. It does not really speak to the interesting issue of “are the vaccines preventing severity?”

This is, in fact, omitted from the study. But they did collect the data, they just made it difficult to find.

You'd need to go to the supplemental materials page. You'd then need to download the actual PDF, because the data is not on the web page. Then you need to go to the very last page of that supplement.


https://boriquagato.substack.com/p/telling-the-truth-in-the-age-of-sponsored

 

[archives]

Wait a minute, in the typical "copy and paste" manner, he cited above a study on top, and, without adding anything from the study, then used a blogger's, a blogger thrown off twitter for disinformation, interpretation of the study as supposed proof of something he was using hoping to correct another poster

Poor "copy and paste," so easy to expose, yet so entertainment in his inanity

 

[Legion]

Wait a minute, in the typical "copy and paste" manner, he cited above a study on top, and, without adding anything from the study, then used a blogger's, a blogger thrown off twitter for disinformation, interpretation of the study as supposed proof of something he was using hoping to correct another poster Poor "copy and paste," so easy to expose, yet so entertainment in his inanity

Poor Anchovies. Did the big words confuse you?

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Wait a minute, in the typical "copy and paste" manner, he cited above a study on top, and, without adding anything from the study, then used a blogger's, a blogger thrown off twitter for disinformation, interpretation of the study as supposed proof of something he was using hoping to correct another poster

Poor "copy and paste," so easy to expose, yet so entertainment in his inanity

You’d be hard pressed to find someone who can combine so many logical fallacies into a single argument then try to troll you with his confirmation bias than Lesion.

It is quite humerus to see what extent he will go to prove himself an idiot just to troll people.

 

[Legion]

You’d be hard pressed to find someone who can combine so many logical fallacies into a single argument then try to troll you with his confirmation bias than Lesion. It is quite humerus to see what extent he will go to prove himself an idiot just to troll people.

Think so, Ohioan?

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Lack of evidence means there is no evidence for or against.

Both of these are true:
Lack of evidence is not evidence of it happening.
Lack of evidence is not evidence of it not happening.



If someone is arguing that something happened then they should provide evidence of it happening. Failure to provide that evidence means we have no way to know if it is happening or not.

Sound logic but to take that a step further in science the evidence must be empirically observed and independently verified.

It’s on both counts where Lesion and the author cited don’t know wtf they’re talking about and are using a Strawman argument supported by circular reasoning to demonstrate their own confirmation bias.

 

[Legion]

Sound logic but to take that a step further in science the evidence must be empirically observed and independently verified. It’s on both counts where Lesion and the author cited don’t know wtf they’re talking about and are using a Strawman argument supported by circular reasoning to demonstrate their own confirmation bias.

Is that a fact, Ohioan?

BTW, your new buddy thinks you're an intellectual lightweight, apparently.

Changing the names of a poster in a childish attempt to demean them or to indicate they don't know what they are talking about is an ad hominem. It shows you to be an intellectual lightweight. But that is something most people that see your posts already know.

 

[Legion]

Technocratic domination comes to pass because of a feedback loop that establishes the framework, both political and scientific, to create a “rule by experts.”

The problem is that by the time this loop has run, there are not experts, merely commissars, chosen and promoted for fealty, not foresight or accuracy.

Science™ becomes a guild of medieval bards singing the false praises of feckless leaders because more so now than ever, science™ runs on money and just as in the courts of kings, he who pays the piper shall call the tune.

The sponsor (government or corporate) picks scientists who tell them what they want to hear. These researchers are elevated, while others are starved. Soon, anyone entering a field of research knows that “if you want have a career, you need to study X and your conclusions must look like Y.”

This is not scientific exploration, it’s justification.

This, in turn, supports the “right sort of government,” a technocratic government allied with mega-corporations and protected by "fact-checkers" and gatekeepers.

So “the science™” always comes down on the side of Fascist systems, because that’s where the gravy train is.


https://boriquagato.substack.com/p/technocratic-domination-when-government

 

[goat]

I came out of the closet when my high school science teacher told me that I'm a genius homo.

He told you your genus is homo.

 

[Legion]

He told you your genus is homo.

Are you posting in the wrong thread?

 

[goat]

Are you posting in the wrong thread?

I'm looking for a scientific conclusion on Dutch's genus.