Conquer Club

And no, I wasn't trying to get around the world filter.

Another Flawed Anti-Fracking Study Gets Withdrawn

Researchers from the university retracted the study and admitted that correcting the errors “changes air concentrations significantly relative to those reported in the published article. This correction also changes some of the conclusions reported in the original article.”

But this wasn’t the only flaw found in the study.

The participants were biasedly recruited by the anti-fracking activist group, whereas they didn’t use random testing. The researchers also previously admitted the sample size was too small.

This is becoming a major problem in science today. We no longer have disinterested scientists studying data and going wherever the data leads them. Often these so called "scientists" are activists, or people promoting a cause. Often they preselect the data to favor their outcomes. Often they just make mistakes (this case was a bad use of measurement units). Peer review, if any, often consists of a circle jerk of such so called "researchers" giving blank approvals to each other. Gone are the days when people used to say, "That guy's an idiot. I'll prove him wrong. Wait, he's right. I'll publish my agreement."

Fracking Science and their Fracking Scientists.

There are certainly anecdotal examples of weak scientific work being okayed, or solid work being rubbished, by publishers or peer reviewers due to their own preconceptions or bias. Not just now but going back decades.

I have not seen anything which demonstrates whether or not this sort of thing is 'a major problem' though.

tzor wrote:And no, I wasn't trying to get around the world filter.

Another Flawed Anti-Fracking Study Gets Withdrawn

Researchers from the university retracted the study and admitted that correcting the errors “changes air concentrations significantly relative to those reported in the published article. This correction also changes some of the conclusions reported in the original article.”

But this wasn’t the only flaw found in the study.

The participants were biasedly recruited by the anti-fracking activist group, whereas they didn’t use random testing. The researchers also previously admitted the sample size was too small.

This is becoming a major problem in science today. We no longer have disinterested scientists studying data and going wherever the data leads them. Often these so called "scientists" are activists, or people promoting a cause. Often they preselect the data to favor their outcomes. Often they just make mistakes (this case was a bad use of measurement units). Peer review, if any, often consists of a circle jerk of such so called "researchers" giving blank approvals to each other. Gone are the days when people used to say, "That guy's an idiot. I'll prove him wrong. Wait, he's right. I'll publish my agreement."

Fracking Science and their Fracking Scientists.

... and the author of this article is biased against those who believe that Fracking is bad for the environment and the health of families who live near these sites.

Feel free to withdraw yourself from operating with anything that is touched by dirty scientists.


--Andy

As prominent Brexit campaigner Michael Gove screeched during the final few weeks of the Brexit referendum build up: "I think people in this country have had enough of experts."

tzor wrote:And no, I wasn't trying to get around the world filter.

Another Flawed Anti-Fracking Study Gets Withdrawn

Researchers from the university retracted the study and admitted that correcting the errors “changes air concentrations significantly relative to those reported in the published article. This correction also changes some of the conclusions reported in the original article.”

But this wasn’t the only flaw found in the study.

The participants were biasedly recruited by the anti-fracking activist group, whereas they didn’t use random testing. The researchers also previously admitted the sample size was too small.

This is becoming a major problem in science today. We no longer have disinterested scientists studying data and going wherever the data leads them. Often these so called "scientists" are activists, or people promoting a cause. Often they preselect the data to favor their outcomes. Often they just make mistakes (this case was a bad use of measurement units). Peer review, if any, often consists of a circle jerk of such so called "researchers" giving blank approvals to each other. Gone are the days when people used to say, "That guy's an idiot. I'll prove him wrong. Wait, he's right. I'll publish my agreement."

Fracking Science and their Fracking Scientists.

blah blah blah...
dude, i've been on site & participated in at least 50 frac jobs. i've seen with my own eyes what it does and what can happen when shit goes sideways. you've done what? watched a few videos, glanced at a few charts?
blah blah blah, tzor - blah blah blah.

If you torture numbers long enough, they'll tell you whatever you want them to tell you....

I am tickled when people who aren't researchers and have never engaged in an original scientific project claim to understand the entirety of the problem with modern science.

goddamn scientists! let us grab our pitchforks and torches, already!