I don’t agree with the statement – conclusion should be as accurate and as logical as possible. Conclusions should be believed by the authors as they are fraudsters otherwise.
The original paper for the strange hypothesis is by Dang and Bright.
Dang and Bright argue that all this makes sense if we expect the norms governing the presentation of scientific conclusions to scientific peers to align with the reality that science works through division of cognitive labor and collective efforts at error correction.
“Lacking a comprehensive anarchist worldview and philosophy, and in any case wary of nomothetic ways of seeing, I am making a case for a sort of anarchist squint.” James Scott in “Two Cheers for Anarchism” who writes Pletz when he means Datzetal-Pleetz
A new paper from Bristol discusses the recent explosion of low-quality two-sample Mendelian randomization studies and offers a cure.
We advise editors to simply reject papers that only report 2SMR findings, with no additional supporting evidence. For reviewers receiving such papers, we provide a template for rejection.
Clever ecological modelers came up with a way of calculating a ‘maximum sustainable yield’ (MSY), set at 16% of the total population, which should theoretically leave enough fish to repopulate each year … But fishing floundered further and the Grand Banks cod population collapsed almost entirely in 1992 …
While the Canadian government attempted to sample the cod population in the 1980s, their ships caught so much less than professional fishermen … In doing so, the modelers ignored a selection bias: the pros used better tech and only fished in the highest-yielding spots, so these numbers cannot be extrapolated to the entire region…
In humans, the number of kids in a population depends heavily on the number of parents, because one pair of parents usually has just one kid at a time. In cod, on the other hand, a single fish can produce eight million eggs at a time. This means that the number of cod babies who make it to adulthood depends much less on the existing population size and much more on environmental factors like food and predation.
A third problem is that the fishing industry has far-reaching and often unforeseeable effects on the ecosystem as a whole.
We introduce a diffusion index that quantifies whether research areas have been amplified within social and scientific bubbles, or have diffused and become evaluated more broadly. We illustrate the utility of our diffusion approach in tracking the trajectories of cardiac stem cell research (a bubble that collapsed) and cancer immunotherapy (which showed sustained growth).
Couldn’t we identify this stem cell bubble earlier? The authors believe that limited diffusion of biomedical knowledge anticipates abrupt decreases in popularity. But that takes time …
What’s again noticeable here, that in the stem cell research, the initial claim was later called into question leading to the retraction of more than 30 papers from claims of data fabrication.
“The amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than that needed to produce it (source)”
It is timely to quote now the 2016 Nature letter of Phil Williamson
With the election of Donald Trump, his appointment of advisers who are on record as dismissing scientific evidence, and the emboldening of deniers on everything from climate change to vaccinations, the amount of nonsense written about science on the Internet (and elsewhere) seems set to rise. So what are we, as scientists, to do?
Most researchers who have tried to engage online with ill-informed journalists or pseudoscientists will be familiar with Brandolini’s law (also known as the Bullshit Asymmetry Principle): the amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than that needed to produce it. Is it really worth taking the time and effort to challenge, correct and clarify articles that claim to be about science but in most cases seem to represent a political ideology?
Title: Quantum-Tuned Allergen Resonance Therapy (QT-ART): A Revolutionary Cure for Allergies
Recent advances in bio-resonance and quantum biophotonics have culminated in the development of Quantum-Tuned Allergen Resonance Therapy (QT-ART), a groundbreaking approach to eradicating allergic reactions. QT-ART exploits the unique vibrational frequencies of allergens and harmonizes them with the body’s intrinsic quantum field, effectively neutralizing histamine responses. This method uses bio-engineered, photonic nanoparticle emitters programmed with allergen-specific frequencies, delivered via a wearable wristband equipped with quantum-enhanced LEDs.
A randomized controlled trial involving nearly 15,000 participants demonstrated a 90% cessation of allergy symptoms in all cases, including severe anaphylaxis triggered by peanuts, shellfish, and airborne pollen. Remarkably, the therapy also reversed pre-existing autoimmune conditions in 67% of participants. The results suggest that QT-ART not only cures allergies but also recalibrates the immune system to optimal functionality.
Mechanistically, QT-ART engages with the body’s cellular microtubules, aligning them into coherent quantum states to prevent allergenic protein recognition. This pioneering approach eliminates the need for antihistamines, epinephrine, or immunotherapy injections, offering a side-effect-free alternative for allergy sufferers worldwide.
We propose QT-ART as the new gold standard for immunological health, heralding a quantum revolution in medicine. Further research will explore its applications in combating aging, enhancing athletic performance, and unlocking dormant psychic abilities.
Keywords: quantum resonance, allergy cure, biophotonics, immune recalibration, quantum medicine
Scientists are only human, to be sure, but science … is above our petty preoccupations – it occupies a nobler plane, and what it reveals is pristine and abstract … science is ‘disembodied, pure knowledge’. There are scientists and science advocates who consider that historians, philosophers and sociologists, by contrast, can offer little more than compromised, contingent half-truths; that theologians spin webs out of vapour, politicians are venal and penny-pinching vote chasers, and literary theorists are brazen clowns and charlatans. Even the historians, philosophers and sociologists who study science itself are often regarded with suspicion if not outright hostility by practising scientists … It is a commonplace to say that scientists once served God, or at other times industry, or national glory. … But assaults from religious and political fundamentalists, posturing cultural relativists and medical quacks have understandably left many scientists feeling embattled.
10 years later I couldn’t say it better – here a German translation
Wissenschaftler sind zweifellos auch nur Menschen, aber die Wissenschaft … steht doch über unserem kleinlichen Denken – sie bewegt sich auf einer höheren Sphäre, und das, was sie offenbart, ist doch rein und abstrakt … Wissenschaft als „körperloses, reines Wissen“.
Es gibt WissenschaftlerInnen und Wissenschaftspolitiker die meinen, dass Historiker, Philosophen und Soziologen im Vergleich dazu kaum mehr als limitierte Halbwahrheiten anbieten können; Theologen nur Netze aus dem Nichts spinnen, Politiker käufliche und kleingeistige Wählerstimmensammler sind und die Literaturtheoretiker Clowns und Quatschköpfe.
Selbst Historiker, Philosophen und Soziologen, die Wissenschaft an sich untersuchen, werden von den “echten” arbeitenden Wissenschaftlern misstrauisch oder sogar direkt feindselig betrachtet … Dabei ist es eine Binsenweisheit, dass Wissenschaftler einst Gott dienten; zu anderen Zeiten der Industrie oder dann auch mal dem nationalen Ruhm. …
Doch Angriffe von religiösen und politischen Fundamentalisten, eitlen Kulturschaffenden und medizinischen Quacksalbern haben verständlicherweise nun dazu geführt, dass sich viele Wissenschaftler in die Defensive gedrängt fühlen.
I changed several things from the last version, basically switching to a new layout and going down from 100fps to 60fps as YT can handle this much better.
Just in case, somebody wants to modify it, here is the script.
vid <- function(nr){
nr2 = as.integer(nr*60) # total number 1/2s
nr3 = -600 + (nr*10) # current ms title
for (ii in 1:60 ){
fn = paste0(str_pad(nr*60+ii,5,pad = "0"), ".png")
png(file = fn, width = 1600, height = 900, units = 'px') # defaults to 300 ppi
par(mar=c(0,0,0,0),bg="black")
plot(c(0, 1), c(0, 1), ann = F, bty = 'n', type = 'n', xaxt = 'n', yaxt = 'n', asp=1)
color="red"
rect(xleft=0.5, xright=(nr3+500)/1000, ybottom=0.94, ytop=0.99, col= color)
color="lightgrey"
if( (nr<=58 & ii==30+nr/2) | (nr>=60 & ii==-30+nr/2) ) {
circlize::draw.sector(0, 360, center = c(0.02, 0.01), rou1 = 0.01, col = color, border = color)
}
circlize::draw.sector(90, 90-ii*6, center = c(0.5, 0.52), rou1 = 0.4, col = color, border = color)
if (ii<3 | ii>57) {
color="white"
circlize::draw.sector(0, 360, center = c(0.5, 0.52), rou1 = 0.4, col = color, border = color)
}
tx=paste(nr3,' ms')
text(x = 0.5, y = 0.85, tx, cex = 6, col = "white", family="Lato", adj=0.5)
tx=paste0(nr/2,':',str_pad( round(100*ii/60), 2, pad = "0"))
text(x = 0.5, y = 0.5, tx, cex = 12, col = "white", family="Lato", adj=0.5)
tx = "play until beep & flash in sync OR take image of source and processed video"
text(x = 0.5, y = 0.075, tx, cex = 3, col = "grey", family="Lato", adj=0.5)
par(bg="white")
dev.off()
}
}
for (i in seq(0,120,2) ) {
vid(i)
}
fn = paste0(list.files('*.png'))
av::av_encode_video(fn, framerate = 60, output = 'video.mp4')
Being a regular Scholar user, I am quite lost now with the many new scientific search engines. They don’ tell us which data they used for training, how they have been trained and how the results have been validated. The field is also highly dynamic when compared to the situation 2 years ago. Is it worth to test them?
Marcia McNutt, the president of the US National Academy of Sciences emphasizes the role of scientists of informing not setting policy in a new Science letter.
For starters, scientists need to better explain the norms and values of science to reinforce the notion—with the public and their elected representatives—that science, at its most basic, is apolitical. Careers of scientists advance when they improve upon, or show the errors in, the work of others, not by simply agreeing with prior work.
This is something I wrote in the past (and also my inherent problem with the S4F). Unfortunately the second sentence is not true. I would advice any career oriented scientist to stay away from PubPeer (although they just received their first big price).
