top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 153 points 1 year ago (12 children)

Thats called manufacturing results and its a massive nono. I work in a research pathology lab and I've refused to do sketchy analysis for clients asking me fudge stuff to fit a narrative. I can't put into words how irresponsible this is, anyone else would be fired on the spot.

  • source
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 39 points 1 year ago* (3 children)

    That's all fine and dandy there, Kyle. But have you ever tried doing real science as taught by the "The Institute for Creation Science"? They have so called journal articles and are definitely doing real Science, it's right in the name. You just need to adjust your definitions of "Science" and "Scientific Journal" and "facts". I am definitely trusting people who took bus loads of drugs or were dropped on their heads as babies to provide us with sound scientific information.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    It should be a PSA that the generation that had those big clunky TV remote controls dropped om their domes as kids are now in positions of influence.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    I was maintenance at a marine bio lab, made friends with the techs who work for the senior research scientists. They're made to create results in a clients favor all the time. In my experience it's treated as gross but normal, like an old man hanging out naked in the locker room. You don't get more grants if you prevent the client from doing what they want. It really put a tinge on my perspective of "commercial science". Even the government funded stuff came with "stipulations" of the results they wanted pretty often.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    I've also dealt with this! Clients loved asking me to lie to the EPA directly. Now that I'm doing medical R&D testing, every so often we'll have to remind an engineer that "no, we can't just do more testing and average the results."

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

    Ahh, the good old “stop iterating as soon as results tips in your favour” or “repeat until you get an iteration chain that matches your desire”

    Been there, done that
    It’s normal, when private companies regulate themselves 😌

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Manufacturing Results is the main mode of operation of Think Tanks.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 38 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Mosquito bites cause autism. My evidence, well I've never met an autistic person who was not around mosquitoes at least once in their life

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 27 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    I really wonder whether this administration is too simple-minded to realize how absurd they are, or whether they don't care because they know that no matter what they say or do, their behavior will have no consequences whatsoever.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • I feel like it's more a reflection of their base. Not all these politicians are stupid. Many have CVs showing very high functioning, sometimes even in academics. I think this is more about how stupid they think their base is.

    Granted a lot of it is them acting outside of their expertise. Ben Carson was a good example. Definitely not a stupid guy but looney tunes crazy as a politician because he was acting outside his field.

    Their are some nepo-trust-fund idiots though. Maybe it's more like a stew of idiotic behaviors from various etiologies.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 24 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    "To make the proof"...? You're supposed to be finding proof, not making it. Ideally before making a big announcement.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 14 points 1 year ago

    This is how a lot of conspiracy theorists and dare I say, people on the right see science. They see it as a way to prove their own ideas, not how to find out what's true.

    Phrenology wasn't made to find out something, but to justify the social pecking order. The Nazis banned science they didn't like (what they called Jewish science) and promoted crackpot ideas and hypothesises they did like (what they called German science).

    The trump admin is cutting science for things they don't like (Trans issues, climate change) and promoting trying to prove what they already believe.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 22 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    As yes, the scientific method: announce the truth to the world and then go looking for it. An important step (which most amateurs miss) is to ignore everything that doesn't fit your conclusion. The man is truly a professional.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 18 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    Wouldn't be surprised to see RFK & Dr. Oz branded "safe" aspirin alternatives in the next few months.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 16 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    Can you call it a study if it's completely ignoring scientific method?

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

    Observation: autism exists. Tylenol also exists

    Hypothesis: autism is caused by Tylenol.

    Experiment: yes- all the experiments.

    ?????

    Profit.

    Seems like theyre following the middle school scientific method to me.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 28 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Fucking Brawndo irrigation coming next.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 1 year ago

    I can't imagine what it must be like to be a normal career scientist in the DOH right now. Fucking nightmare.

  • source
  • [–] 10 points 1 year ago* (3 children)

    He has half of the procedure down. First you assume a medicine is dangerous, but then you work to find out if it's safe, rather than finding proof it's not. But you also don't normally try to find proof that a medicine already deemed safe, is not.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago

    Half is way too generous here. Think of a hypothesis, then create a null hypothesis, collect data, analyze data, does that data fit your hypothesis or your null hypothesis? Then examine for any potential bias. He barely has a hypothesis right now.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 10 points 1 year ago
    [–] 10 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Oh shit my spine has autism I’ve been 2 of those bad boys very 6-8 hrs.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago

    I mean, to be a lot more fair than you should be: Yeah he is a fucking idiot.

    But sure, you could have done a metastudy to analyse multiple studies and notice a possible trend or pattern to alert you to possible dangers. That's just a trend, and not verified, but at least something to base a hypothesis off of, which you would then test.

    But if you've given yourself a deadline to make an announcement of what you've totally definitely learned, you likely go with the only thing that could possibly even maybe almost be true, pretend its totally real, because of course you've been doing your job and not sitting on your ass trying to point to being woke or gay or something more advantageous than smearing an american company but oops turns out doing that job takes someone who knows what the fuck they're doing and turns out literally everything is extremely nuanced because there are shitloads of factors that lead to the development of the brain.

    So you go on live tv, eat shit blaming what you've announced you'll totally find the cause for on anything you could even pretend to think might be plausible....

    then also blame it on genital mutilation?

    Then maybe try and do a study on the hypothesis you had to run with.

    Except you can't particularly do an experiment to verify that ethically. But its fine, you don't have ethics... except you're running the NIH which DOES have ethical standards. So... damnit.... now you have to find some way to do an "ethical" "study" that will test the hypothesis you came up with, except you're still an idiot so you still can't even begin to figure out how to do that.

  • source
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago

    Wow, have you heard about donald trump, the First Taliban-American president ever in history? What a record!

  • source
  • Start with the conclusion, make up and say whatever BS is needed to support that conclusion, stick fingers in ears and say “lalalalala! You’re attacking me!” When someone disagrees.

  • source
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago

    Just like Trump's Justice Department. ("Charge first! Find probable cause later!")

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    AaaaasaaaaaaAaaAaAaaaaaaAaaaaaaAaaaaaaaAAAAAAAAAAaaaaa!!!!!!!!!

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago

    Wakefield wannabe

  • source