According to a new science paper:>Heathers (2024), How Much Science is Fake? Approximately 1 in 7 Scientific Papers Are Fakehttps://osf.io/s4gcehttps://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/5RF2MMedia story:>One in seven science papers is not to be trusted, says new science paperhttps://www.SmH.com.au/national/one-in-seven-science-papers-is-not-to-be-trusted-says-new-science-paper-20241018-p5kjfj.html
>>16442461The paper (links in OP)
7 in 7 are fake
So this is a science paper that encourages not trusting science papers, including the very same paper? So science is trustworthy. Carry on.
>>16442461
>>16442462
>>16442461They're all fake now. There's no paper involved at all anymore.
>>16442461Only?
>1/7bump it up to 5/7.1/7 is old news reformattedother 1/7 is actual science
>>16442552This. Just check the source and avoid the paper mills mentioned in this paper.>>16442512>>16442582>>16442600>>16442600>>16442602>>16442605This thread is a dog whistle for science deniers.
>>16442461>only 1 in 7
>>16442461Reproducibility crisis. Science is a constant method, not a one and done type of thing. Biology evolves because of quantum physics, dna, and white holes/black holes altering reality. That means sometimes experiments will not be able to reproduced and sometimes they were straight up lies for the scientists numbers to go up like manipulating a stock.
>>16443160Yeah black holes exist, that means white holes exist, white holes are mathematically proven to exist. But since black holes exist anyway you don't even need to prove white holes exist because of sacred geometry and as above so below geometry. Microcosm and macrocosm.
>multiple analyses suggest 15% or more of published science is fake or fraudulent>Option 1: Acknowledge problem and try to do better>Option 2: Deny, cope, seethe, and threaten the non-believers with an eternity in science hell
>>16443308Option 3 which is the easiest one. Let people publish whatever the fuck they want and stop with the science monopoly. Let brainlets die for being low IQ monkeys, let high IQ chads survive
and i bet 99.99% of the fake paper slop from china or india. not a hit for science, just another confirmation that 3rd-world garbage is polluting the western world
>>16442552only about 6/7 of the time
>>16443536If you read the paper the estimates come from studies only looking for the types of problems detectable by someone without intimate knowledge of the field or specific research, for example shooped or reused images or data that's mathematically impossible. The actual amount of fraud is almost certainly much higher.
So that paper can be trusted at a rate of 1 in 7. Nice.
>>16442512thats only 99.999999% tho
>>16443166>white holes are mathematically proven to existstring theorists come up with all sorts of equations but literally ZERO evidence of strings or any of that crap has been found in decades
>>16442461This is a meme or what?
>>16443337>fell for the survival of the fittest memekek. i mean yea its true but youll only wind up with retards in the end.
>>16442461can we trust op?
>>16443160We're not allowed to publish results from reproducing science if it refutes an Israeli scientist
>o fug this study casting doubt on other studies might embolden the chuds>not to worry I'll use the brilliant word games I learned in journalism school to deboonk it with its own conclusion!>but wait, if the study is fake then it must mean my deboonk is fake meaning the study is real but if the study is real then the deboonk is real meaning the study is fake but if the study is fake then...AAAAHHHH WHAT DO WE DO SHILLBROS??
But I can trust your paper though, right?
>>16442461It's FAR higher than that.
>>16442552Just like how paleontologists faked Archaeoraptor but Tetrapteryx- EXCUSE ME! Microraptor is still totally legit.
>>16442552It said 1 in 7 are NOT to be trusted. There is a 6/7 chance this is a trustworthy paper.
>>16442461>ONE IN SEVEN SCIENCE PAPERS FRAUDULENTIt's because 57.4 percent of all statistics are made up.
>>16442461Politically motivated/ideology poisoned science.
>>16445367the only think a singularity in an equation proves is that the equation is nonfunctional
>>16442461Is this at all surprising?Virtually anyone I have known who is really really knowledgeable in their field will say most people in their field are full of shit. In and out of academia.
>>164543471 in 7 chance they were lying
>>16454399but whats the lie? if its not most scientists who are full of shit then that could mean that its all of them who are
>>16442552the whole point is that you need to look for consensus and reproducibility. You need to see your claim evidenced by multiple lines of evidence across contexts, funding sources, etc. People who pull out a single study trying to claim something are pseuds.
>>16456564>consensusreality isn't a democracy, makes no difference if you get a bunch of chumps to vote the wrong way, they'll still be wrong
>>16453363Atheists can't do science because atheists can't be honest. Atheism is a subset of communism, so its not ideology in general, its one particular ideology. Its not like this same pattern of events didn't all play out before in the USSR.
To be fair all of science is an endeavor to be less wrong over time. Consensus over even major stuff had flip flopped multiple times in the past. The only area I can think of that is yet to receive its "actually..." gotcha is thermodynamics.
>>16457702you don't understand. It's not a blind consensus. Every single scientific paper is an argumentative work. You need to evaluate their methods and the data presented and decide if you agree or are convinced. If something is consistently evaluated properly, replicable, and observed across contexts, it becomes irrefutable due to the body of vetted evidence (that scientists are trained to evaluate). We don't even give heed to the "discussion" sections of the author's interpretation of their results; we focus on the raw results themselves. The outcomes of a single paper mean nothing to us; it only raises suspicion for further research to be done on the subject. The example of global warming hysterics is in the minority and riddled with poor quality evidence compared to the vast towering data supporting otherwise.
One in seven people is Chinese
>>16443337What's stopping anyone to publish? Just host the articles on your own website, or web service
>>16442461What if I disregard Indian and Chinese papers? What is the ratio then?
I trust toilet paper more than I trust science papers
bump
No. NO. NOOOoooooooooo TRUST THE BASEDENCE GOYS!!!
>>16445845by my calculations the irony is almost certainly lost on approximately 102% of /sci/, regardless of meme status
>>16442461> one in sevenit is affraidhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gNtQmpcNge0#t=1m40s > at least half, if not 80 to 90 percent of the papers published in this field, are wrong.
SCIENCE NO LONGER CREDIBLE >‘The situation has become appalling’: fake scientific papers push research credibility to crisis pointhttps://www.theguardian.com/science/2024/feb/03/the-situation-has-become-appalling-fake-scientific-papers-push-research-credibility-to-crisis-point
>trust the science>the science tells you to not trust the science
>>16466703It always circles back to Chud Derangement Syndrome with the Grauniad.>th-the chuds are using the science wrong, s-stop!
>>16442461Artificial intelligence was a mistake, I bet more even more papers today are written either completely, or with some assistance of a large language model tool.
>>16467197>oy vey someone found out science is all fake>quick lets cast blame on an intimate object so we don't have to take responsibility for our own action
>>16466703Thats what happens when you do away with the Christian scientific method in favor of peer review.
>>16470340>peer review.rule by committee AKA soviet"soviet" is russian for "committee"
It is way, way more than just one in 7
>>16474249TSMT1 in 7 is known to be wrong, the other 6 are only suspected of it
>>16445256lol
>>16442461 a complete universal field model. I submit this video for peer review. https://youtu.be/noBldW3A5IU?feature=shared
why should anyone bother reading a science paper if there is a 15% chance its fake
I just started reading this paper and I bet that the huge majority of falsified research is going to be of the statistical analysis type — because it’s easy for 3rd worlders to massage and fake data sets to get a desired result or just to outright plagiarize someone else’s results.
Super interesting little tidbit — there are some data forensics people who think the amount of faked work is MUCH higher than the median estimate. That’s interesting because in my experience people who confidently call outlier figures are the best, most dedicated to their field and don’t mind calling the high number where the field prefers to play it safe. Also going by the author’s methodology he’s probably under-shooting the actual rate of fakery — and I bet he thinks so too based on the fact he decided to include the highlighted snippet at all.
>>16478554Spoke too soon, the author concludes admitting that his methodology should be seen as a MINIMUM and the actual fraud level is much higher.Wow boys, the jeet hell is the real deal.
>>16442461One is seven people are Indians... coincidence?
>>16478563and another 1 in7 are Chinese
>paper millsmust be even worse at the big money owned journals like nature and science
If 1 in 7 are fake and every paper includes dozens of references then that means that every published paper is based on false premises. So its not 1 in 7 thats fake, its 7 in 7
>>16442461>Ctrl+F "Ioannidis">0 results
>>164810681 in 7 is still only 14.2857% & 14.2857 x 7 = 99.9999%, not 100%
>>1644246185.7% of the time, it works every time.
>>16442461>Approximately 1 in 7 Scientific Papers Are FakeThat's not what the study says chud. Do you have the literacy of a goldfish?
this sentence is false
>>164843451/7 is within the confidence interval of the estimate, and is an interesting numberstop posting, boor
