How to Investigate the Truth (fact checking the fact-checkers)

submitted by zyxzevn from self.Solutions

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]zyxzevn[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

There is a lot to add about science, because there are also techniques to corrupt science, which are often used.

  1. Experts, who have big titles, but are actually doing the bidding of their sponsors. Or are just stating opinions instead of facts.

  2. Experst2. When you are trained a lot with a hammer, everything becomes a nail.

  3. Experts3. Experts in Astrology claim that Astrology is useful.

  4. Corporations use science publications as a way to advertise their product. And to hide defects. So they will write lots of reports that show how good it is. And lots of reports that carefully avoid the defects or problems. For example Monsanto designed lab experiments to last only a short time, so that the cancer would not show up. Often you can see that certain products, that require simple tests, still require a long time to complete. That is to design the tests so that they avoid all the problems.

  5. Peer review. The peers are often connected to corporations. Or they are insiders, that do not want the field to change. Due to their extreme bias, they are also not able to see things in a different way. And this stops any real change in the field.

  6. Ghost writers. Often corporations write an article and use the name of an expert-scientist (often for money). So it seems that the article came from that scientist.

  7. Complaining about facts. When the facts are not in line with the corporation, they let scientists write (or sign) articles that are claiming that the facts are bad science. Like the hot and cold cycles of the climate.

  8. Diversion to false theories. So instead of dealing with the facts of the cycles in the climate, the scientists complain about people not listening to them. They even create false theories to claim that the people looking at the facts are crazy. Or that the cycles are due to some hidden ocean cycle, which is easily disproven.

  9. Diversion to hyped solutions. Instead of dealing with the science, the scientists pretend it is settled. So they refuse to talk about the facts. Instead they talk about hyped solutions, that usually do not even work, if their fantasy was correct. So people have to pay energy-taxes, while special big corporations get a free pass.

  10. Diversion to futurism. Instead of dealing with the science of the real problem, we get solutions that we do not have the technology for. Like nuclear fusion. Or GMO-mosquitoes. Or a base on Mars. Or a vaccine/medicine that has never showed to work yet. These diversions make us forget about the real problem that we are facing now.

  11. Patents. Patents and other forms of intellectual are always a problem. But they are presented as a solution, because they create a monopoly for the corporation. And monopolies lead to maximum possible profits and extortion.

I will update this regularly.

[–]zyxzevn[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

More on corrupt science:

  1. People write in popular magazines instead of writing actual science. This way it prevents real experts of countering their claims.

  2. Cherry pick an single event or single detail, and make it seem extremely important. Instead it should be taken with all other evidence.

  3. Reverse faking: "If I can fake it, it must be fake". Usually omits some details which are harder to fake, or circumstances in which this fake is very unlikely. In the same line: It must be a hoax.

  4. Not discussing/countering the Null-Hypothesis. "What if there was no ......?" Without a null-hypothesis, we are jumping to conclusions.

  5. It was "researched". And after investigation actually no-one was responsible for the research. Or a single person. Everyone just assumed that a good research was made, or good science was performed.

  6. Censorship of conflicting science. No science publication can pass the peer review, if it puts severe doubt on previous made conclusions.

  7. Preferable conclusion. Either due to politics, finance, prejudice, or even because "it looks nice", the scientists come to conclusions without any real scientific evidence. A lot in theoretical physics was accepted, because it was mathematically beautiful.

  8. Maths as evidence. Or a simulation as evidence. If you make a mathematical model, and the data fits the model. Does that make the model undeniably correct? No of course not. Even if it is very precise. It might just be correct just for this tested system and for certain circumstances. Sometimes a model has removed the influence of other factors (like noise), but due to the errors in the model, the test seems perfect. In a simulation this can even go further, because a simulation has even more simplifications and systematic errors. Maths or simulations should not be considered as evidence, without properly testing the alternatives and thoroughly investigating the limits of the model/simulation.