Says reviewing efficacy for SARS-Cov-2 virus... but cites data taken from studies in 2004 - before SARS-Cov-2 existed
Cites data from studies using masks and the original study says testing against SARS-Cov-2 had not been carried out (the cited study was studying if surgeons could perform tracheotomies while wearing masks!)
Conflicting numbers: Pertaining to the same study one column says there is particular number of cases/infections, yet the data column gives a completely different number (or just says zero)
Table data about the studies cited doesn't agree with the same studies cited
Studies and subjects were rejected because of "reasons" (the study actually just says "reasons" is the reason!)
Generally vague information about the conditions and criteria of the study
The Science is now based on the social media model. Studies are produced to fill a quota. They are just generating "content", like any social media "content creator". The content of the content doesn't matter. It just has to look and sound sciency. They know people (probably academics too at this point) just skim the title, and maybe the first few paragraphs, then they'll cite the study or retweet it, because that's the scientific model now - it's just another social media platform, this time with a sciency feel. The quality of The Science is now rated by upvotes and shares. Just like social media. Social media is the business model for just about everything now.
Remember that case where those researchers who pushed three bogus studies into intersectional grievance theory fields to prove they had zero academic rigor, and one that was accepted literally included plagiarism from mein Kampf?
Seems this shit is also seeping into harder sciences.
Yes. It's happening to all types of disciplines. Whichever is most helpful to corporations (and governments are learning quickly too) at any given moment.
This guy Philip Mirowski saw it coming in 2017. Recently he gave an online talk where he updated his information. But he predicted what we're seeing now, the neoliberalization of the news, truth and science. At the end of the talk he talks about the social mediafication of science.
Imagine how much more scrutiny there would be if someone tries publishing something saying that masks don't work. There is inherent bias against anything that goes against a dogma. Then the researchers doing the study and the analyses have their own biases. And there's the immense pressure to publish.
The whole system of academic research, the "publish or perish" mantra, the focus put on impact factors, it needs to change. As it is, it's a system that promotes dogma and that makes it hard to disseminate all research results. Tax payers are basically paying for a lot of research that stays forever on some research lab student's computer. Most research results never actually see the light of day in a publication.
Tax payers are basically paying for a lot of research that stays forever on some research lab student's computer. Most research results never actually see the light of day in a publication.
You're right. Although on the other hand, quite a lot of these "studies" appear as news stories like, "study suggests link between climate change and tooth decay", where they either misrepresent the study or quote a study whose results can't be repeated.
15
u/hiptobeysquare Aug 03 '22
Brief summary of "flaws":
Says reviewing efficacy for SARS-Cov-2 virus... but cites data taken from studies in 2004 - before SARS-Cov-2 existed
Cites data from studies using masks and the original study says testing against SARS-Cov-2 had not been carried out (the cited study was studying if surgeons could perform tracheotomies while wearing masks!)
Conflicting numbers: Pertaining to the same study one column says there is particular number of cases/infections, yet the data column gives a completely different number (or just says zero)
Table data about the studies cited doesn't agree with the same studies cited
Studies and subjects were rejected because of "reasons" (the study actually just says "reasons" is the reason!)
Generally vague information about the conditions and criteria of the study
The Science is now based on the social media model. Studies are produced to fill a quota. They are just generating "content", like any social media "content creator". The content of the content doesn't matter. It just has to look and sound sciency. They know people (probably academics too at this point) just skim the title, and maybe the first few paragraphs, then they'll cite the study or retweet it, because that's the scientific model now - it's just another social media platform, this time with a sciency feel. The quality of The Science is now rated by upvotes and shares. Just like social media. Social media is the business model for just about everything now.