[Moonman62]

The article is about a solution to a problem (see the last two paragraphs), but let’s see how many FReepers use this as an opportunity to bash science.

[ClearCase_guy]

Methodology and statistics courses are one obvious place

I would agree that these fields would help get science into a better place. But, of course, statistics has its own problems. The economy is doing great, right? Unemployment rate is low and often drops, yes? That's what the statistics say.

More than anything, I would like to see an overhaul in how statistics are used -- because they are often used dishonestly. Perhaps, as part of that, science could jump on the bandwagon and undergo some of its own reforms.

[agere_contra]

If it’s not reproducible, they can bash it all they like.

[Hostage]

Why are you bashing conservatives who criticize scientific misconduct or unethical or politicized constructs couched in pseudo-science? Is criticism by conservatives of Global warming opportunistic? There have been many insightful exchanges of views and criticisms of science on FR over very many years.

I am a scientist. I hold a PhD from one of the top 3 university departments in the world in my subject matter which is one of most difficult hard science subjects. I have been involved in myriad studies, trials, experiments and publications. I’ve written millions upon millions of dollars worth of federal and private foundation grants.

I find the polemic of FR in passionate exchanges of science discourse to be refreshing and revealing. There are many scientists here on FR that come clean with their unobstructed views on misapplication and ill motive of scientific research, especially federally funded research.

I read the ‘solutions’ posed by this ‘crisis’. First, I am not persuaded that there is a crisis above that which has existed for previous decades since the explosion in federally funded research.

Here is the gist of the so-called solution proposals:

“The proposals and initiatives mentioned above draw attention to improving methodological protocols, and require a more thoughtful approach to statistical reporting practises.”

Statistical reporting practices or practises indeed. Aside from the fact that the misapplication of statistics is not at all a new issue or ‘crisis’, the suggestion of a more thoughtful approach to statistical methodology has been an issue in science for centuries. And the solution has nothing to do with shallow suggestions of mediocre bureaucracy, namely reproducilibity index reporting, regulation of funding bodies or ‘random audits’.

And I note this work product of phys.org appears from the ‘soft science’ of psychology which is a field largely of lazy discounted PhDs who are the biggest abusers of statistical methods because they don’t understand and mostly do not possess the capacity or scientific acumen to absorb the mathematical philosophy of statistics. They are no better that political poll con artists. How’s that for a bit of Freeper bashing?

Statistics is like a scalpel, the outcome or result is entirely dependent on the training and experience of the surgeon.

And here is the heart of any so-called ‘crisis’:

“We might broadly consider these to be issues of researcher integrity.”

Yes indeed, this is the crux of all scientific pursuit, political debate or legal justice, the search for truth.

“What is truth?” John 18:38

One cannot legislate an effective or impose an enduring system to regulate ***sound moral character*** in human beings which is vital for matters involving the search for truth. It must come from within.

It’s clear your comment targeting Freepers for ‘bashing science’ has no merit. If you were experienced in Freeper discourse over the decades, you would know that some of the finest legal, political and scientific minds write commentary on FR, and do so for free while donating to keep FR operating. You should respect this fact.

[from occupied ga]

FReepers use this as an opportunity to bash science

Science doesn't have a credibility problem "pseudo-science" (like global warming, cold fusion, creationism, etc.)have credibility problems. Science starts with the observations and shapes the theory to fit the observations. Pseudo science starts with the conclusion and manipulates "facts" and falsifies observations to fit the conclusions.

[Alas Babylon!]

I agree—to an extent. The biggest problem we have in science is the politicization of science by the Left and Leftwing environmentalists these past 50 years.

The fact that they could ever declare “consensus” over something as complex and challenging as anthropogenic global warming (AGM) is extremely important to speak out on.

Scientists who tried to say “Wait just a minute!”, based on need for more facts and proof where singled out as “Deniers”, a very politically charged term that was meant to conjure up images of neo-Nazi supporters and racist skin-heads. A deliberate accusation that had no part in honest scientific debate.

Anyway, I know not all scientists participated in this. In fact very few. But for those that did, and let the media promote them as the true, global opinion of science was and is shameful. Moreover I really see no change at this point. Just look at the Latest Issue of National Geographic Magazine:

The fear-mongering in the Rising Seas issue is palpable. And many scientists are quoted in insisting AGM is real and will cause the sea to rise 125 feet, at least.

[RinaseaofDs]

Science isn’t the problem.

I went to my kids ‘curriculum night’ at their middle school. We got the science class orientation, and at the end, they asked for questions.

I asked, “Is the scientific method part of this year’s curriculum, or do they get that down the line?”

Answer “It’s built in to everything we do.”

Q: “How, exactly, because I think talking about where scientific knowledge ought to be like talking about where babies come from. Everyone should know how it happens.”

A: “Not sure what you mean . . . .”

My response: “Well, unless you tell them that facts come from theories, for which you design experiments, where the variables are controlled, and then you do the experiment in a way that you can describe it for some other scientist in some other part of the world and get the same result. I’m quite sure that most people don’t know that, and its why there is so much ‘junk science’ around.”

One teacher acknowledged I was right, and it made her think pretty hard. The other just flat out decided what I was talking about was either beyond the kids, or too theoretical, and that she wasn’t going to consider changing course.

Common core is rolling down the road, and it will likely be one of the worst things to happen to education since the NEA. I can’t think of a better way to enforce outdated orthodoxy than to nationalize it, and then base teacher pay on whether the kids end up towing the party line on the way the world works.

I could have saved myself considerable time by simply crafting my own postulate - whatever a progressive accuses another of perpetrating is simply an admission of what they have already perpetrated, or continue to perpetrate.

No better way of enforcing ‘flat-earthism’ than to make it part of the common core.

[BfloGuy]

let’s see how many FReepers use this as an opportunity to bash science

Oh, there isn't a single FReeper who would bash science.

Scientists on the other hand...

[fishtank]

I have a Ph.D. in Mechanical Engineering from Texas A&M and I work for a defense contractor.

Having said that, science is in a crisis.

When we get to the point where many scientists think it’s OK to lie and cheat about research, that’s a crisis.

[Gene Eric]

>> but let’s see how many FReepers use this as an opportunity to bash science.

Would that depend on how many FReepers you’re trying to bash?