punked... proving the journals are full of bull$hit
This is just the tip of the iceberg. Science has become so politicized and mercenary that I view much of what is reported with a healthy skepticism.
Science is never wrong. Anyone who disagrees with gibberish is a flat Earther.
Its almost as if some enemy group has taken over our culture and made it unfashionable to have integrity, obey the rules, obey the law etc.
This doesn’t appear a political issue. Seems like part fraud and part prank.
I guess scientists were never very good at communicating.
If they are editing their owns’ gibberish, that’s like the fox and the henhouse. Maybe they all think it makes sense.
I worked with an older man who truly wrote gibberish. I even wrote down a few examples in a notebook. Of “reports” and other documentation he made for the Navy. I had to edit and he was so bad I couldn’t even understand what he was getting at. This is not difficult language, either; nothing really “scientific”. Example:
“The following are baseline was used to generated for the attachment.”
Serious. From 1994. We were engineers.
I knew it!
The ‘science community’ needs to start a satire blog like the military’s “DuffelBlog” satisfy this urge to amuse themselves.
punked... proving the journals are full of bull$hit“... an automated word generator
that puts random, fancy-sounding words together
in plausible sentence structures ...”
-
I think there are some FReepers that use that same software!
It is ironic that gibberish like this is too easily accepted simply because of post modern ideology.
I’m so old, I remember when science papers used to pertain to new scientific discoveries and breakthroughs. And Nobel prizes were awarded scientists based on their contributions to the advancement of the sciences.
Does this mean that global warming may be more political than scientific fact? Al Gore and a bunch of liberals want to know.
BTW, my degree is in Physics and Mathematics, so what do I know about scientific laws and theories. Move on, nothing to see here.
Part of it comes from the ‘publish or perish’ atmosphere in academic and scientific circles.
If an individual does not publish, their job can be in jeopardy.
Institutions need those studies and survey and papers to justify more government grants for more research.
==
Bottom line:
Money. Grant money.
==
The whole Chicken Little climate change issue is not about changing the climate. It is about getting grant money.
Turing test alert.
As nearly as I can tell, the people who created this gibberish are now available to solve the problem.
Kind of like robbing a bank and approaching them the next day selling a security system.
I can’t count the number of times colleagues show me scientific articles that do not stand up to inspection. This is especially true when the article deals with topics that are not common fare for the average university.
I would guess that fully 2/3s of the articles I’ve examined over the past few years on ultrasonics are a complete waste of time. At best they are a distraction, but sometimes they lead younger engineers on wild goose chases.
Does this mean that all of the papers published on global warming have been removed or just most of them?
One must not assume the fundamental principles of gibberish are inherintly an unwanted characteristic of every day interaction between beings thinking on a level plane of shared thought, if it were to be proven that comprehension between them was the arrived at result regardless of any true skill in mutual communication and idea exchange taking place in the matrix of the reality we perceive to be in existence at this current juncture of humanity’s progress, within the paradoxical realms between that which is earthbound and that which is heretofore discharged into the ethereal zones above all that we understand about our time wave-form. Believe me...
The father of this advance in scientific literature was Cliff Nazarro.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NzcE0G_OMDA
Postmodernists assume that there are no standards for truth, beauty, or goodness. The wording of a text is less important than the reader's interpretation of the text. The reader's subjective interpretation determines what the author intended.
They believe that no matter how a writer constructs a sentence, it can never tell us about the real world, but only about the world as understood by the reader. By allowing the reader to invent new meanings, the text is freed from the tyranny of the author's single intended meaning.