Posted on 07/27/2021 11:15:04 AM PDT by fishtank
Trusting Science Is Not the Same as Critical Thinking Experiments with participants given fake science Shows that those who “trust science” can be gullible
July 27, 2021 | David F. Coppedge
Like most psychologists in academia, those at the University of Pennsylvania tend to promote the consensus on matters like vaccination and mask-wearing. But they also realize that trusting science is not enough. Without critical thinking, people who claim to “trust science” can be gullible. And if they repeat stories that are false, their too-trusting nature can spread pseudoscience.
Three psychologists at UPenn decided to test this by feeding fake science to groups of people. One fictitious story claimed a virus had been created as a bioweapon. The other story made a claim about the effect of a genetically-modified organisms on tumors.
(Excerpt) Read more at crev.info ...
"Well, we hope you had your baloney detectors turned on, because the joke is on the psychologists! While we would agree that critical thinking is essential to avoid being snookered by scientific claims, and that understanding scientific methods and the validity of data behind claims is also good insurance against pseudoscience, look at the pseudoscience in this project!
How does one measure “trust in science”? What are the units?
How does one measure “critical evaluation”? What is the measuring stick?
How do they know participants were telling the truth in their answers?
Why didn’t they control for age, sex, political party, internet use and education?
Did they control for their own political biases going into the experiment?
Did they control for their own biases about philosophy of science?
How does one objectively define misinformation without bias?
Did they control for manipulation by the way the questions were asked?
Since they performed the study online, did they control for spammers, trolls and international spies?
On what basis do they assume that “scientific methods” in psychology are comparable with those in physics? Why do they think it was OK to lie to people for science? (see 15 March 2017)
It appears that this project did nothing more than to confirm the psychologists’ opinions at the outset."
Censorship destroys trust.
Trust the science is shorthand for turn off your brain.
Do a YouTube search for Penn and Teller ban water. It’s simultaneously sad and funny.
Ya think? These are the same people who tell us there are 48 different sexes.
An editorial from former editor of the medical journal The BMJ Richard Smith asks if it’s “time to assume that health research is fraudulent until proven otherwise” (BMJ. 2021;online July 5 https://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2021/07/05/). “Roberts, has conducted systematic reviews only to realise that most of the trials included either were zombie trials that were fatally flawed or were untrustworthy.” “...best guess is that about 20% of trials are false. Very few of these papers are retracted. We have long known that peer review is ineffective at detecting fraud, especially if the reviewers start, as most have until now, by assuming that the research is honestly reported.” Commenters note that: Honestly, there are so few penalties it makes economic sense to fake the data. The funders of research are investors in an outcome and expect a dividend of knowledge. .... Researchers are no more and no less honest than public company CEOs, plumbers, or electricians. CEOs have auditors and the trades have building inspectors. Where are the independent minds for oversight in research?”
When I hear “trusting the science” from a politician we should demand the EXACT source and where the ‘science’ can be found. All too often they’ll say ‘science’ but it’s nothing more than an opinion they like.
I’m a software engineer, most people have no idea how computers really work. I’ve used their ignorance to demonstrate how I can convince them of things to be true, which are completely false, because it’s just ‘magic’ to them. Only to explain how I’m pulling their leg afterward.
When people have no understanding they can be convinced of anything. At least having an understanding of what the “scientific method” is supposed to be about puts you miles ahead in terms of critical thinking and what is ‘science’ and what is BS.
Well said.
More than half of Dutch scientists regularly engage in questionable research practices, such as hiding flaws in their research design or selectively citing literature, according to a new study (Science. 2021;online Jul. 7 doi:10.1126/science.abk3508). “And one in 12 admitted to committing a more serious form of research misconduct within the past 3 years: the fabrication or falsification of research results.” “Some 53% of Ph.D. students admitted to frequently engaging in one of the 11 questionable research behaviors within the past 3 years, compared to 49% of associate and full professors.”
• Insufficient efforts are being exerted to prevent and detect research fraud, according to the findings of a recent review and survey (BMJ. Published online December 29, 2011).....The survey suggests that about 1 in 8 scientists in the United Kingdom have personal knowledge of research misconduct, and about 1 in 16 know of misconduct that was investigated improperly.......”Peer review, the bedrock of the scholarly process, is good at picking up poor quality science, but peer reviewers do not start with the assumption that the data may be false”.....”Fraudsters are often caught through eagle eyed readers or editors spotting impossibly good results or by whistleblowers from within the scientist’s institution. We therefore need mechanisms to detect, investigate, and respond to those who deviate from best conduct.”
Turbo Encarbulator
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rLDgQg6bq7o
>>Ya think? These are the same people who tell us there are 48 different sexes.<<
When in fact there are only 12.
Because: science
I think this is hilarious coming from a pro creation “science” site.
The way to win the argument is to ensure there are no hard rules.
I suspect Government money is the source of most fraud. Since it’s someone else’s money getting spent it has little incentive to verify the results.
“Trust the science” is psyops. It’s nothing more than an emotional ploy to gain the public’s unearned trust for an unnamed agenda.
I have taken abuse even on FR from the trust/follow the science crowd. They are arrogant and mock anyone who disagrees with their version of “science”, they really remind me of the climate change kooks.
They believe everything the government/media/big pharma/medical profession tells them without so much as a peep. When you point out they were lied to by their scientist they will have none of it or flat out ignore the fact they were lied too. They will not question anything and get angry if you dare question their science or them.
The vaxed follow the science crowd will haughtily call you a flat earther if you dare question their statements of in stone and can never be changed facts. They claim to be the educated and follow the scientific method but will not entertain the thought of questioning their science or their overlords in the medical profession or government.
So now the follow the science crowd who have taken the jab are right back to pre-jab status from their science overlords, wear the mask, huddle in your houses in hysteria and fear and continue of course to bully the unvaxed.
Way back when, so scientists were testing the ability of college students to estimate. They gave them calculators that had been reprogrammed to give ridiculous answers to adding a handful of numbers. The students didn’t fare well.
For your reference to fraud in recent “science” journals.
If you trust “The Science” you don’t trust science.
I trust in God Almighty, and nothing else. These scientists are ALWAYS suspect. They “prove” what they are paid to prove, and what earns them grant money. Period.
Trust your television. Television is Truth.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.