Posted on 03/01/2014 6:35:04 AM PST by Malone LaVeigh
Do scientific papers ever seem like unreadable gibberish to you? Well, sometimes they really are.
Some 120 papers published in established scientific journals over the last few years have been found to be frauds, created by nothing more than an automated word generator that puts random, fancy-sounding words together in plausible sentence structures. As a result they have been pulled from the journals that originally published them.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
That was hilarious. Obama should hire that guy to replace Carney.
Your colleague's writing reminds me of my students' writing. In the case of teenagers, I attribute it mostly to social promotion and lack of reading practice. Few of them read for pleasure and it shows. I don't know why an older man with an engineering education would be such a basket case. Perhaps he had an undiagnosed disability. Even my dad, who came to America as an adult and never had a formal course in English, writes better than that.
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.
“Since we publish over 2,200 journals and 8,400 books annually, this will take some time,” Eric Merkel-Sobotta, a spokesman for the publisher Springer, which published 16 of the fake papers, told FoxNews.com.”
What else would would one expect from a journal named after Jerry Springer?
Turing test alert.
Now , there was Piltdown man after all. And lobotomy, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_0aNILW6ILk, although what is interesting about the PBS video is that Muniz, who discovered the procedure, is not mentioned , nor his Nobel Prize. The usual selectivity of the media protecting their franchises.
“... an automated word generator
that puts random, fancy-sounding words together
in plausible sentence structures ...”
I don’t know about the software FReepers might be using, but I immediately thought of Professor Irwin Corey, and his shtick when I read that quote.
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 should have included that I got that information from another source.
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.
There is a great 30 second clip in the Penn and Teller Bullshit episode on global warming. The founder of the Weather Channel shows a chart of temperature from the 1900s to today. CO2 trends up the whole century. Temperatures rise, dip in the 1920s through 1950s or so, then rise again. If there was a correlation between temperature and CO2, there wouldn’t be a cold spell. And this meteorologist says so.
Global warming is entirely political. They changed it to “climate change” because it stopped warming in the 1990s. (No statistically significant warming since 2000 for ocean or upper atmosphere).
The entire race to ration carbon and carbon dioxide, limit production and energy consumption, restrict population, force people into controlled communities - these are the same proposals they have no matter what the cause of any temperature variation. The solution for everything for liberals is fascism.
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.