| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
MikeMaloy15
Joined: 26 Feb 2006
Posts: 11345
Location: Salisbury, N.C.
|
 Posted: Fri Jun 16, 2017 1:05 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| That is a lump of coal with a ribbon on it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
MaxCat
Joined: 23 Jan 2015
Posts: 164
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 16, 2017 7:25 pm Post subject: No limit on stupid |
|
|
| As I watched Pitino's press conference I was reminded of what a wise 8th grade teacher once told a classmate and myself after some transgression......."The more indignant your protestations of innocence, the guiltier you are". I believe that to be true in Pitino's case, it sure was in ours. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CatsUpNorth
Joined: 18 Oct 2015
Posts: 1402
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
i77cat
Joined: 01 Dec 2005
Posts: 24279
Location: mooresville, nc
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 20, 2017 11:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
Phil seems determined to get fired.
_________________
"McKillop is a gentleman. He could have played 'name that score' if he so desired."---St Joe's fan |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
i77cat
Joined: 01 Dec 2005
Posts: 24279
Location: mooresville, nc
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 28, 2017 8:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
That didn't take too long. http://www.espn.com/espn/now?nowId=1-19757408
_________________
"McKillop is a gentleman. He could have played 'name that score' if he so desired."---St Joe's fan |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stan
Joined: 19 Nov 2006
Posts: 14222
Location: Knoxville
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CatsUpNorth
Joined: 18 Oct 2015
Posts: 1402
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rudy2011
Joined: 17 Jul 2012
Posts: 572
Location: Baltimore, MD
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 30, 2017 2:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Sounds like an awkward thanksgiving meal
_________________
Carthago delenda est
I say we drink the wine, eat the dogs, and use the papers for musket wadding. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
i77cat
Joined: 01 Dec 2005
Posts: 24279
Location: mooresville, nc
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MakeIt-TakeIt Cat
Joined: 08 Mar 2012
Posts: 2562
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 04, 2017 7:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
| stan wrote: |
Read Tetlock's work. Or Future Babble written about it by a NY Times science reporter. Read John Ioannidis stuff. Most papers are flawed. The stats are bungled. p values are crap. And no one can predict the future. |
Or take a look at this from a Duke Medical research team which simply published false data which served to "prove" the point they wanted to make with a large "environmental justice grant" of taxpayer money from the EPA:
http://www.newsobserver.com/latest-news/article159285769.html
The corrupt research technician would have probably been scrutinized more if the data had gone against the result her physician supervisor and his patrons at the EPA wanted. Studies http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0273230017301538 resulting in contrary findings were rejected by some peer reviewed journals (PLOS One) because the EPA and Duke had established the facts ... the debate was over. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stan
Joined: 19 Nov 2006
Posts: 14222
Location: Knoxville
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 05, 2017 12:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| MakeIt-TakeIt Cat wrote: | | stan wrote: |
Read Tetlock's work. Or Future Babble written about it by a NY Times science reporter. Read John Ioannidis stuff. Most papers are flawed. The stats are bungled. p values are crap. And no one can predict the future. |
Or take a look at this from a Duke Medical research team which simply published false data which served to "prove" the point they wanted to make with a large "environmental justice grant" of taxpayer money from the EPA:
http://www.newsobserver.com/latest-news/article159285769.html
The corrupt research technician would have probably been scrutinized more if the data had gone against the result her physician supervisor and his patrons at the EPA wanted. Studies http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0273230017301538 resulting in contrary findings were rejected by some peer reviewed journals (PLOS One) because the EPA and Duke had established the facts ... the debate was over. |
Richard Feynman -- "science is the belief in the ignorance of experts." Rejecting papers because they disagree with prior findings is just mind-boggling. Just shows how far science has fallen.
Two short stories. 1) Friend is a doctor. After college got in MIT for doctoral work in chemistry. Was assigned to continue research for a big star in the dept. Took over the work of a student who'd gotten his PhD and moved on. My friend said he worked tirelessly repeating the experiments, but he simply couldn't find any way to replicate the results the previous guy had gotten. Those results had made the star prof real happy because they were groundbreaking. Went over and over. Drove himself nuts trying to figure out what he was doing wrong. Had several others go over his work to see if they could spot what he was missing. No help. The prof made it clear he wasn't happy with my friend. Finally, disgusted the prof gave the work to another student. Fortunately for my friend, the other student agreed with him. Turned out the previous researcher had fudged the numbers to make the star prof happy. It was all crap. And that previous researcher is still a college professor today. Nothing happened to him for his fraudulent research. No one wanted the bad publicity. Would have made MIT look bad. Just a rug sweep.
2) another friend working on a masters in environmental engineering. Thesis with his professor on her pet soapbox issue. Spent a year gathering the data. Professor already slated to speak on the expected "findings" of his paper at a big national conference. Crunched the data. Oops. Data didn't support the professor's pet theory. Big problem. Professor looked it over -- no problem. She had a big presentation scheduled. They were going to produce a paper supporting her position. She eliminated the problem by throwing out the half of the data which she didn't like. Rest of the data worked just fine. Paper was published. He wouldn't put his name on it. He didn't get his masters degree. She made her presentation. And 'science' marches on.
_________________
"Then they started making 3s. A lot of 3s. We're talking more 3s than a bad dating site." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Airball50
Joined: 28 Jul 2016
Posts: 77
Location: Tralfamador
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 05, 2017 1:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Generalizing from what remains a small "n" of bad apples can be risky, wrong and "bad science" of the sort assailed in this very forum. Apply the same logic to people in jobs most people admire -- volunteer firefighters, for example -- and see how generalizing feels. Does one arsonist firefighter cause us to question all? Do 50? I have no problem with questioning of scientific findings, and certainly no problem with questioning of research, which I view as evolving science rather than fully established science. I do have a problem with any implication that Science (capital S intentional) is bogus or unworthy of trust. All of us benefit every day in numerous and often unappreciated ways from science. It's also worth keeping in mind that all science isn't American science. So if we do in fact have a problem here with reliable science, then it's our problem and not inherent to science itself. For the record: I majored in a liberal art at Davidson. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DC69Wildcat
Joined: 10 Dec 2006
Posts: 5057
Location: Concord, NC
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 05, 2017 9:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Airball50 wrote: | | Generalizing from what remains a small "n" of bad apples can be risky, wrong and "bad science" of the sort assailed in this very forum. Apply the same logic to people in jobs most people admire -- volunteer firefighters, for example -- and see how generalizing feels. Does one arsonist firefighter cause us to question all? Do 50? I have no problem with questioning of scientific findings, and certainly no problem with questioning of research, which I view as evolving science rather than fully established science. I do have a problem with any implication that Science (capital S intentional) is bogus or unworthy of trust. All of us benefit every day in numerous and often unappreciated ways from science. It's also worth keeping in mind that all science isn't American science. So if we do in fact have a problem here with reliable science, then it's our problem and not inherent to science itself. For the record: I majored in a liberal art at Davidson. |
+1. I hear this kind of thinking (generalized mistrust of science) every day in my medical practice, and I increasingly find myself having to defend legitimate science-based advice, especially regarding immunizations, against that ogre Dr. Google.
_________________
"We should've thrown our number 7 pitcher against Davidson......" Post by Tar Heel baseball fan 16 minutes into the game. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MLC67
Joined: 14 Sep 2016
Posts: 1183
Location: Camelot
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 06, 2017 6:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
To address this conundrum, we need a real math thread in order to determine when antidotal examples of fraudulent research are sufficiently numerous so as to become statistically significant. In an analogical fashion, climate change advocates point to every blizzard, hurricane, drought and cloudy day to proclaim that the advent of "global warming" has already resulted in serious adverse impacts.
In response, climate deniers loudly dissent, saying singular weather events are just that - varying weather conditions and not proof of climate calamities.
Of course, weather is transparent, except for heavy fog, while scientific fraud is often hidden in the bowls of Duke University's cover-up. What we need, therefore, is a Special Prosecutor to investigate the fraud perpetrated by the scientists in Durham.
_________________
All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for men of good will to do nothing. Eddie Burke
Esse Quam Videri |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MakeIt-TakeIt Cat
Joined: 08 Mar 2012
Posts: 2562
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 06, 2017 7:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
Limits on Stupid?
Meanwhile some powerful people are advocating prosecution of skeptics of AGW associated with think tanks and fossil fuel companies. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
