Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
General Chit-Chat (non-photography talk)
More Science Headlines
Mar 17, 2023 10:00:59   #
jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY
 
We live in amazing times. Just look at some of these headlines from NewScientist.

"Weight loss: Caffeine linked to lower BMI and reduced risk of type 2 diabetes

GPT-4: OpenAI says its AI has “human-level performance” on tests

Prehistoric building: The archaeologists recreating the secrets of ancient technology

Smooth operator: Robot snake that moves like a sidewinder could inspect sewage pipes

Life on Mars: Gene-edited rice may be able to grow on the Red Planet

Ready to explode: JWST took a stunning picture of a star that is about to go supernova

Ahead of the game: Longest dinosaur neck on record was six times longer than a giraffe’s"

Reply
Mar 18, 2023 10:07:04   #
Bloke Loc: Waynesboro, Pennsylvania
 
A lot of these are written by journalists who either don't understand the subject, or are just 'clickbaiting'. That star *is* about to go supernova, just like Betelgeuse in Orion - sometime in the next 50,000,000 years!

I watched a youtube video, supposedly by a reputable scientist, saying that the San Andreas fault had built up so much pressure that it was on the verge of letting go, with the proverbial "Big One". Half-way through, one of the experts said that it was impossible to predict when an earthquake was about to occur. So, how do they know that it is just about to pop?

Reply
Mar 18, 2023 17:48:52   #
RiJoRi Loc: Sandy Ridge, NC
 
Bloke wrote:
A lot of these are written by journalists who either don't understand the subject, or are just 'clickbaiting'. That star *is* about to go supernova, just like Betelgeuse in Orion - sometime in the next 50,000,000 years!
... So, how do they know that it is just about to pop?

It's amazing what can be pulled from thin air!


--Rich

Reply
 
 
Mar 18, 2023 20:02:05   #
flip1948 Loc: Hamden, CT
 
Bloke wrote:
A lot of these are written by journalists who either don't understand the subject, or are just 'clickbaiting'. That star *is* about to go supernova, just like Betelgeuse in Orion - sometime in the next 50,000,000 years!...

The star in question is 15,000 light years away so it may already have happened, but the light hasn't reached us yet.

Reply
Mar 18, 2023 20:58:24   #
gener202002
 
jerryc41 wrote:
We live in amazing times. Just look at some of these headlines from NewScientist.

"Weight loss: Caffeine linked to lower BMI and reduced risk of type 2 diabetes

GPT-4: OpenAI says its AI has “human-level performance” on tests

Prehistoric building: The archaeologists recreating the secrets of ancient technology

Smooth operator: Robot snake that moves like a sidewinder could inspect sewage pipes

Life on Mars: Gene-edited rice may be able to grow on the Red Planet

Ready to explode: JWST took a stunning picture of a star that is about to go supernova

Ahead of the game: Longest dinosaur neck on record was six times longer than a giraffe’s"
We live in amazing times. Just look at some of th... (show quote)



Some people get accused of being "science deniers", well, which science?

Reply
Mar 19, 2023 09:48:46   #
jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY
 
Bloke wrote:
A lot of these are written by journalists who either don't understand the subject, or are just 'clickbaiting'. That star *is* about to go supernova, just like Betelgeuse in Orion - sometime in the next 50,000,000 years!

I watched a youtube video, supposedly by a reputable scientist, saying that the San Andreas fault had built up so much pressure that it was on the verge of letting go, with the proverbial "Big One". Half-way through, one of the experts said that it was impossible to predict when an earthquake was about to occur. So, how do they know that it is just about to pop?
A lot of these are written by journalists who eith... (show quote)


"About to go" and "on the verge" and easy terms to toss around, especially where the age of the earth and the universe are concerned. Yellowstone is going to erupt, too, but probably not today. Stars will die, and earthquakes will occur, but no one knows exactly when.

Reply
Mar 19, 2023 18:14:32   #
JoeBiker Loc: homebase: Houston, TX
 
In the book "Science Fictions", Stuart Ritchie talks about "Meta-Science" (the Scientific study of the current state of Scientific methods), and reaches the conclusion that just over half of the conclusions currently being reported in Scientific Journals are incorrect. He gives lots of examples, and talks about what could be done to improve the situation to give people more confidence in the Science Community.

Briefly, there are a lot of reasons for that: "Publish or Perish" pressure on the academic community combined with Scientific Journals (being a type of media) wanting sensational results; somewhere over the last 50-100 years, the Scientific standard switched from replicating results to just peer review by volunteers (hey, buddy, I will peer review yours, if you peer review mine... no pressure to be critical there); and some out and out fraud (or at least studies being paid for by the industries that benefit from a certain result). Put it all together, and just over half of the conclusions are wrong. And, most Scientific Journals will no longer print retractions, so the wrong results stay out there.

He admits that his own scientific study could fall in that half, but there has already been one alternate study that came to roughly the same conclusion.

Reply
 
 
Mar 20, 2023 08:53:23   #
jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY
 
JoeBiker wrote:
In the book "Science Fictions", Stuart Ritchie talks about "Meta-Science" (the Scientific study of the current state of Scientific methods), and reaches the conclusion that just over half of the conclusions currently being reported in Scientific Journals are incorrect. He gives lots of examples, and talks about what could be done to improve the situation to give people more confidence in the Science Community.

Briefly, there are a lot of reasons for that: "Publish or Perish" pressure on the academic community combined with Scientific Journals (being a type of media) wanting sensational results; somewhere over the last 50-100 years, the Scientific standard switched from replicating results to just peer review by volunteers (hey, buddy, I will peer review yours, if you peer review mine... no pressure to be critical there); and some out and out fraud (or at least studies being paid for by the industries that benefit from a certain result). Put it all together, and just over half of the conclusions are wrong. And, most Scientific Journals will no longer print retractions, so the wrong results stay out there.

He admits that his own scientific study could fall in that half, but there has already been one alternate study that came to roughly the same conclusion.
In the book "Science Fictions", Stuart R... (show quote)


"Publish or Perish" is ridiculous. Scientific journals should be printing only those articles that have been peer reviewed. As science advances, old ideas become updated by new discoveries. It's the ridiculous scientific headlines that turn people off to science. I remember a study from years ago stating that dogs don't have emotions.

Reply
Mar 20, 2023 09:34:03   #
JoeBiker Loc: homebase: Houston, TX
 
They are peer reviewed, but the peer reviewers are volunteers, with no incentive to be critical. It is usually by a co-worker, or someone that doesn't have time or ability to take a critical look at it. 50-100 years ago, the standard was to independently reproduce the results, not just say "looks good to me".

A lot of time and money is wasted; many trials move to Phase 2, when they never should have passed Phase 1.

Reply
Mar 20, 2023 12:37:57   #
jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY
 
JoeBiker wrote:
They are peer reviewed, but the peer reviewers are volunteers, with no incentive to be critical. It is usually by a co-worker, or someone that doesn't have time or ability to take a critical look at it. 50-100 years ago, the standard was to independently reproduce the results, not just say "looks good to me".

A lot of time and money is wasted; many trials move to Phase 2, when they never should have passed Phase 1.


There are peers, and then there are "peers."

Reply
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
General Chit-Chat (non-photography talk)
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.