Agnostic.com

5 3

LINK Fake science: Here's the alarming pseudoscience ecosystem that's threatening our nation's health | Alternet

FTA: The goal is a web browser extension that will work in the background to flag sites with a color-coded measure of their scientific veracity. Green means the content is reliable. Red or orange means it’s bogus, and the user will be offered a better web site on that topic. We’re also creating a smartphone app that will serve up science articles, stripped of their origin and authorship, and ask users to swipe left for fake and right for legit. The app will provide a way to crowd source the identification of fake science, with a gamified interface so that users can compete with their friends and colleagues.

zblaze 7 Dec 3

Post a comment Reply Add Photo

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account

5 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

1

Try and convince a right winger that the colors are not rigged.

EMC2 Level 8 Dec 4, 2018
2

If this is genuine and trustworthy in future....WE ALL NEED IT!

1

I hope this pans out in real time! People now-a-days, have a knack for twisting reality...any reality, even facts and figures! I hope I am off base here!

3

I think this misses the point -- people don't want facts; they want stories, true or false, that provide comforting confirmation to their existing biases. I vaguely recall a Doonesbury series on people buying up whatever "facts" they needed to confirm their beliefs. It was maybe a bit too much on the nose!

Doonesbury gets it.

1

Science is losing the agenda because it is not using the scientific method. It resorts to peer review for conformation bias. So now it is relegated to metering by tech giants to further the agenda.

I think science will always use the scientific method, after all that is what science is. It is alt-science that is doing the damage and is nothing more than confirmation bias.

@jlynn37 Bad research and corporate buyoffs are not science, it's propaganda cloaked as science.

@jondspen and is alt-science.

Peer review is part of science. Without it any wack job calling themselves a scientist can present any theory they want and claim the right to be taken seriously.
Also, I think you just made up the phrase "conformation bias".

@Paul4747 Peer review, reviews the text and data only. It is not experiment reproduction. Experiment reproduction is science, not reading and agreeing. Which is why conformation bias applies.

@Veteran229 1- it's confirmation bias.
2- you've obviously never come across Reviewer 2.
3- are you seriously suggesting that you'd need to replicate a 10 year longitudinal study before allowing publication? Of course the review process only looks at the logic, the theoretical justification, the experimental methodology, the data analysis and the soundness of the conclusions reached. This is how publication works.
This is also why certain ex-academics cough Jordan Peterson cough Steven Pinker avoid it like the plague. Why get shot down within the first paragraph, when you can just ship your stuff on to a book publisher who only cares about how many units he can shift?

@MrBeelzeebubbles And that is exactly what we have today. Massive piles of papers that are nothing more than conformation bias. To continue an agenda. That is not proven or disproven. So more government money can be secured, to continue to publish, but never replicate. This cycle of madness will never lead to real science.

@Veteran229 sigh. Again, it's confirmation bias. And yes, there is issues with replicability, especially in the more 'fuzzy' sciences, and predatory publishers are a problem, and the system is not perfect and will require constant monitoring, tweaking and adjustment, but...
It works.
The system of academic publishing that you say will never lead to 'real science' is the reason that your latest generation of processors contain 12nm transistors, and they are looking at sub 7nm for the next generation.
It's the reason that if you contract HIV in the Western world, you can expect to live a normal life expectancy.
It's the reason that we detected the effect of CFC's on the ozone layer, banned them, and now the ozone layer is recovering.
Now this method of knowledge acquisition and dissemination has been turned on how our societies are organised, which had ruffled quite a few feathers. The same people who are quite happy with academic enquiry into the physics of ultraviolet lasers get quite peeved when clever people start investigating, say, how economic advantage and disadvantage are perpetuated.
cough Conservatives.
So, while academia will always have issues, it's the best method of knowledge acquisition we've come up with. It's not reality's fault it has a terrible liberal bias.

@MrBeelzeebubbles "It's not reality's fault it has a terrible liberal bias..." you have my nomination for Phrase of the Year.

Yes, when the study of economics shows over and over that cutting taxes on the rich does NOT double revenue, it's decried as a "soft science" and conservatives coughTrumpcough keep right on insisting that it works. Yet when historical figures (another soft science) show that higher taxes on the wealthy combined with lower taxes on the middle class gave us the greatest growth periods ever, they ignore it. Because social sciences conflict with the dogma of conservatism; i.e., that taxes on the rich are a bad thing in and of themselves, whether they result in prosperity for the nation or not. Just as socialized medicine, even if it largely works in other countries, is a bad thing because it has the word "socialized" in it.

Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:236237
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.