Will sensitivity-fueled litigation end peer review? + Bad cannabis science

#1
C C Offline
Criticizing a scientist’s work isn’t bullying
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and...lying.html

EXCERPT: [...] Unfortunately, the pressures society has placed on scientists have made it almost impossible for us to admit when we’re wrong. We’re rewarded—by funding agencies, by prestigious scientific journals, by the media—for cherry-picking and polishing our results to make them look as shiny as possible. “Groundbreaking” discoveries are often the standard for getting a job or getting promoted. When the stakes are that high, it’s easy for scientists to start seeing what we need to see—to convince ourselves that our embellished findings are rock solid because we have to. What’s worse, there is little incentive for scientists to challenge and correct each other. Doing the hard work of checking each other’s discoveries is not glamorous. And when scientists bother to do it, the response is rarely gratitude—instead, efforts to point out legitimate errors in methodology are often met with accusations of bullying. Indeed, science’s dirty little secret is that scientists are often actively hostile to the very mechanism that science depends on: self-correction. But when I read it, what I see is a well-reasoned criticism of a scientific claim—exactly the kind we need more, not less, of.

The story of Amy Cuddy, as told in a recent New York Times Magazine story, illustrates why self-correction is so rare in science. In painting a moving portrait of Cuddy’s life over the past few years, it conflates Cuddy’s experience as the target of scientific criticism with her experience as the target of something much more vicious and universal: actual bullying....

MORE: http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and...lying.html



The bad science of medical cannabis
https://cosmosmagazine.com/biology/the-b...l-cannabis

EXCERPT: [...] While the medical uses of the opium poppy, a vastly more dangerous plant, are well understood, cannabis has remained stuck in a no man’s land. It had been part of the US pharmacopeia till the 1930s, as an alcohol-based tincture, until the federal government effectively outlawed its possession and sale through the Marijuana Tax Act. More draconian penalties followed. It is still demonised by federal law as a ‘Schedule 1’ drug with no medical use, lumped in the same category as heroin, LSD and ecstasy. Yet as a quick online search will show, the plant is lauded for a seemingly inexhaustible list of curative properties.

In the past two decades the disparity between evidence and anecdotes has grown extreme. Despite a majority of states (beginning with California in 1996) having legalised cannabis to treat medical conditions, federal restrictions on research remained ironclad. So researchers have great difficulty studying whether such medical uses have any basis in science. “What we have is a perfect storm,” says Daniele Piomelli, a neurobiologist at the University of California, Irvine....

MORE: https://cosmosmagazine.com/biology/the-b...l-cannabis
Reply
#2
confused2 Offline
Several things in the OP.
I choose to dwell on Cuddy's paper about 'power posing' which seems to be the centre of controversy (bullying and or error and or falsification and or professional negligence).
First thing I notice is that Cuddy is an attractive blond woman. Her participation or even presence in any experiment involving males and testosterone is going to have an effect. If a pretty girl (also a dancer) asks you (a male) to either"Stand like a twat." or "Stand like you might get a date tonight." - either I'm abnormal or there's going to be a significant difference in hormone levels after ten minutes between the two groups.
It is likely that some kid from the sanitation department will find he can't personally replicate the effect of Jane Fonda in the opening sequence of Barbarella.
It seems to be past my bedtime again and I have to leave this. Until...
Reply
#3
RainbowUnicorn Offline
(Oct 26, 2017 01:17 AM)C C Wrote: Criticizing a scientist’s work isn’t bullying
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and...lying.html

EXCERPT: [...] Unfortunately, the pressures society has placed on scientists have made it almost impossible for us to admit when we’re wrong. We’re rewarded—by funding agencies, by prestigious scientific journals, by the media—for cherry-picking and polishing our results to make them look as shiny as possible. “Groundbreaking” discoveries are often the standard for getting a job or getting promoted. When the stakes are that high, it’s easy for scientists to start seeing what we need to see—to convince ourselves that our embellished findings are rock solid because we have to.  What’s worse, there is little incentive for scientists to challenge and correct each other. Doing the hard work of checking each other’s discoveries is not glamorous. And when scientists bother to do it, the response is rarely gratitude—instead, efforts to point out legitimate errors in methodology are often met with accusations of bullying. Indeed, science’s dirty little secret is that scientists are often actively hostile to the very mechanism that science depends on: self-correction. But when I read it, what I see is a well-reasoned criticism of a scientific claim—exactly the kind we need more, not less, of.

The story of Amy Cuddy, as told in a recent New York Times Magazine story, illustrates why self-correction is so rare in science. In painting a moving portrait of Cuddy’s life over the past few years, it conflates Cuddy’s experience as the target of scientific criticism with her experience as the target of something much more vicious and universal: actual bullying....

MORE: http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and...lying.html


we could phrase it the neo-inquisition.
you do not have to be a news junky to notice the massive amount of anti-intellectualism being promoted and propogated by the american political system.
its only equal is the cold war propoganda.
admittedly there is a heavy prevailence on payperplay science in the US commercial scientific realm.
however when the Government funding istaken away from science it handi-caps the scientific community in favour of genetically modified meat grown in a box for mcdonalds rather than a cure for Alzheimer's/Dementia (probably one of our most pressing diseases that needs to be studied) or such like.
it makes me think of the A.I.D.S epidemic and how many private citizens donated hundreds of millions of dollars to fund research.
the government was walking away from A.I.D.S research as quickly as it could without being seen to be too obvious about it.
why ?
why wasnt the government matching dollar for dollar being donated by private people when the death toll was soo massively high ?
social piety ?
the church running the government ?
backward leadership ?


comparative metaphysics
Barak Obama changing his position on Gay Marriage.
is the point that he at one point held a different view ?
or
the fact that he changed his mind and followed informed intellectual scientific paradigms of the nature one might expect from a leader ?


The under-current of pretend values and pretend policys being advertised and then policys going against those seem to be quite the thing currently.

why didnt Ebola ravage the USA ?
because of good leadership & Good Science and a bit of luck.

(Oct 26, 2017 01:17 AM)C C Wrote: The bad science of medical cannabis
https://cosmosmagazine.com/biology/the-b...l-cannabis

EXCERPT: [...] While the medical uses of the opium poppy, a vastly more dangerous plant, are well understood, cannabis has remained stuck in a no man’s land. It had been part of the US pharmacopeia till the 1930s, as an alcohol-based tincture, until the federal government effectively outlawed its possession and sale through the Marijuana Tax Act. More draconian penalties followed. It is still demonised by federal law as a ‘Schedule 1’ drug with no medical use, lumped in the same category as heroin, LSD and ecstasy. Yet as a quick online search will show, the plant is lauded for a seemingly inexhaustible list of curative properties.

In the past two decades the disparity between evidence and anecdotes has grown extreme. Despite a majority of states (beginning with California in 1996) having legalised cannabis to treat medical conditions, federal restrictions on research remained ironclad. So researchers have great difficulty studying whether such medical uses have any basis in science. “What we have is a perfect storm,” says Daniele Piomelli, a neurobiologist at the University of California, Irvine....

MORE: https://cosmosmagazine.com/biology/the-b...l-cannabis

comment about synthetic vs cultivated cannibis
specifically Synthetic Cannibis.
it seems this has a high fatality rate. my suspision is that the massive doses in the synthesisation triggers something which may well be a deeply seated not terribly obvious pre-existing psychiatric tendency.
it is just a guess because of th enature of the massive number of deaths of regular hard core users.
my guess is there is possibly some type of tendency one might atribute to be similar to PTSD or UNI POLAR or Bi-Polar .. or extremely mild schitzophrenia.
possibly attaching to some type of similar addictive centre as herion where the pre-disposition is rendered to replicate herion as an effect.

that is just a guess given my reading the news items and watching some cell phone videos of people nearly dead/unconscious & semi conscious from using it.

i wonder if it in massive doses that are not possible to replicate in normal cultivation, .. while in synthetic form like fentanyl trigger the unconsciousnes & consequential respitory failure resulting in death within a minute or 2.

additionally anyone appropriately read on the subject will see the probable links to seizure patients & asthma.
Reply
#4
stryder Offline
Science has always been about the methodology and what is learnt, while it can be about proving hypothesise, it can equally be about learning from results that we didn't originally intend. It necessary to test in this manner to ascertain as to what is empirical and what is clearly metaphysical. Anyone in science should realise that is what the job entails, if they think it's about money, fame or power then there are far more lucrative professions they can enter into that are far more forgiving. (For instance Politics)
Reply
#5
RainbowUnicorn Offline
(Oct 30, 2017 08:53 PM)stryder Wrote: Science has always been about the methodology and what is learnt, while it can be about proving hypothesise, it can equally be about learning from results that we didn't originally intend.  It necessary to test in this manner to ascertain as to what is empirical and what is clearly metaphysical.  Anyone in science should realise that is what the job entails, if they think it's about money, fame or power then there are far more lucrative professions they can enter into that are far more forgiving.  (For instance Politics)


[Image: Dramatic-Star-Trek-Clap-Reaction-Gif.gif]

[Image: Dramatic-Star-Trek-Clap-Reaction-Gif.gif]

Reply
#6
Yazata Offline
(Oct 26, 2017 01:17 AM)C C Wrote: Criticizing a scientist’s work isn’t bullying

EXCERPT: [...] Unfortunately, the pressures society has placed on scientists have made it almost impossible for us to admit when we’re wrong.

It's not just scientists, it's everyone. Just try getting somebody in an internet discussion to admit they are wrong. When egos get involved, admitting errors turns into something humiliating. It's an attack on your person. People fight like the devil to avoid it.

Quote:We’re rewarded—by funding agencies, by prestigious scientific journals, by the media—for cherry-picking and polishing our results to make them look as shiny as possible. “Groundbreaking” discoveries are often the standard for getting a job or getting promoted.

In the sciences, in order to get funded you have to show at least the likelihood of producing 'important results'. In order to continue being funded, you have to actually produce them. In order to get hired at a prestigious research university, you have to have already produced them. The stakes are high. Careers are dependent on it.

Quote:When the stakes are that high, it’s easy for scientists to start seeing what we need to see—to convince ourselves that our embellished findings are rock solid because we have to.

That's probably what's most to blame for the 'replication crisis', where less than half of scientific papers' results can be sucessfully replicated.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis

Quote:What’s worse, there is little incentive for scientists to challenge and correct each other.

I'm not sure that I agree with that. People can make a name for themselves by becoming a prominent opponent of something fashionable. (Provided that it isn't politicized moral fashion, in which case dissent won't be tolerated.) If somebody produces a widely discussed speculative hypothesis in physics or astrophysics say, an easy way to make a name is to become a leading critic of that new idea.

In contemporary analytical philosophy, names (and careers) are made by disagreeing (plausibly) with widely held views.

Quote:Doing the hard work of checking each other’s discoveries is not glamorous.

Yes. I do agree that scientists' trying to replicate other investigators' laboratory results is thankless, generally seen as hack-work. (The leaders, the truly brilliant, are doing new work.) That's another contributor to the replication crisis.

Quote:And when scientists bother to do it, the response is rarely gratitude—instead, efforts to point out legitimate errors in methodology are often met with accusations of bullying. Indeed, science’s dirty little secret is that scientists are often actively hostile to the very mechanism that science depends on: self-correction. But when I read it, what I see is a well-reasoned criticism of a scientific claim—exactly the kind we need more, not less, of.

It's human nature.

Quote:The story of Amy Cuddy, as told in a recent New York Times Magazine story, illustrates why self-correction is so rare in science. In painting a moving portrait of Cuddy’s life over the past few years, inflates Cuddy’s experience as the target of scientific criticism with her experience as the target of something much more vicious and universal: actual bullying....

I hadn't heard of this woman until now. Apparently she's doing very well for herself, a celebrity speaker at 'TED' (a club for members of the elite with intellectual pretensions) and a professor at Harvard Business School. She was even on CNN and Oprah! And (surprise!) she's a 'social psychologist' whose specialty is stereotyping, discrimination, emotions, power and bullying.

And she has a grudge. Her 'Power Posing' theory couldn't be replicated and one of its co-authors admitted that it was probably wrong.  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_posing
Reply
#7
C C Offline
(Nov 3, 2017 05:25 PM)Yazata Wrote:
Quote:What’s worse, there is little incentive for scientists to challenge and correct each other.

I'm not sure that I agree with that. People can make a name for themselves by becoming a prominent opponent of something fashionable. (Provided that it isn't politicized moral fashion, in which case dissent won't be tolerated.) If somebody produces a widely discussed speculative hypothesis in physics or astrophysics say, an easy way to make a name is to become a leading critic of that new idea.

In contemporary analytical philosophy, names (and careers) are made by disagreeing (plausibly) with widely held views.


Good reminder of one that's rarely brought up in the plights of science or just its mundane turbulence. Akin to an up and coming reviewer in literature or arts zeroing in on a noted author, sculptor, painter, etc.

- - -
Reply
#8
RainbowUnicorn Offline
(Nov 3, 2017 05:25 PM)Yazata Wrote:
(Oct 26, 2017 01:17 AM)C C Wrote: Criticizing a scientist’s work isn’t bullying

EXCERPT: [...] Unfortunately, the pressures society has placed on scientists have made it almost impossible for us to admit when we’re wrong.

It's not just scientists, it's everyone. Just try getting somebody in an internet discussion to admit they are wrong. When egos get involved, admitting errors turns into something humiliating. It's an attack on your person. People fight like the devil to avoid it.

that is the baggage of the babyboomer parents and where the entitlement personality type comes from.

(Nov 4, 2017 01:26 AM)C C Wrote:
(Nov 3, 2017 05:25 PM)Yazata Wrote:
Quote:What’s worse, there is little incentive for scientists to challenge and correct each other.

I'm not sure that I agree with that. People can make a name for themselves by becoming a prominent opponent of something fashionable. (Provided that it isn't politicized moral fashion, in which case dissent won't be tolerated.) If somebody produces a widely discussed speculative hypothesis in physics or astrophysics say, an easy way to make a name is to become a leading critic of that new idea.

In contemporary analytical philosophy, names (and careers) are made by disagreeing (plausibly) with widely held views.


Good reminder of one that's rarely brought up in the plights of science or just its mundane turbulence. Akin to an up and coming reviewer in literature or arts zeroing in on a noted author, sculptor, painter, etc.

- - -

ah the culture of "i must break it to feel alive" paradigm.
being expressed through a modular view of a qwasi scientific relationship by simply shouting NO as loud as possible and then swinging off egos to assert weight.

such a poor display of the human animal flapping about in the shallow waters of intellect.
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  I published a fake paper in a ‘peer-reviewed’ journal C C 1 122 Nov 30, 2020 04:23 AM
Last Post: Zinjanthropos
  Peer review: How is that working out for ya? C C 0 262 Jun 25, 2020 09:35 PM
Last Post: C C
  Peer review is wheel of misfortune + How sci gave its soul to the publishing industry C C 0 167 Feb 11, 2020 06:05 AM
Last Post: C C
  Peer reviewers getting sophomoric, unreliable & subjective + Is social priming bogus? C C 1 174 Dec 14, 2019 07:04 PM
Last Post: Syne
  Peer Review: The end of an error? C C 3 450 Nov 9, 2017 06:45 PM
Last Post: Yazata



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)