From: slider@anashram.org

http://www.collective-evolution.com/2017/03/01/peer-reviewed-science-losing-credibility-as-large-amounts-of-research-shown-to-be-false/

### - gotta laff innit :)

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: www.darkrealms.ca (1:229/2)

From: slider@anashram.org

http://www.collective-evolution.com/2017/03/01/peer-reviewed-science-losing-credibility-as-large-amounts-of-research-shown-to-be-false/

### - gotta laff innit :)

### - (idiot left out the lancet source from the above article :)))

http://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/lancet/PIIS0140-6736%2815%2960696-1.pdf

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: www.darkrealms.ca (1:229/2)

From: david.j.worrell@gmail.com

It's certainly true that there are problems with fraud, politicization,
and improper peer review in science. Human beings haven't had effective,
fully scientific studies or rigorous peer review for all that long.
There is no doubt that improvement is still needed.

However, it is mostly further peer review or additional scientific
studies that uncover problems with bogus original studies and
with peer review itself. Your article shows that happening too.

And if there are still serious problems with peer-reviewed science,
just try to imagine how many problems there are with pseudo-science
and totally unscientific methods, and with blatantly biased people
who aren't scientific at all, which is *all* we had for tens of
thousands of years, and is still a big part of the problem.

And even if we discover many studies to be incorrect, that doesn't
mean the majority of studies in a given area are wrong.

It is, for example, easily possible for certain genetically modified
foods to be unsafe, and for many others to be safe. See, we've been 'genetically modifying' our foods forever just by selective breeding.

As another example, over a thousand studies have found that
humans are causing global warming, and the most recent 38 studies
that found otherwise were all exposed as containing errors.
The errors in all 38 of the contrary studies were identified.
That's an example of what can happen with "politicization".

Maybe the reason there are so many problems with medical or
drug studies is that we still foolishly support "health care
for profit". If it was mainly about healing people and not as much
about making huge profits for drug companies, we could probably
remove a great deal of the incentive to cheat.

The best point of all: even if people do sometimes find ways
to cheat scientific protocols and strenuous peer-review,
it's STILL the best way to gain genuine knowledge - so if
there's cheating still happening, that simply means we need
to *toughen* the process even more to make it harder to cheat.

Just do the science and peer review even better.

What it doesn't mean is that we give in to whatever corporations
or politicians or the general masses of morons at large are saying,
or that we assume there's no such thing as truth or efficacy,
and rely on an endless sea of ignorant opinions where everyone
just believes whatever the fuck they feel like believing, since they
can always find a handful of other stupid people who also believe it.

Because that's what we already tried for tens of thousands of years...

https://www.dropbox.com/s/0cio7och7o7jl7f/What%20if.jpg?dl=0

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: www.darkrealms.ca (1:229/2)

From: slider@nanashram.com

On Tue, 26 Sep 2017 02:33:53 +0100, Jeremy H. Denisovan <david.j.worrell@gmail.com> wrote:

It's certainly true that there are problems with fraud, politicization,
and improper peer review in science. Human beings haven't had effective, fully scientific studies or rigorous peer review for all that long.
There is no doubt that improvement is still needed.

However, it is mostly further peer review or additional scientific
studies that uncover problems with bogus original studies and
with peer review itself. Your article shows that happening too.

And if there are still serious problems with peer-reviewed science,
just try to imagine how many problems there are with pseudo-science
and totally unscientific methods, and with blatantly biased people
who aren't scientific at all, which is *all* we had for tens of
thousands of years, and is still a big part of the problem.

And even if we discover many studies to be incorrect, that doesn't
mean the majority of studies in a given area are wrong.

It is, for example, easily possible for certain genetically modified
foods to be unsafe, and for many others to be safe. See, we've been 'genetically modifying' our foods forever just by selective breeding.

As another example, over a thousand studies have found that
humans are causing global warming, and the most recent 38 studies
that found otherwise were all exposed as containing errors.
The errors in all 38 of the contrary studies were identified.
That's an example of what can happen with "politicization".

Maybe the reason there are so many problems with medical or
drug studies is that we still foolishly support "health care
for profit". If it was mainly about healing people and not as much
about making huge profits for drug companies, we could probably
remove a great deal of the incentive to cheat.

The best point of all: even if people do sometimes find ways
to cheat scientific protocols and strenuous peer-review,
it's STILL the best way to gain genuine knowledge - so if
there's cheating still happening, that simply means we need
to *toughen* the process even more to make it harder to cheat.

Just do the science and peer review even better.

What it doesn't mean is that we give in to whatever corporations
or politicians or the general masses of morons at large are saying,
or that we assume there's no such thing as truth or efficacy,
and rely on an endless sea of ignorant opinions where everyone
just believes whatever the fuck they feel like believing, since they
can always find a handful of other stupid people who also believe it.

Because that's what we already tried for tens of thousands of years...

https://www.dropbox.com/s/0cio7och7o7jl7f/What%20if.jpg?dl=0

### - well that's surprisingly reasonable of you! (certainly not the
reaction i expected? heh)

but i think the point is well made: knowing what the human race is like; nothing should be taken as gospel until it's been thoroughly checked out
by unbiased, independent + agenda-free peers! double checked and triple checked! and even 'then' we have check the checkers AND 'remain'
open-minded enough to accept that the whole thing could just possibly be
turned completely on its head at a moments notice, as has so often been
the case! nothing can be taken for granted! nothing! all is assumption and provisional understanding! we don't REALLY know anything! that IS our intelligence!

the fact that science struggles under the same burden of corruption as
every other field is a given, it's 'people' that are corrupt! thus making
it even 'more' important to doubt everything no matter how convincing it
may at first appear! centuries of people going-off on 'apparently'
convincing notions and ideas that appeal more to our emotions than the
reality of our situation has indeed left its mark; we've typically always 'believed' rather than actually knowing + were told that believing was
enough! people measured not by their knowledge but by their faith!

and as we look up in astonishment from the ruins of our previous handiwork
and the sheer damage that we've wreaked in our blind ignorance upon
ourselves and the rest of the planet, all we can honestly do is stand
appalled, marveling at our insanity to date... and because in all
likelihood we've probably actually fucked it all up! in our mad, insane, collective rush for wealth, power & glory we've destroyed 2/3 of the
entire flora and fauna on this planet!?! (very sad...)

we're cunts! and the proof is all around us! there ARE smart people
(smarter) but we generally ignore them unless they're the flashy,
dashing-type! thus elevating the richard bransons of this world (sorry richard...) over our poets and writers and genuinely advanced thinkers!
the 'emphasis' is all wrong! i.e., we need to be 'artists' first and
'then' scientists & engineers, in that order!

too late though... probably! - they LOVE their wars and their power! plus
ALL the 'wrong' people have ALL the power/money so things ain't ever gonna change! the powers that be LIKE it that way?!?

NOT exactly an 'enlightened' world, is it! (the artists actually know more about it than the rest of 'em but are considered second class??) plus it
would literally take a miracle to fix it in time!

which doesn't exactly 'leave' us with very much does it!

we're finally 'awake' to what's been going on, but are ostensibly doomed...

we 'could' very well be the last!

those that 'can' be woken up should be, those that can't; made
comfortable...

(imho & observation; it's been only a 'salvage-job' for the longest
time...)

the only 'glimmer' of hope is/was mandela! sanity in the midst of utter
chaos!

who'd have thought?!?

a humble, 'very' humble, black man...

actually saved the day!

(i think there's maybe a good moral in there somewhere huh?)

...anyone for tennis? :)

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: www.darkrealms.ca (1:229/2)

From: thangolossus@gmail.com

On Mon, 25 Sep 2017 23:20:55 +0100, slider <slider@anashram.org>
wrote:

http://www.collective-evolution.com/2017/03/01/peer-reviewed-science-losing-credibility-as-large-amounts-of-research-shown-to-be-false/

### - gotta laff innit :)

### - (idiot left out the lancet source from the above article :)))

http://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/lancet/PIIS0140-6736%2815%2960696-1.pdf

I haven't seen him around since I got back. Once, if you remember, he
went away for many months in a bit of a huff about you and me. He
comes back, just like I do and you. The unholy trio. And, Chris.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: www.darkrealms.ca (1:229/2)

From: david.j.worrell@gmail.com

It isn't enough to just doubt everything, although the possibility
of challenging any result with *new evidence* is built into science.
To doubt everything without new evidence is merely baying at the moon.
In addition, to solve serious problems and push the frontiers of
knowledge, we always have to act based on current best evidence.
We can't sit around waiting for all knowledge to be perfected
before taking action in the world. We have no realistic choice
but to do our best with the knowledge we have AND look for more.

Examples:
20 years from now, diabetes meds will probably be enormously
superior to the diabetes meds we have today (based on several
promising avenues of research). But right now, all the fat
Americans had better keep taking their metformin, because
we do not yet have those more advanced meds.

And if we waited to act on human-caused global warming until
we have yet another 1000 studies to confirm the 1000+ studies
we already have, we would greatly risk fucking over the earth
even worse than it has already been fucked. We can't do that.
We have to act now on current knowledge to do the best we can
to ensure that we stay cool.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: www.darkrealms.ca (1:229/2)

From: slider@nanashram.com

On Tue, 26 Sep 2017 21:34:27 +0100, Jeremy H. Denisovan <david.j.worrell@gmail.com> wrote:

It isn't enough to just doubt everything, although the possibility
of challenging any result with *new evidence* is built into science.
To doubt everything without new evidence is merely baying at the moon.
In addition, to solve serious problems and push the frontiers of
knowledge, we always have to act based on current best evidence.
We can't sit around waiting for all knowledge to be perfected
before taking action in the world. We have no realistic choice
but to do our best with the knowledge we have AND look for more.

Examples:
20 years from now, diabetes meds will probably be enormously
superior to the diabetes meds we have today (based on several
promising avenues of research). But right now, all the fat
Americans had better keep taking their metformin, because
we do not yet have those more advanced meds.

And if we waited to act on human-caused global warming until
we have yet another 1000 studies to confirm the 1000+ studies
we already have, we would greatly risk fucking over the earth
even worse than it has already been fucked. We can't do that.
We have to act now on current knowledge to do the best we can
to ensure that we stay cool.

### - can agree with you 'in principle', only this isn't exactly a very principled world?

in a perfect world yes! except that humanity is very far from being
perfect??

meanwhile; our 'crap' has destroyed 2/3 of the world!

we're NOT cool! never HAVE been! and likely wont live long enough to ever become so!

the zen dudes are cool! the tao peeps are cool! we're anything BUT cool??

we have, for example, a mania for the mechanical? for mechanical solutions!

we don't live & work WITH nature?

we 'manipulate' nature at/from arm's length!

we want 'nature' to yield to us! when it's US that should be yielding to nature!

THAT'S why everything's going down the tubes!

we're 'at war' - with our own... nature!

and apparently we're... losing!

and no one's gonna stop now!?!

foregone conclusion then isn't it...

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: www.darkrealms.ca (1:229/2)

From: intraphase@gmail.com

On Wednesday, September 27, 2017 at 1:51:10 PM UTC-4, slider wrote:

On Tue, 26 Sep 2017 21:34:27 +0100, Jeremy H. Denisovan
<@gmail.com> wrote:

It isn't enough to just doubt everything, although the possibility
of challenging any result with *new evidence* is built into science.
To doubt everything without new evidence is merely baying at the moon.
In addition, to solve serious problems and push the frontiers of
knowledge, we always have to act based on current best evidence.
We can't sit around waiting for all knowledge to be perfected
before taking action in the world. We have no realistic choice
but to do our best with the knowledge we have AND look for more.

Examples:
20 years from now, diabetes meds will probably be enormously
superior to the diabetes meds we have today (based on several
promising avenues of research). But right now, all the fat
Americans had better keep taking their metformin, because
we do not yet have those more advanced meds.

And if we waited to act on human-caused global warming until
we have yet another 1000 studies to confirm the 1000+ studies
we already have, we would greatly risk fucking over the earth
even worse than it has already been fucked. We can't do that.
We have to act now on current knowledge to do the best we can
to ensure that we stay cool.

### - can agree with you 'in principle', only this isn't exactly a very principled world?

in a perfect world yes! except that humanity is very far from being
perfect??

meanwhile; our 'crap' has destroyed 2/3 of the world!

we're NOT cool! never HAVE been! and likely wont live long enough to ever become so!

the zen dudes are cool! the tao peeps are cool! we're anything BUT cool??

we have, for example, a mania for the mechanical? for mechanical solutions!

we don't live & work WITH nature?

we 'manipulate' nature at/from arm's length!

we want 'nature' to yield to us! when it's US that should be yielding to nature!

THAT'S why everything's going down the tubes!

we're 'at war' - with our own... nature!

and apparently we're... losing!

and no one's gonna stop now!?!

foregone conclusion then isn't it...

https://www.nsf.gov/awardsearch/

https://www.nsf.gov/funding/index.jsp

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: www.darkrealms.ca (1:229/2)

From: david.j.worrell@gmail.com

On Wednesday, September 27, 2017 at 11:17:18 AM UTC-7, LowRider44M wrote:

On Wednesday, September 27, 2017 at 1:51:10 PM UTC-4, slider wrote:

On Tue, 26 Sep 2017 21:34:27 +0100, Jeremy H. Denisovan
<@gmail.com> wrote:

It isn't enough to just doubt everything, although the possibility
of challenging any result with *new evidence* is built into science.
To doubt everything without new evidence is merely baying at the moon.
In addition, to solve serious problems and push the frontiers of knowledge, we always have to act based on current best evidence.
We can't sit around waiting for all knowledge to be perfected
before taking action in the world. We have no realistic choice
but to do our best with the knowledge we have AND look for more.

Examples:
20 years from now, diabetes meds will probably be enormously
superior to the diabetes meds we have today (based on several
promising avenues of research). But right now, all the fat
Americans had better keep taking their metformin, because
we do not yet have those more advanced meds.

And if we waited to act on human-caused global warming until
we have yet another 1000 studies to confirm the 1000+ studies
we already have, we would greatly risk fucking over the earth
even worse than it has already been fucked. We can't do that.
We have to act now on current knowledge to do the best we can
to ensure that we stay cool.

### - can agree with you 'in principle', only this isn't exactly a very principled world?

in a perfect world yes! except that humanity is very far from being perfect??

meanwhile; our 'crap' has destroyed 2/3 of the world!

we're NOT cool! never HAVE been! and likely wont live long enough to ever become so!

the zen dudes are cool! the tao peeps are cool! we're anything BUT cool??

we have, for example, a mania for the mechanical? for mechanical solutions!

we don't live & work WITH nature?

we 'manipulate' nature at/from arm's length!

we want 'nature' to yield to us! when it's US that should be yielding to nature!

THAT'S why everything's going down the tubes!

we're 'at war' - with our own... nature!

and apparently we're... losing!

and no one's gonna stop now!?!

foregone conclusion then isn't it...

https://www.nsf.gov/awardsearch/

https://www.nsf.gov/funding/index.jsp

Are you making the implied point that there's a lot going on? :)
That's certainly always true.

Or are you suggesting Slider apply for doing research in the Arctic? :)

***

Btw, Trump's Fiscal Year 2018 Budget Request for the National Science Foundation (NSF) is $6.653 billion, a decrease of $840.98 million
(-11.2 percent) over the FY 2016 Actual investment.

So Trump is trying to cut 11% from what the Obama administration
had previously budgeted for the NSF.

This requested funding will support approximately 8,000 new
research grants, with an estimated funding rate of 19 percent
for all research grant proposals submitted to NSF. For comparison,
in FY 2016, NSF funded 8,800 new research grants, with a funding
rate of 21 percent.

So less than 1 out of 5 grant proposals submitted will get funded.

There's still a lot getting done. About 8000 new grants.

***

Trump's 2018 US Budget Request: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_United_States_federal_budget

Pointing out a few things in Trump's budget request...

$1.9 trillion cuts in health care (but ACA repeal FAILED so what now?)

$238 billion cut from welfare (take that poor folk!)

$100 billion cut from student loan subsidies (take that students!)

$4.7 billion (21%) cut from agriculture (take that farmers!)

$9.2 billion (14%) cut from public Education (take that kiddies!)

$1.7 billion cut from Dept of Energy
(slashes almost all science programs, and renewable energy,
yet spends more on nuclear security, weapons, and reactors)

$15.1 billion (18%) cut from the National Institutes of Health

$6.2 billion (13%) cut from Housing (take that cities!)

$1.6 billion (12%) cut from the Interior (cuts 4000 jobs,
funding for endangered species and fighting invasive species -
take that wildlife!)

$2.6 billion (21%) cut from Labor (adios senior work programs,
non-profit health training, and Job Corp centers)

$10.9 billion (29%) cut from the State Dept (bye bye UN Programs
and Climate Change Mitigation) Damn! Almost 30% cut.
Who gives a shit about the UN or about climate change?

$2.4 billion (13%) cut from Transportation (take that mass transit!)

$2.5 billion (31%) cut from Environmental Protection (Eliminates
more than 50 programs and 3,200 jobs. Boom! Biggest percentage cut.
Take that fucking everyone! You like clean air and water? Too bad.)

Cuts the ENTIRE $971 million budget for arts and cultural agencies,
including the NPR and the National Endowments for Art/Humanities
(take that arts!)

***

And what will we do with all this money being cut?
(besides giving most of it away to rich people in tax breaks)

$52 billion (9%) added to the military (Why? It's already fucking huge.)

$2.8 billion (7%) added to Homeland Security (yes, we're so threatened -
yet still managed to cut FEMA grants - take that hurricane victims)

$4.4 billion (6%) added to Veteran's Affairs (yet still manages to cut
benefits to 225,000 *elderly* vets)

***

"Trump's budget takes a sledgehammer to what remains of the American Dream"
- economist Joseph Stiglitz

Give corporations, the military, and the super rich huge windfalls,
while slashing pretty much *every* other major aspect of society.
What kind of totally fucked up vision is that? It's a selfish,
frightened billionaire's vision, plain and simple.

I still don't think most of the ignorant, rural a-holes
who voted for this guy even realize what they've done...

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: www.darkrealms.ca (1:229/2)