dahmers love zombie: Did you really expect the full-time shills to leave this one alone? Their base is so science-ignorant that it takes only a very MeinR (excuse me, I meant "minor") intellect to distract them.

"Minor Sex"?

...but but but... peer review... blah blah blah.

I have a theory.



It is mine, and belong to me.

They haven't retracted the Lamrckian evolution one yet (inheriting acquired characteristics) which was predicted in The Seth Books by Jane Roberts.

Scientists got 5 things wrong this year. I guess I better start believing in God, then. Maybe he has I wwebsite as on the internet.

I don't get why RAND retracted the theory that marijuana dispensaries don't reduce crime rates.

This seems self-evident. Of course they reduce crime-- specifically, the crime of selling pot illegally. Or is that not really a crime? If it isn't, how come those DAs that were so incensed by the RAND report still charge people with that "crime?"

Or maybe RAND was talking about real crime.

My mom is one of those "I read it in a report once, so now it is law" people. Retractions are useless.

MeinRS6 (ignored: diddles little boys)

/ for the googles.

Faster than light neutrinos, they said.

Still waiting for the top 5 bullshiat things that politicotards such as Hannity said regarding science that got retracted.

Oh. Wait. They don't do retractions.

MinorSex has covered at least one, but still...

The sun is only 32 miles across and not more than 3,000 miles from the earth. I read it on the internet it must be true

MeinRS6: Nothing on global warming?

That scam has so many holes in it that I guess we are supposed to assume it's all lies now.

Meh... 2/10, but not because of your style. This topic was too easy. Good performance overall, but you get an F for trying to do a swan dive in the wading pool.

gbv23: They haven't retracted the Lamrckian evolution one yet (inheriting acquired characteristics) which was predicted in The Seth Books by Jane Roberts.

Well, Michael Jackson acquired the characteristic of being white, and he had white kids, so there's some proof right there.

Dark Matter

What a fraud.

SnarfVader: Two posts in and the thread is already derped beyond repair.

Wrong, oh ye of little faith! The power of Fark has yet to be unleashed. There is more than enough derp available to make those two posts seem trivial.

That being said, yeah, Global Warming, er... Global Climate Change, errr... Global Climate Disruption IS quite a lot of derp, all by itself.

imontheinternet: Faster than light neutrinos, they said.

Consider the mechanism by which professional bloviators are corrected vs. what scientists are.

Now consider which one reaches more people and forms more opinions among those who vote, or even comment here.

knobmaker: I don't get why RAND retracted the theory that marijuana dispensaries don't reduce crime rates.

This seems self-evident. Of course they reduce crime-- specifically, the crime of selling pot illegally. Or is that not really a crime? If it isn't, how come those DAs that were so incensed by the RAND report still charge people with that "crime?"

Or maybe RAND was talking about real crime.

or maybe you haven't heard about the robberies of dispensories for the cash and weed available in one place? (lives in San Diego, sees the armed guards in front of them and reads about the frequent armed robberies).

SnarfVader
Two posts in and the thread is already derped beyond repair.

Nonsense, I am sure we can take a few steps further.

i take it the evil marijuana might not be so evil after all, put that in your bong and smoke it mr regan.

"Each year hundreds of peer-reviewed scientific articles are retracted."

Really? One can only conclude that there's no good way to determine the truth about anything. May as well just follow our guts from now on, huh?

Kosh: Scientists got 5 things wrong this year. I guess I better start believing in God, then. Maybe he has I wwebsite as on the internet.

Ummm...noo....these are just the top 5 things....

The movies at the Oscars aren't the only ones shown all year.

knobmaker: I don't get why RAND retracted the theory that marijuana dispensaries don't reduce crime rates.

This seems self-evident. Of course they reduce crime-- specifically, the crime of selling pot illegally. Or is that not really a crime? If it isn't, how come those DAs that were so incensed by the RAND report still charge people with that "crime?"

Or maybe RAND was talking about real crime.

I'm confused by this as well. Their retraction seems to be "It turns out the weed the dispensary's sell doesn't reduce crime, but the security that dispensary's have that lowers crime. Therefore, Dispensary's don't lower crime." WTF? Did the DEA have a gun to their head?

bookman: That being said, yeah, Global Warming, er... Global Climate Change, errr... Global Climate Disruption IS quite a lot of derp, all by itself.

Same with the earth being more than 6000 years old.

#3: Treat appendicitis with antibiotics, not surgery.

The Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery published an article in 2009 by Indian researchers...

Aaaand, enough said. For further reading on Indian medical treatments:

Link (new window)

/yes, 91 is the country code for India and I doubt any of those people pictured are "Dr. Jain"

gbv23: They haven't retracted the Lamrckian evolution one yet (inheriting acquired characteristics) which was predicted in The Seth Books by Jane Roberts.

Holy guacamole. Someone else read those?

I liked the Oversoul Seven stuff. :)

Mearen: ...but but but... peer review... blah blah blah.

It works, but the problem is two-fold. A good lie can make anyone believe, and enough convincing evidence to support can get you through review. It isn't the reviewers job to actually independently confirm the data, just to assess the science. Also, it depends on the particular reviewer. A good reviewer will be skeptical of everything in the paper and carefully analyze the data to assure its validity. Unfortunately, a fair number of PIs pass the paper to a post-doctoral researcher or grad student for review. While that isn't unethical, it does increase the likelihood of these cases making it into publication.

Alternatively, reviewers with grudges against PIs can also make getting an honest manuscript published hell by stating that the science wasn't done properly, the data doesn't support the conclusions, the claims are wildly unjustified.

So far I've been lucky with reviewers in my publications. I had one that caught a mistake I had made and took a hardline stance to say that I was wrong and needed to relook at some data. He politely pointed out something that I was unaware of, and that affected where my work was published. The last set I had extolled my work, and really gave it an extremely thorough analysis and pointed out some minor things that I hadn't analyzed or described in the text. Those little details had to be discussed, which took me a week to find support for and also run some compounds through further analysis. Its a pain, but those are the reviewers you need. Grad students and post-docs aren't likely to do that every time.

/I know, csb.

knobmaker: I don't get why RAND retracted the theory that marijuana dispensaries don't reduce crime rates.

This seems self-evident. Of course they reduce crime-- specifically, the crime of selling pot illegally. Or is that not really a crime? If it isn't, how come those DAs that were so incensed by the RAND report still charge people with that "crime?"

Or maybe RAND was talking about real crime.

You can certainly spin all sorts of conspiracy theories about why RAND retracted that report...

But if *those* five things were the top most bullshiat things that science journals had to retract, well, that's not so bad.

Yep, that is how science is supposed to work.

insert standard comment about science being all about refuting and refining ideas -- peer review and "our understanding of the facts changes and grows over time", etc.

lohphat: gbv23: They haven't retracted the Lamrckian evolution one yet (inheriting acquired characteristics) which was predicted in The Seth Books by Jane Roberts.

Inherited traits are Lamarckian,
Said Prof. whose school is Columbian.
The worms passed resistance
Along as inheritance
By a process that seemed non-Darwinian.

A Lamarckian Limrickian ?!? (beautiful)

GT_bike: knobmaker: I don't get why RAND retracted the theory that marijuana dispensaries don't reduce crime rates.

This seems self-evident. Of course they reduce crime-- specifically, the crime of selling pot illegally. Or is that not really a crime? If it isn't, how come those DAs that were so incensed by the RAND report still charge people with that "crime?"

Or maybe RAND was talking about real crime.

or maybe you haven't heard about the robberies of dispensories for the cash and weed available in one place? (lives in San Diego, sees the armed guards in front of them and reads about the frequent armed robberies).

Hmmm. I suppose illegal pot dealers never get ripped off? Or maybe crimes involving them aren't real crimes, because they deserve to be robbed and killed? But remember, when bangers are spraying bullets around, sometimes innocents get killed.

When illegal dealers get robbed, they don't report it because they have no access to the legal system. To put it in simpler terms, they can't call the cops. This is why black markets in the hands of criminals breed violent crime. Those engaged in the market must settle disputes violently, because they have no access to the courts

Of course, there will always be violent criminals. But taking distribution out of the hands of violent criminals is always a better strategy. Liquor stores still get knocked over, but we no longer see the level of violent alcohol-related crime associated with Prohibition.

SnarfVader: Two posts in and the thread is already derped beyond repair.

You can't explain that.