Thats called manufacturing results and its a massive nono. I work in a research pathology lab and I've refused to do sketchy analysis for clients asking me fudge stuff to fit a narrative. I can't put into words how irresponsible this is, anyone else would be fired on the spot.
That's all fine and dandy there, Kyle. But have you ever tried doing real science as taught by the "The Institute for Creation Science"? They have so called journal articles and are definitely doing real Science, it's right in the name. You just need to adjust your definitions of "Science" and "Scientific Journal" and "facts". I am definitely trusting people who took bus loads of drugs or were dropped on their heads as babies to provide us with sound scientific information.
I was maintenance at a marine bio lab, made friends with the techs who work for the senior research scientists. They're made to create results in a clients favor all the time. In my experience it's treated as gross but normal, like an old man hanging out naked in the locker room. You don't get more grants if you prevent the client from doing what they want. It really put a tinge on my perspective of "commercial science". Even the government funded stuff came with "stipulations" of the results they wanted pretty often.
I've also dealt with this! Clients loved asking me to lie to the EPA directly. Now that I'm doing medical R&D testing, every so often we'll have to remind an engineer that "no, we can't just do more testing and average the results."
and also peer reviewed research needs to be replicated to verify that it works too. they are probably going to look for an old study, or something, or even a blog to back up thier claims.
We have been practicing this thought process with religion since time immemorial, it’s programmed into the psyche of probably 70% of the population. Believe things without any proof, then fill in the blanks with stuffing and packing peanuts.
I think you're on to something. I'm not looking it up (per tradition) but I'm assuming the number of children born and raised in Antarctica with Autism HAS to be pretty close to 0.
I really wonder whether this administration is too simple-minded to realize how absurd they are, or whether they don't care because they know that no matter what they say or do, their behavior will have no consequences whatsoever.
I believe there is method behind it:
Thiel bought the government. Thiel likes Yarvin. Yarvin says "Fuck it all up!"
Vance cited in his 2022 Senate Campaign Yarvin's "strongman plan to 'retire all government employees,' which goes by the jaunty mnemonic 'RAGE.'" In a 2021 interview, "Vance said Trump should 'fire every single midlevel bureaucrat, every civil servant in the administrative state, and replace them with our people. And when the courts stop you, stand before the country and say, The chief justice has made his ruling. Now let him enforce it.’”
Yarvin (...) praised Trump for breaking from Republican practices of trying to "play ball and help the system work" and instead "trying to move all of the levers of this machine that he can move"
I feel like it's more a reflection of their base. Not all these politicians are stupid. Many have CVs showing very high functioning, sometimes even in academics. I think this is more about how stupid they think their base is.
Granted a lot of it is them acting outside of their expertise. Ben Carson was a good example. Definitely not a stupid guy but looney tunes crazy as a politician because he was acting outside his field.
Their are some nepo-trust-fund idiots though. Maybe it's more like a stew of idiotic behaviors from various etiologies.
As yes, the scientific method: announce the truth to the world and then go looking for it. An important step (which most amateurs miss) is to ignore everything that doesn't fit your conclusion. The man is truly a professional.
This is how a lot of conspiracy theorists and dare I say, people on the right see science. They see it as a way to prove their own ideas, not how to find out what's true.
Phrenology wasn't made to find out something, but to justify the social pecking order. The Nazis banned science they didn't like (what they called Jewish science) and promoted crackpot ideas and hypothesises they did like (what they called German science).
The trump admin is cutting science for things they don't like (Trans issues, climate change) and promoting trying to prove what they already believe.
He has half of the procedure down. First you assume a medicine is dangerous, but then you work to find out if it's safe, rather than finding proof it's not. But you also don't normally try to find proof that a medicine already deemed safe, is not.
Half is way too generous here. Think of a hypothesis, then create a null hypothesis, collect data, analyze data, does that data fit your hypothesis or your null hypothesis? Then examine for any potential bias. He barely has a hypothesis right now.
I mean, to be a lot more fair than you should be: Yeah he is a fucking idiot.
But sure, you could have done a metastudy to analyse multiple studies and notice a possible trend or pattern to alert you to possible dangers. That's just a trend, and not verified, but at least something to base a hypothesis off of, which you would then test.
But if you've given yourself a deadline to make an announcement of what you've totally definitely learned, you likely go with the only thing that could possibly even maybe almost be true, pretend its totally real, because of course you've been doing your job and not sitting on your ass trying to point to being woke or gay or something more advantageous than smearing an american company but oops turns out doing that job takes someone who knows what the fuck they're doing and turns out literally everything is extremely nuanced because there are shitloads of factors that lead to the development of the brain.
So you go on live tv, eat shit blaming what you've announced you'll totally find the cause for on anything you could even pretend to think might be plausible....
then also blame it on genital mutilation?
Then maybe try and do a study on the hypothesis you had to run with.
Except you can't particularly do an experiment to verify that ethically. But its fine, you don't have ethics... except you're running the NIH which DOES have ethical standards. So... damnit.... now you have to find some way to do an "ethical" "study" that will test the hypothesis you came up with, except you're still an idiot so you still can't even begin to figure out how to do that.
Start with the conclusion, make up and say whatever BS is needed to support that conclusion, stick fingers in ears and say “lalalalala! You’re attacking me!” When someone disagrees.
61 Comments
Kyle_The_G@lemmy.world · 168 pts · 314d
Thats called manufacturing results and its a massive nono. I work in a research pathology lab and I've refused to do sketchy analysis for clients asking me fudge stuff to fit a narrative. I can't put into words how irresponsible this is, anyone else would be fired on the spot.
Blade9732@lemmy.world · 40 pts · 314d
That's all fine and dandy there, Kyle. But have you ever tried doing real science as taught by the "The Institute for Creation Science"? They have so called journal articles and are definitely doing real Science, it's right in the name. You just need to adjust your definitions of "Science" and "Scientific Journal" and "facts". I am definitely trusting people who took bus loads of drugs or were dropped on their heads as babies to provide us with sound scientific information.
bobs_monkey@lemmy.zip · 5 pts · 314d
It should be a PSA that the generation that had those big clunky TV remote controls dropped om their domes as kids are now in positions of influence.
takeda@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 7 pts · 314d
Sony, what have you done?!?
Bronzebeard@lemmy.zip · 2 pts · 314d
Why were people dropping remotes on children's heads?!?
devolution@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 314d
This is what happens when you give power to people who ate paint chips as kids.
JoeBigelow@lemmy.ca · 13 pts · 314d
I was maintenance at a marine bio lab, made friends with the techs who work for the senior research scientists. They're made to create results in a clients favor all the time. In my experience it's treated as gross but normal, like an old man hanging out naked in the locker room. You don't get more grants if you prevent the client from doing what they want. It really put a tinge on my perspective of "commercial science". Even the government funded stuff came with "stipulations" of the results they wanted pretty often.
Tollana1234567@lemmy.today · 5 pts · 314d
i doub these clients will read the actual research paper when they come out, and only the partial results.
Mirshe@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 314d
I've also dealt with this! Clients loved asking me to lie to the EPA directly. Now that I'm doing medical R&D testing, every so often we'll have to remind an engineer that "no, we can't just do more testing and average the results."
Petter1@discuss.tchncs.de · 2 pts · 312d
Ahh, the good old “stop iterating as soon as results tips in your favour” or “repeat until you get an iteration chain that matches your desire”
Been there, done that
It’s normal, when private companies regulate themselves 😌
Tollana1234567@lemmy.today · 4 pts · 314d
and also peer reviewed research needs to be replicated to verify that it works too. they are probably going to look for an old study, or something, or even a blog to back up thier claims.
Aceticon@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 2 pts · 314d
Manufacturing Results is the main mode of operation of Think Tanks.
Petter1@discuss.tchncs.de · 2 pts · 312d
It is even named after a war machine 🤔 coincidence?
Aceticon@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 2 pts · 312d
And here I was thinking it was because of dark slimy waters and the bottom feeders ...
badcommandorfilename@lemmy.world · 64 pts · 314d
Zagorath@aussie.zone · 7 pts · 314d
Fuck yeah Juice Media
aeternum@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 4 pts · 314d
lolola@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 56 pts · 314d
Do you reckon there's a difference between "finding" proof and "making" proof?
Philote@lemmy.ml · 11 pts · 314d
We have been practicing this thought process with religion since time immemorial, it’s programmed into the psyche of probably 70% of the population. Believe things without any proof, then fill in the blanks with stuffing and packing peanuts.
nymnympseudonym@piefed.social · 3 pts · 314d
Religion is the original sin we truly must atone for
Imgonnatrythis@sh.itjust.works · 7 pts · 314d
I'm drinking something currently that is 80 proof. Mr Jack Daniel's made it, and I found it.
What was your question again?
Deadeyegai@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 314d
Easier to find if you're already making it up!
Vinny_93@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 314d
I've heard of fabricating evidence in cop shows but it's usually frowned upon
LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.world · 38 pts · 314d
Mosquito bites cause autism. My evidence, well I've never met an autistic person who was not around mosquitoes at least once in their life
Madison420@lemmy.world · 15 pts · 314d
"I don't know the science behind it."
jrubal1462@mander.xyz · 4 pts · 314d
I think you're on to something. I'm not looking it up (per tradition) but I'm assuming the number of children born and raised in Antarctica with Autism HAS to be pretty close to 0.
DandomRude@lemmy.world · 28 pts · 314d
I really wonder whether this administration is too simple-minded to realize how absurd they are, or whether they don't care because they know that no matter what they say or do, their behavior will have no consequences whatsoever.
A_norny_mousse@feddit.org · 18 pts · 314d
I believe there is method behind it:
Thiel bought the government. Thiel likes Yarvin. Yarvin says "Fuck it all up!"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Enlightenment
warm@kbin.earth · 8 pts · 314d
Both are true.
Remember_the_tooth@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 314d
I feel like it's more a reflection of their base. Not all these politicians are stupid. Many have CVs showing very high functioning, sometimes even in academics. I think this is more about how stupid they think their base is.
Granted a lot of it is them acting outside of their expertise. Ben Carson was a good example. Definitely not a stupid guy but looney tunes crazy as a politician because he was acting outside his field.
Their are some nepo-trust-fund idiots though. Maybe it's more like a stew of idiotic behaviors from various etiologies.
blarth@thelemmy.club · 28 pts · 314d
Fucking Brawndo irrigation coming next.
MML@sh.itjust.works · 9 pts · 314d
It's got what investors crave.
Tehbaz@lemmy.wtf · 5 pts · 314d
It's got electrolytes
ImgurRefugee114@reddthat.com · 25 pts · 314d
As yes, the scientific method: announce the truth to the world and then go looking for it. An important step (which most amateurs miss) is to ignore everything that doesn't fit your conclusion. The man is truly a professional.
Mrkawfee@feddit.uk · 2 pts · 314d
Sounds a lot like economic theory tbh
phar@lemmy.ml · 1 pts · 314d
Sounds exactly like religion
DupaCycki@lemmy.world · 24 pts · 314d
"To make the proof"...? You're supposed to be finding proof, not making it. Ideally before making a big announcement.
abbiistabbii@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 14 pts · 313d
This is how a lot of conspiracy theorists and dare I say, people on the right see science. They see it as a way to prove their own ideas, not how to find out what's true.
Phrenology wasn't made to find out something, but to justify the social pecking order. The Nazis banned science they didn't like (what they called Jewish science) and promoted crackpot ideas and hypothesises they did like (what they called German science).
The trump admin is cutting science for things they don't like (Trans issues, climate change) and promoting trying to prove what they already believe.
frog_brawler@lemmy.world · 22 pts · 314d
bulwark@lemmy.world · 19 pts · 314d
Wouldn't be surprised to see RFK & Dr. Oz branded "safe" aspirin alternatives in the next few months.
A_norny_mousse@feddit.org · 3 pts · 314d
The implication definitely applies to RFK.
bcgm3@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 314d
Workshopping some snappy-sounding brand names over here:
JasonDJ@lemmy.zip · 1 pts · 314d
Super natural. Pain relieving willow tree teas.
Tollana1234567@lemmy.today · 1 pts · 314d
untested plant extracts which causes unknown reactions. it seems to be the craze for alternative medicine people.
discosnails@lemmy.wtf · 16 pts · 314d
Can you call it a study if it's completely ignoring scientific method?
axexrx@lemmy.world · 8 pts · 314d
Observation: autism exists. Tylenol also exists
Hypothesis: autism is caused by Tylenol.
Experiment: yes- all the experiments.
?????
Profit.
Seems like theyre following the
middle schoolscientific method to me.frog_brawler@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 314d
Tollana1234567@lemmy.today · 4 pts · 314d
heroin also turned his brain to mush.
prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 11 pts · 314d
I can't imagine what it must be like to be a normal career scientist in the DOH right now. Fucking nightmare.
victorz@lemmy.world · 10 pts · 314d
He has half of the procedure down. First you assume a medicine is dangerous, but then you work to find out if it's safe, rather than finding proof it's not. But you also don't normally try to find proof that a medicine already deemed safe, is not.
MilitantAtheist@lemmy.world · 10 pts · 314d
He didn't say find. He said make. Make proof. As in make it up.
victorz@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 313d
Indeed, even worse.
UselessRN@lemmy.ml · 4 pts · 314d
Half is way too generous here. Think of a hypothesis, then create a null hypothesis, collect data, analyze data, does that data fit your hypothesis or your null hypothesis? Then examine for any potential bias. He barely has a hypothesis right now.
dan69@lemmy.world · 10 pts · 314d
Oh shit my spine has autism I’ve been 2 of those bad boys very 6-8 hrs.
pigup@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 314d
Happens
DeathByBigSad@sh.itjust.works · 9 pts · 314d
Wow, have you heard about donald trump, the First Taliban-American president ever in history? What a record!
resipsaloquitur@lemmy.world · 9 pts · 314d
TowardsTheFuture@lemmy.zip · 9 pts · 314d
I mean, to be a lot more fair than you should be: Yeah he is a fucking idiot.
But sure, you could have done a metastudy to analyse multiple studies and notice a possible trend or pattern to alert you to possible dangers. That's just a trend, and not verified, but at least something to base a hypothesis off of, which you would then test.
But if you've given yourself a deadline to make an announcement of what you've totally definitely learned, you likely go with the only thing that could possibly even maybe almost be true, pretend its totally real, because of course you've been doing your job and not sitting on your ass trying to point to being woke or gay or something more advantageous than smearing an american company but oops turns out doing that job takes someone who knows what the fuck they're doing and turns out literally everything is extremely nuanced because there are shitloads of factors that lead to the development of the brain.
So you go on live tv, eat shit blaming what you've announced you'll totally find the cause for on anything you could even pretend to think might be plausible....
then also blame it on genital mutilation?
Then maybe try and do a study on the hypothesis you had to run with.
Except you can't particularly do an experiment to verify that ethically. But its fine, you don't have ethics... except you're running the NIH which DOES have ethical standards. So... damnit.... now you have to find some way to do an "ethical" "study" that will test the hypothesis you came up with, except you're still an idiot so you still can't even begin to figure out how to do that.
RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world · 8 pts · 313d
Start with the conclusion, make up and say whatever BS is needed to support that conclusion, stick fingers in ears and say “lalalalala! You’re attacking me!” When someone disagrees.
Curmuffin@fedia.io · 7 pts · 314d
Just like Trump's Justice Department. ("Charge first! Find probable cause later!")
resipsaloquitur@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 314d
fnrir@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 3 pts · 314d
Wakefield wannabe
ideonek@piefed.social · 2 pts · 314d
AaaaasaaaaaaAaaAaAaaaaaaAaaaaaaAaaaaaaaAAAAAAAAAAaaaaa!!!!!!!!!
victorz@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 314d
That game was pretty fun