This is a long read.

https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/science/articles/pandemic-science

buffy said:

https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/science/articles/pandemic-science

Ah that discredited author again, nice, except ‘e definitely doesn’t represent us, and we are SCIENCE.

SCIENCE said:

buffy said:

https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/science/articles/pandemic-science

Ah that discredited author again, nice, except ‘e definitely doesn’t represent us, and we are SCIENCE.

When you can match his qualifications and Professorships, you may claim to be science.

https://profiles.stanford.edu/john-ioannidis

buffy said:

SCIENCE said:

buffy said:

https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/science/articles/pandemic-science

Ah that discredited author again, nice, except ‘e definitely doesn’t represent us, and we are SCIENCE.

When you can match his qualifications and Professorships, you may claim to be science.

https://profiles.stanford.edu/john-ioannidis

When we followed the link, we understood that SCIENCE was correct and the published evidence from that discredited author was exactly what discredited h’.

We noted that it is entirely possible that the opinion of a person or institution of authority is wrong; therefore the authority that such a person or institution holds does not have any intrinsic bearing upon whether their claims are true or not.

I don’t know how reliable he is but in his profile he says:

I love to be constantly reminded that I know next to nothing.

For some potentially false balance, this link also contains the word “SCIENCE”.

https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/what-the-heck-happened-to-john-ioannidis/

buffy said:

SCIENCE said:

buffy said:

https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/science/articles/pandemic-science

Ah that discredited author again, nice, except ‘e definitely doesn’t represent us, and we are SCIENCE.

When you can match his qualifications and Professorships, you may claim to be science.

https://profiles.stanford.edu/john-ioannidis

I admit to only scanning that article quickly, but its contents seem to have close to zero connection to qualifications and professorship.

buffy said:

SCIENCE said:

buffy said:

https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/science/articles/pandemic-science

Ah that discredited author again, nice, except ‘e definitely doesn’t represent us, and we are SCIENCE.

When you can match his qualifications and Professorships, you may claim to be science.

https://profiles.stanford.edu/john-ioannidis

A lot of papers on meta-meta-research. ie. research into how research is influenced by previous research.

mollwollfumble said:

buffy said:

SCIENCE said:

Ah that discredited author again, nice, except ‘e definitely doesn’t represent us, and we are SCIENCE.

When you can match his qualifications and Professorships, you may claim to be science.

https://profiles.stanford.edu/john-ioannidis

A lot of papers on meta-meta-research. ie. research into how research is influenced by previous research.

moll…this is the paper that brought him to fame, back in 2005.

buffy said:

mollwollfumble said:

buffy said:

When you can match his qualifications and Professorships, you may claim to be science.

https://profiles.stanford.edu/john-ioannidis

A lot of papers on meta-meta-research. ie. research into how research is influenced by previous research.

moll…this is the paper that brought him to fame, back in 2005.

whoops, sorry:

https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124

buffy said:

buffy said:

mollwollfumble said:

A lot of papers on meta-meta-research. ie. research into how research is influenced by previous research.

moll…this is the paper that brought him to fame, back in 2005.

whoops, sorry:

https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124

“Why Most Published Research Findings Are False”

Ta. That rings a bell.

“a research finding is less likely to be true when the studies conducted in a field are smaller; when effect sizes are smaller; when there is a greater number and lesser preselection of tested relationships; where there is greater flexibility in designs, definitions, outcomes, and analytical modes”

That’s simple statistics. Everyone knows that. That particularly relates to biomed, rather than for example astronomy.

“when there is greater financial and other interest and prejudice”.

I could add a lot of other sources of bias to those. Such as incomptetence.