Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Karma:
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 7, 2019 18:58:29 GMT -5
I know people who do/did science for a living at a reputable university. Denying that finances play a huge part in what experiments are done and that scientists are indirectly encouraged to produce preset results is just ignorance. Everybody tries their best but at the end of the day most (I think) science departments depend on variois linked industries for budget. There's a difference there. Sure, agriculture industry might commission a corn study- obviously they are not interested in study of gaming addicts. That in itself is not an indication of bias. Second part is integrity - I'd say majority of entities/ individuals commissioning them want impartial, unbiased work. That also goes for scientists: if somebody produces results that are easily challenged/ debunked then their reputation is gone. The point of study, after all, is to find out something new. Sure, there are examples of distortions of that process but these are in minority because results still need to stand up to scrutiny. What I'm saying is that ignoring studies just because of who funded it really opens doors to dismissing any information that challenges one's beliefs. Therefore, if one wants to challenge study findings it's best to go after data, methodology and/or conclusions rather that starting with source of funding.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Karma:
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 7, 2019 19:07:34 GMT -5
I've worked in research for 23 years and couldn't disagree more. Studies can be worded and manipulated to get any outcome you want. From global warming to Hillary is gonna win, it's all about the motivation of the person conducting the study. Also, lately I have noticed there is a strong tendency among humans to reject information that contradicts their personal bias, especially if there is also a self-interested reason to do so. It's called confirmation bias. As for the study itself, it's interesting. I like playing games but I also thought that I play them because it helps me avoid/ mitigate anxieties of every day life. Such as work deadlines and people damaging your car and taking off... Okay, no rants. This study suggests that it might be backwards, at least for some people.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Karma:
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 7, 2019 19:25:49 GMT -5
Interesting - this study is actually a study of 50 other different studies on gaming addiction. There are also other studies out there that show that playing games relieves stress and anxiety. There's no contradiction here, let's state it in terms of something else, say alcohol: For majority of people, drinking after works helps them relax. Minority of people become addicted, which can lead to depression and anxiety. If you put it that way, it sounds like a no-brainer, doesn't it?
|
|
|
Post by ѻﻭɼﻉ on Sept 7, 2019 21:04:12 GMT -5
Names Ogre, and Im a mechaholic. Yeah, umm, But, Im not alone. Naa,
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Karma:
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 7, 2019 23:31:35 GMT -5
. Hey Earl I just wanted to let you know I started the CBD stuff like 3 weeks ago. Feeling better! Thanks again! 3 weeks to go and I’m done. Good stuff bro, and good to hear that. High thc to CBD ratio (pure oil context, not herbage) is a good ratio as an anti-tumor agent, these drug compounds work together with good synergy, Cristina Sanchez explains it all, if you’ve watched her presentations.
|
|
|
Post by Lyte on Sept 8, 2019 1:24:44 GMT -5
Interesting topic and freakishly timely. Just today I was reflecting on how I could be spending some of my War Robots time in a much better way. I was wondering... why am I paying this damn thing so much?! The answer that came to mind was that each battle is like the roll of the dice and so there's a bit of a "rush" each time I play... regardless of whether I win or lose. I've not dug deeper into that answer ... yet ... and I've not read this entire thread. I'm looking forward to other players' insight. Cool topic. Thanks! There are some studies I have read recently that link video game addiction to a lot of negative health outcomes including depression, social anxiety and an escalating pattern of video games crowding out other life concerns. I play a lot. I know others on the forum often speak openly of their war robots or gaming addiction. I am curious to hear people’s thoughts. Is this something that concerns you, personally as a player? inews.co.uk/news/technology/video-game-addiction-contributes-to-depression-and-anxiety/
|
|
|
Post by jukenukem on Sept 8, 2019 1:35:00 GMT -5
Im addicted to other games, not War Robots. Since mobile gaming became huge I haven't been on a date in years lol. Its like my tablet has become my woman.
|
|
|
Post by frunobulax on Sept 8, 2019 3:20:24 GMT -5
And i'm sure like every other study. They weren't told what the party that paid for the study was hoping to find. It doesn't matter who funds a study. It doesn't matter at all. Because it isn't how science works. This is unfortunately a fallacy people use to demonize science and call it into question, and is almost exclusively used by people who aren't educated. You haven't read a lot of medical studies then.
Studies are routinely manipulated. They can be very insightful when done right, but you always have to ask who funded it, and if the study is favorible to the funder, be very, very careful.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Karma:
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 8, 2019 6:46:12 GMT -5
There are some studies I have read recently that link video game addiction to a lot of negative health outcomes including depression, social anxiety and an escalating pattern of video games crowding out other life concerns. I play a lot. I know others on the forum often speak openly of their war robots or gaming addiction. I am curious to hear people’s thoughts. Is this something that concerns you, personally as a player? inews.co.uk/news/technology/video-game-addiction-contributes-to-depression-and-anxiety/I’ve had numerous “addictions” over the year. The easiest way is to “complete” the game. If I I was playing war robots and didn’t have the time, and I was addicted, I would drop the 1k required to max my hangar mostly and let the addiction run it’s course over the next couple of weeks. I found that once I completed the modules and pilots, my desire to play dropped off real fast. I should have just dropped 500-1k a year ago and stopped. It’s like finishing a beer , or finishing any other project. If your completionist, just complete the damn thing. I think, especially in the case of the wallet warriors.. War Robots is a way for them to take out their frustrations on others. Its different then just pounding on punching bags or smashing stuff because you know someone else is on the other end. The simple pleasures of imagining that person screaming in anger and agony behind getting killed (even though in reality, they probably could give a rats azz and just moved on) is a currency we all deal in. I think whalers just try to overdose on it to compensate for something going on in their lives. Its kinda the only explanation for some of the type of gameplay we all have seen. That said.. Im thinking maybe this question covers a few more angles than it looks like at first glance. Some of whatever addiction there is to the game....is it to the game itself? edit: wrote this in response to you so as to say there are some i think- that will never be able to 'complete' this game lol
|
|
|
Post by cmdrperalta on Sept 8, 2019 6:57:06 GMT -5
I’ve had numerous “addictions” over the year. The easiest way is to “complete” the game. If I I was playing war robots and didn’t have the time, and I was addicted, I would drop the 1k required to max my hangar mostly and let the addiction run it’s course over the next couple of weeks. I found that once I completed the modules and pilots, my desire to play dropped off real fast. I should have just dropped 500-1k a year ago and stopped. It’s like finishing a beer , or finishing any other project. If your completionist, just complete the damn thing. I think, especially in the case of the wallet warriors.. War Robots is a way for them to take out their frustrations on others. Its different then just pounding on punching bags or smashing stuff because you know someone else is on the other end. The simple pleasures of imagining that person screaming in anger and agony behind getting killed (even though in reality, they probably could give a rats azz and just moved on) is a currency we all deal in. I think whalers just try to overdose on it to compensate for something going on in their lives. Its kinda the only explanation for some of the type of gameplay we all have seen. That said.. Im thinking maybe this question covers a few more angles than it looks like at first glance. Some of whatever addiction there is to the game....is it to the game itself? Basically the game combines a regular but intermittent reward (for most of us) — dominating your opponent, getting the gold, earning toward the next task or bot, getting lucky with a spin — and even layers those rewards bronze, gold, silver, super, plus now the event and daily tasks, etc. I think all of it is basically crack to certain people, no big deal if it does not affect regular functioning but, at least for myself, I do occasionally notice things like social distancing or poor sleep patterns that I feel I should be mindful of. Just sharing some personal observations. Also, as has been remarked, there is never any real completion. There is always the next better bot or level.
|
|
|
Post by shivaswrath on Sept 8, 2019 7:01:36 GMT -5
Sometimes I get really into War Robots, like during an event or this operation storm thing. Then I'm logging in lots of games or tracking a new bit upgrade.
And then I am over it for a bit...ever since I stopped paying and doing an occasional $.99 deal, it's become easier to handle not playing it.
|
|
|
Post by cav8r on Sept 8, 2019 8:51:08 GMT -5
It doesn't matter who funds a study. It doesn't matter at all. Because it isn't how science works. This is unfortunately a fallacy people use to demonize science and call it into question, and is almost exclusively used by people who aren't educated. Science is repeatable. Kids today in quality schools learn the scientific method and how apply it. And they produce papers which they list how they did the experiment and what tools they used. So you yourself, if you question it, can repeat the study. And people do that. Scientists repeat the studies they question until they get results they can be explained all the time. The science that article is based on, is peer reviewed, and explains how they did they study. Which means people who are skeptical have gone over it and possibly repeated the science. It's real science. So if you want to question science, don't question who funds it, repeat the study and question the results. Become part of the peer reviewed process. Anyone can read this: journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1359105317740414?journalCode=hpqa . Anyone can repeat it. But that's hard work, and involves learning new things and challenges you're existing ideas. And it's easier to be ignorant and pretend that who funds it matters so you don't have to change your views. There are people and groups that fund fake science, such as people who deny climate change. And they get called out and ripped apart by scientists. And the people who believe the fakers, use the same argument you use. I would be shocked if you didn't deny climate that humans are responsible for global warming. This anti-intellectualism has to stop. The whole idea that your ignorance is as good as someone else's knowledge because you both have a single vote is destructive. Blindly following science is just as bad. I’m in grad school and we had an entire course dedicated to learning how to interpret research papers becuz half of them are wonky BS that are done wrong. I’m sorry but he didn’t mention anything about following blindly. What he DID mention was to repeat and review and to do it by yourself if you have the will and the means...
|
|
|
Post by cav8r on Sept 8, 2019 9:13:41 GMT -5
Hello all! My name is CAV8R, and Iâ??m an addict.
I know Iâ??m addicted to this ?dookie?, I like the game in principle but thereâ??s so much ?dookie? involved that I hate it more than I enjoy it. Itâ??s the same as when I used to smoke cigarettes. Sure I enjoyed it some times specially when parting and drinking, or along the afternoon coffee but most of the time I knew the thing was damaging my body, I hated the stink in my hands and clothes, I knew most girls hated and rejected that smell too and I still smoked because I was addicted and is hard to control. The same with this damn game. Sometimes I enjoy it but not nearly as much as I hate it. Sometimes it even takes a tool on my good mood and my girl usually points it out. It takes useful time out of my life. Not to mention the time I spend here with you guys chatting about it. Which is BTW the first forum Iâ??ve ever actively participated in my life. But being here is one of the things I do positively enjoy about this. And Iâ??m sure when I quit and come clean Iâ??ll still be regular as many other here.
|
|
|
Post by cav8r on Sept 8, 2019 9:42:15 GMT -5
Well, I did publish scientific articles for Clark University. The fact of the matter is what we choose to study is directly influenced by budgets and is subjective. But when we study something, the science itself is not subjective, it is objective or it isn't science (because it has to be repeatable to be science). That was in fact my thesis in college, as I asserted that science was objective in order to refute the claims of feminists who wanted to discredit certain sciences because they were male dominated. The fact certain things were studied because white men choose to study, doesn't mean the results weren't true. And that is now an accepted stance. But it always felt it should have been obvious. My house isn't collapsing right now because the funding for the architectural science it uses wasn't biased. It isn't collapsing because the science was objective regardless of funding. Go ahead and publish bad science that encourages results that aren't true. It simply won't be reproducible by the critics and will get torn apart by the peer review process. It won't stand like my science did. You had to say (I think), because you don't know. You have no idea what you're talking about. There we go, now I see the Bronzeknee in you again. You taking my â(I think)â as that, says a lot more about your level of reading comprehension than my level of knowledge. Going ad hominem against anyone who disagree with you prevents any meaningful dialogue, so Iâm done with you. Guys, guys, guys! can we ever 「fluffernutter」ing agree in some 「fluffernutter」ing middle ground in this 「fluffernutter」ing global society? Every one has a point here! No extreme is absolutely true! Jeez none of us own the truth on anything! Can we discuss things and try to give some thought and credit or benefit of the doubt, to each otherâs points specially when contrary to our comforting beliefs? Yes some studies are inclined to show what their funders want them to show. But not all. Some scientists are wrong. But not all. If someoneâs friend had an issue with the lab h/she worked for, doesnât mean EVERY scientist has the same issue with every lab. Yes many political, religious and financial organizations fund many studies and some of those studies are meant to show what they want and some not. Science is science period, sometimes right sometimes wrong, and what we all have in our hands and are looking at while reading this is in FACT Science based, not by beliefs or âI thinksâ or religious or political opinions but by hard science! that should tell us something about it...
|
|
|
Post by T34 on Sept 8, 2019 18:59:48 GMT -5
There is a world of difference between “Science” and a “Funded Study” to the point of being oxymoronic. That’s hardly an indictment of this particular study. I agree with bronzeknee about the knee jerk anti intellectualism that has taken root, at least in this country. I live in AUS but it does seems like anti-intellectualism has taken root in the US of late. Seems like there is a renewed vigour for nurturing conspiracy theories and attacks on the scientific process in an attempt to prod up false claims. Eg, the flat Earth debate. This is dangerous and is not going in the right direction for the US and for any of her friends. When people abandon good reason, do not care about the truth and embrace intellectual dishonesty than the end result cannot possibly be beneficial.
|
|
|
Post by Sgt. Beacon on Sept 8, 2019 22:25:36 GMT -5
That’s hardly an indictment of this particular study. I agree with bronzeknee about the knee jerk anti intellectualism that has taken root, at least in this country. I live in AUS but it does seems like anti-intellectualism has taken root in the US of late. Seems like there is a renewed vigour for nurturing conspiracy theories and attacks on the scientific process in an attempt to prod up false claims. Eg, the flat Earth debate. This is dangerous and is not going in the right direction for the US and for any of her friends. When people abandon good reason, do not care about the truth and embrace intellectual dishonesty than the end result cannot possibly be beneficial. lol. I want to win a argument. Always play the worst cast scenario about the other person. Sorry, being from Australia doesn't put in any grand position to look down. Seen plenty of stupid from down under. And don't think anyone has said they doubt science. Just the motives of some, and the interpretation of others-that results in nothing but knee jerking vitue signaling.
|
|
|
Post by careyfan on Sept 8, 2019 22:26:40 GMT -5
There we go, now I see the Bronzeknee in you again. You taking my â??(I think)â? as that, says a lot more about your level of reading comprehension than my level of knowledge. Going ad hominem against anyone who disagree with you prevents any meaningful dialogue, so Iâ??m done with you. Guys, guys, guys! can we ever ?fluffernutter?ing agree in some ?fluffernutter?ing middle ground in this ?fluffernutter?ing global society? Every one has a point here! No extreme is absolutely true! Jeez none of us own the truth on anything! Can we discuss things and try to give some thought and credit or benefit of the doubt, to each otherâ??s points specially when contrary to our comforting beliefs? Yes some studies are inclined to show what their funders want them to show. But not all. Some scientists are wrong. But not all. If someoneâ??s friend had an issue with the lab h/she worked for, doesnâ??t mean EVERY scientist has the same issue with every lab. Yes many political, religious and financial organizations fund many studies and some of those studies are meant to show what they want and some not. Science is science period, sometimes right sometimes wrong, and what we all have in our hands and are looking at while reading this is in FACT Science based, not by beliefs or â??I thinksâ? or religious or political opinions but by hard science! that should tell us something about it... [ Agreed. This has always been my biggest gripe about forum goers. Of course people are entitled to defend their opinions. But it’s pretty damn frustrating to debate when there’s little effort by others to try and understand your point of view. Dismissive rebuttals do nothing to drive conversations forward, either. There are some forum goers who WILL actually go out of their way to demonstrate understanding, and even admit when they are wrong or inaccurate (Krebby comes to mind). If more people took that stance, these conversations would be way more productive...and even helpful to people trying to learn.
|
|
|
Post by cav8r on Sept 9, 2019 9:30:36 GMT -5
Guys, guys, guys! can we ever ?fluffernutter?ing agree in some ?fluffernutter?ing middle ground in this ?fluffernutter?ing global society? Every one has a point here! No extreme is absolutely true! Jeez none of us own the truth on anything! Can we discuss things and try to give some thought and credit or benefit of the doubt, to each otherâ??s points specially when contrary to our comforting beliefs? Yes some studies are inclined to show what their funders want them to show. But not all. Some scientists are wrong. But not all. If someoneâ??s friend had an issue with the lab h/she worked for, doesnâ??t mean EVERY scientist has the same issue with every lab. Yes many political, religious and financial organizations fund many studies and some of those studies are meant to show what they want and some not. Science is science period, sometimes right sometimes wrong, and what we all have in our hands and are looking at while reading this is in FACT Science based, not by beliefs or â??I thinksâ? or religious or political opinions but by hard science! that should tell us something about it... [ Agreed. This has always been my biggest gripe about forum goers. Of course people are entitled to defend their opinions. But it’s pretty damn frustrating to debate when there’s little effort by others to try and understand your point of view. Dismissive rebuttals do nothing to drive conversations forward, either. There are some forum goers who WILL actually go out of their way to demonstrate understanding, and even admit when they are wrong or inaccurate (Krebby comes to mind). If more people took that stance, these conversations would be way more productive...and even helpful to people trying to learn. Yes my friend. Actually Its is usually a comforting and eye opening experience to discuss specially about the stuff One dismisses or rejects the most with a willing to understand why other people do such things. It is also great when someone is willing to understand your points in return As long as the arguments are sustainable. Alas, even when the arguments are not sustainable if you listen enough it’s possible to understand why they think such ways and not agree but at least grasp a why...
|
|
|
Post by schrotter on Sept 9, 2019 9:54:29 GMT -5
And i'm sure like every other study. They weren't told what the party that paid for the study was hoping to find. I have been following this side thread on the validity of scientific studies, and it has been irking me for days. So I finally decided to write a response. WARNING: I will use clear language. So if you can’t stand the truth do not read on. 1) If you have no personal experience in a topic, than keep your thoughts to yourself: It takes a minimum of 10 years of higher and post grad education before you can be what is called a PI (principle investigator). Being a PI means you are finally qualified enough to conduct or lead a study and seek funding for it. Knowing somebody who did or does some science does NOT qualify you in the slightest to gauge good vs bad science. Not even a scientific degree necessarily does. Again it takes typically 10 years (typically a PhD and postdoctoral experience) before any funding agency in the world will consider funding your research. So if you don’t pass that bar, your ideas and information about a scientific study are not based on your own experience. This means your judgement is affected by others, most likely you brainwashed yourself by listening to politically oriented media of whatever orientation that are broadcasting “information” designed and controlled by some interest groups (a.k.a. lobby). And if that’s the case, then congrats, you actually confuse propaganda with an opinion rooted in knowledge. But fret not, there is a good way to avoid making an utter fool of yourself: If you don’t have any experience of your own in a topic then it is often wise to SHUT UP. 2) How science is funded? Yes, the Industry and interest groups fund science. Industry typically does so to support their own R&D and drive it forward faster and/or cheaper. Interest groups might do it to control opinion with desinformation. But there is a silver lining: the absolute vast majority of science is funded by national and international funding agencies. In other words by us the tax payer. And no country tracks better than the US every freaking tax $ spent on research. This information is online and public on websites of the National Institue of Health (NIH). So there is no need to speculate on the origin of research funding. Just do yourself the favor to go and look it up. Or, once again, shut up. 3) The quality and integrity of science Research like every other profession is not perfect. And some work is of higher, some of lower quality. And of course there will be black sheep trying to cheat. I am convinced that like in any other area, the majority are driven by pride and professionalism and will do their utmost to avoid failure. Also remember, if you have invested over a decade of higher education into being a scientist, the risk of being discredited as a cheater is a big one. But I will admit that this last argument is not really a barrier that can protect us from science fraud. However a process called “peer review” is. If you have never heard of it then absolutely go google it before voicing an opinion on research integrity. Science has come up with a quite vicious process to control the integrity of research. In every scientific discipline there is a number of researchers nationally and globally that essentially compete for thought leadership, for the right to publish their research, and very realistically for funding (essentially for survival of their research). And before studies get published or funding agencies allocate tax dollars to a project the research has to pass the bar of peer review. During this process the researchers competing with you will be invited to rip your data and conclusions to shreds and judge whether your work is technically sound, scientifically coherent, and relevant to the world. Again the peer reviewers are competing with the PI and have an incentive to find any problems that may exist with a study. This process is not perfect, but it’s damn close. Human error or honest mistakes are probably made but not more often than in any other profession. Now all studies are expected to be published in so called scientific journals. And by far, the vast majority of studies (10s of 1000s yearly) appear in journals that use the peer review process. So if you read about some research in the media and you are in doubt if this study is legit, then check if the scientific journal it was originally published in uses peer review. So in summary: You are not a trained or experienced scientist but you’d like to gauge if a study is likely legit, then remember to at least check if the study was funded by public funding agencies like the NIH, and if the results were published in a peer reviewed scientific journal. If a study passes these criteria it is likely legit. And if you voice an opinion on public forums about research without bothering to check up on these minimal criteria then most likely not the research you are talking about but YOU ARE THE FRAUD!
|
|
|
Post by Poopface on Sept 9, 2019 10:02:40 GMT -5
There are some studies I have read recently that link video game addiction to a lot of negative health outcomes including depression, social anxiety and an escalating pattern of video games crowding out other life concerns. I play a lot. I know others on the forum often speak openly of their war robots or gaming addiction. I am curious to hear people’s thoughts. Is this something that concerns you, personally as a player? inews.co.uk/news/technology/video-game-addiction-contributes-to-depression-and-anxiety/Not to marginalize this serious issue, but this isn't specific to War Robots. I'm going to move it to Off Topic.
That said, please continue to discuss it.
|
|
|
Post by ⓣⓡⓘⓒⓚⓨ48 on Sept 9, 2019 11:32:24 GMT -5
Wow... this thread escalated pretty quickly...
Not that I am surprised lol.
Lot's of personalities here... and all have a valid slice of experiences taken form the pies of their lives to share and compare.
That said... I will leave the science and funded studies argument to the folks who know a bit more than me about it (prolly everyone )
As far as addiction... I have seen it in the lives of many folks in my life from the time I was a child (parents, etc.) and in one case... well... two cases counting nicotine, experienced it myself. It's no joke. I did not become truly addicted to War Robots... but at first it was probably close.
As far as how War Robots affected me... it's more that I need down time to focus on something... anything... that isn't what I am dealing with in the rest of real life. I need something to "zen" out on and not actively think while doing whatever it is. Playing drums (jamming or free form improv-ing... not practicing or playing specific songs) is one outlet for that (which, as you can imagine, is limited by the volume that they tend to produce... even the electric kit using only headphones has a bit of sound when hitting the pads).
Games are another. War Robots used to be perfect for me for that... when I played it more... but now with all of the extraneous crap, it's not as much. It has actually swung back to being better than it has been, recently, but nothing compared to the min/max hangar based tiers of old when you could have a hangar left at specific levels and just play with no magic powers or whatever, without a huge learning curve and the better playing team, won.
I digress though... I just wanted to say that the things I have been addicted to were not controllable with willpower alone when they had their claws into me. It is what it is... some folks can just decide to be not addicted, but many cannot. We all have weaknesses.
Modern mobile games have the weaknesses that can lead to various behavioral addictions locked on... so I can totally see it being possible that some actually AIM for that. Does War Robots, intentionally? I don't know... but it sure seemed like it for a while after fail.fu came along.
I will only say this to close: if ANYTHING gets in the way of the parts of your life that truly matter; whether that be your family, religion, job, pets, friends, whatever you feel is truly important, you need to take a step back and address the why's and how's. If you cannot bring yourself to do so... seek help. Yes there are idiots who will shame you for doing so... and others who won't want to see you get passed it since they only know you from your addiction activities (whatever they are) but you have to be the person that you can look in the mirror and feel good about seeing. No chemical, game, activity, etc., is worth losing the things that you hold dear.
Some folks don't have anything better in their lives (in their mind) and can't find anything to do outside of their addictions to bring them joy/release/whatever it is they get from it... and for them there it is a different level of help needed that many, due to the situation that prompted said addiction, cannot attain. I have seen it... victims of great personal tragedy or horrid abuse that only feel OK when in the grip of whatever takes them away from their reality, etc. Those are truly sad situations and I hope no one here is in that state... but if so, there is always the possibility of getting out of it and finding hope. But that's another thread, I think.
Sorry for the book... but I just hope that the point of the thread is taken back into context over the argument over the perceived validity of studies... addiction of any kind is serious and the people who experience it need help. Regardless of the catalyst for this thread the fact is that someone may read this and get something out of it that points them in the direction of getting that help and, funded study or no, I am all for that.
IMO, YMMV
|
|
|
Post by someoldman on Sept 9, 2019 16:30:34 GMT -5
Some distinction that is badly needed in this discussion is ‘which field of science?’
’Hard sciences’ like physics and chemistry are reliable. You can’t bull?dookie? in those - the math is too hardcore and they are less political. Who funds what rarely matters in those fields.
On the other extreme, ‘soft sciences’ like psychology and the social sciences are falling apart due to sociopolitical bias and really sloppy work. The Replication Crisis threatens the core of these fields and it’s only getting worse with time. Somehow, ‘researchers’ in those fields almost always find what they look for and disproportionately many results are ‘statistically significant’.
|
|
|
Post by Lyte on Sept 9, 2019 18:57:52 GMT -5
... and got way off topic.
Wow... this thread escalated pretty quickly...
|
|
|
Post by Lyte on Sept 9, 2019 19:07:11 GMT -5
There's a lot of disagreement between scientists and studies in the hard sciences as well.... perhaps not specifically regarding the math... but there's plenty of debate as to the how... or the why... things are the way they are in our universe. It's just a different type of BS in the hard sciences. EDIT: And... don't underestimate our ability to politicize anything... everything... cuz we do.
Some distinction that is badly needed in this discussion is ‘which field of science?’ ’Hard sciences’ like physics and chemistry are reliable. You can’t bull?dookie? in those - the math is too hardcore and they are less political. Who funds what rarely matters in those fields.On the other extreme, ‘soft sciences’ like psychology and the social sciences are falling apart due to sociopolitical bias and really sloppy work. The Replication Crisis threatens the core of these fields and it’s only getting worse with time. Somehow, ‘researchers’ in those fields almost always find what they look for and disproportionately many results are ‘statistically significant’.
|
|
|
Post by Sgt. Beacon on Sept 9, 2019 21:03:47 GMT -5
And i'm sure like every other study. They weren't told what the party that paid for the study was hoping to find. I have been following this side thread on the validity of scientific studies, and it has been irking me for days. So I finally decided to write a response. WARNING: I will use clear language. So if you can’t stand the truth do not read on. 1) If you have no personal experience in a topic, than keep your thoughts to yourself: It takes a minimum of 10 years of higher and post grad education before you can be what is called a PI (principle investigator). Being a PI means you are finally qualified enough to conduct or lead a study and seek funding for it. Knowing somebody who did or does some science does NOT qualify you in the slightest to gauge good vs bad science. Not even a scientific degree necessarily does. Again it takes typically 10 years (typically a PhD and postdoctoral experience) before any funding agency in the world will consider funding your research. So if you don’t pass that bar, your ideas and information about a scientific study are not based on your own experience. This means your judgement is affected by others, most likely you brainwashed yourself by listening to politically oriented media of whatever orientation that are broadcasting “information” designed and controlled by some interest groups (a.k.a. lobby). And if that’s the case, then congrats, you actually confuse propaganda with an opinion rooted in knowledge. But fret not, there is a good way to avoid making an utter fool of yourself: If you don’t have any experience of your own in a topic then it is often wise to SHUT UP. 2) How science is funded? Yes, the Industry and interest groups fund science. Industry typically does so to support their own R&D and drive it forward faster and/or cheaper. Interest groups might do it to control opinion with desinformation. But there is a silver lining: the absolute vast majority of science is funded by national and international funding agencies. In other words by us the tax payer. And no country tracks better than the US every freaking tax $ spent on research. This information is online and public on websites of the National Institue of Health (NIH). So there is no need to speculate on the origin of research funding. Just do yourself the favor to go and look it up. Or, once again, shut up. 3) The quality and integrity of science Research like every other profession is not perfect. And some work is of higher, some of lower quality. And of course there will be black sheep trying to cheat. I am convinced that like in any other area, the majority are driven by pride and professionalism and will do their utmost to avoid failure. Also remember, if you have invested over a decade of higher education into being a scientist, the risk of being discredited as a cheater is a big one. But I will admit that this last argument is not really a barrier that can protect us from science fraud. However a process called “peer review” is. If you have never heard of it then absolutely go google it before voicing an opinion on research integrity. Science has come up with a quite vicious process to control the integrity of research. In every scientific discipline there is a number of researchers nationally and globally that essentially compete for thought leadership, for the right to publish their research, and very realistically for funding (essentially for survival of their research). And before studies get published or funding agencies allocate tax dollars to a project the research has to pass the bar of peer review. During this process the researchers competing with you will be invited to rip your data and conclusions to shreds and judge whether your work is technically sound, scientifically coherent, and relevant to the world. Again the peer reviewers are competing with the PI and have an incentive to find any problems that may exist with a study. This process is not perfect, but it’s damn close. Human error or honest mistakes are probably made but not more often than in any other profession. Now all studies are expected to be published in so called scientific journals. And by far, the vast majority of studies (10s of 1000s yearly) appear in journals that use the peer review process. So if you read about some research in the media and you are in doubt if this study is legit, then check if the scientific journal it was originally published in uses peer review. So in summary: You are not a trained or experienced scientist but you’d like to gauge if a study is likely legit, then remember to at least check if the study was funded by public funding agencies like the NIH, and if the results were published in a peer reviewed scientific journal. If a study passes these criteria it is likely legit. And if you voice an opinion on public forums about research without bothering to check up on these minimal criteria then most likely not the research you are talking about but YOU ARE THE FRAUD! didn't hear or see your expertise listed or linked. So, are you the fraud your talking about? Because praising something that you have no experience in should be held to the same "feelings." So is this your own writing or did you plagiarize it from somewhere? And again, don't really care that you readily except the "science" , just because it's published and quotable. And, yea I've seen the same tactic to shut people up-only way to debunk it. Is to publish finding of own study. Only to have it stated as fake due to who funded it, or what ever.
|
|
|
Post by schrotter on Sept 10, 2019 6:14:52 GMT -5
didn't hear or see your expertise listed or linked. So, are you the fraud your talking about? Because praising something that you have no experience in should be held to the same "feelings." So is this your own writing or did you plagiarize it from somewhere? And again, don't really care that you readily except the "science" , just because it's published and quotable. And, yea I've seen the same tactic to shut people up-only way to debunk it. Is to publish finding of own study. Only to have it stated as fake due to who funded it, or what ever. Lol, the whole point of my outburst was to explain (what should be common courtesy) that if your are uninformed or in doubt about a topic then a) either research it, or b) keep your opinion to yourself before making sweeping, or worse suggestive statements. But this was obviously lost on you. You wonder were the sources are. I provided you the NIH as a source on research funding. You could have googled it, but no worries, I got you: projectreporter.nih.gov/reporter.cfmI listed and explained (at length) the concept of peer review to you AND I explicitly suggested to google this concept as it is explained and discussed in all its strength and weaknesses online. But no worries, I got you again. Start here: en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_review#ScholarlyAnd finally you wonder if my outburst was plagiarizing some poor souls thoughts or intellectual property. Oh boy, I certainly was. I am sure every scientist who like me has a PhD and been a professional scientist in both academia and industry for over 20 years will feel the exact same. But again, before publicly seeding doubt in the validity of something you don’t understand (or maybe just don’t like?) you could have used this wonderful invention called google and checked if my post in parts were coming from other published sources. Give a try sometime, being in the actual know about something can be very freeing, and is so much better than seeding doubt with speculative or suggestive posts...
|
|
|
Post by Sgt. Beacon on Sept 10, 2019 10:21:00 GMT -5
didn't hear or see your expertise listed or linked. So, are you the fraud your talking about? Because praising something that you have no experience in should be held to the same "feelings." So is this your own writing or did you plagiarize it from somewhere? And again, don't really care that you readily except the "science" , just because it's published and quotable. And, yea I've seen the same tactic to shut people up-only way to debunk it. Is to publish finding of own study. Only to have it stated as fake due to who funded it, or what ever. Lol, the whole point of my outburst was to explain (what should be common courtesy) that if your are uninformed or in doubt about a topic then a) either research it, or b) keep your opinion to yourself before making sweeping, or worse suggestive statements. But this was obviously lost on you. You wonder were the sources are. I provided you the NIH as a source on research funding. You could have googled it, but no worries, I got you: projectreporter.nih.gov/reporter.cfmI listed and explained (at length) the concept of peer review to you AND I explicitly suggested to google this concept as it is explained and discussed in all its strength and weaknesses online. But no worries, I got you again. Start here: en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_review#ScholarlyAnd finally you wonder if my outburst was plagiarizing some poor souls thoughts or intellectual property. Oh boy, I certainly was. I am sure every scientist who like me has a PhD and been a professional scientist in both academia and industry for over 20 years will feel the exact same. But again, before publicly seeding doubt in the validity of something you don’t understand (or maybe just don’t like?) you could have used this wonderful invention called google and checked if my post in parts were coming from other published sources. Give a try sometime, being in the actual know about something can be very freeing, and is so much better than seeding doubt with speculative or suggestive posts... And what you should try is using the science of the original article to convince me and others. But, Nooo. And yeah, sorry have plenty of understanding. And No. Being a part of some of the social science experiments-lol. The outrage that you and others have shown because "science." Just saying science isn't enough and shouldn't. And the "how dare you," doesn't really do much to convince to me.
|
|