Kill the myth of the miracle machine

[Lord of Planar]

I normally post in the General Political Discussion/Environment & Climate Issues forum, but this I'm sure affects all the sciences to at least some degree. I believe it is absolutely pervasive in the climate sciences. Here are two paragraphs from the recent Nature Publication:

After 20 years of trying to promote this idea, I am no longer surprised that scientists are reluctant to accept it. In advancing beliefs that support their political interests, scientists are simply acting like a special interest group, no different from dairy farmers or chief executives.

But the myth of the miracle machine harms science and society because it shields scientists from accountability, governance and being responsive to human needs. A major reason that pervasive problems such as poor quality publications, hyper-competition and hype have been allowed to fester is the miracle-machine ideology: give us money, leave us alone and we’ll solve the world’s problems.
​

Link: Kill the myth of the miracle machine; 11 July 2017

I have a subscription to three Nature publications, and several other science journals. I don't know if this whole article is open at all or not without a subsription.

 

[ecofarm]

A disgruntled douchebag getting his 15 minutes from gullible, uneducated, CT-pushing deniers.

 

[Threegoofs]

I normally post in the General Political Discussion/Environment & Climate Issues forum, but this I'm sure affects all the sciences to at least some degree. I believe it is absolutely pervasive in the climate sciences. Here are two paragraphs from the recent Nature Publication:

After 20 years of trying to promote this idea, I am no longer surprised that scientists are reluctant to accept it. In advancing beliefs that support their political interests, scientists are simply acting like a special interest group, no different from dairy farmers or chief executives.

But the myth of the miracle machine harms science and society because it shields scientists from accountability, governance and being responsive to human needs. A major reason that pervasive problems such as poor quality publications, hyper-competition and hype have been allowed to fester is the miracle-machine ideology: give us money, leave us alone and we’ll solve the world’s problems.
​

Link: Kill the myth of the miracle machine; 11 July 2017

I have a subscription to three Nature publications, and several other science journals. I don't know if this whole article is open at all or not without a subsription.

Odd. In climate science, the work being done is certainly driven by practicality, not just idle curiousity.

Of course, anti science nutjobs who think having a single subscription to a scientific journal makes them a well read scientist and who rejects basic scientific consensus wouldn't see it this way.

There's not a lot of basic science outside of physics and maybe the soft sciences that isn't based on some type of return.

In medicine, basic biology and chemistry are often done without knowledge of the endpoint. Physiology, for example, wont lead directly to new drugs, but will help flesh out the biology of disease. Receptor studies might not lead to a druggable target, but can certainly help understand complicated mechanisms of action.

 

[Jack Hays]

I normally post in the General Political Discussion/Environment & Climate Issues forum, but this I'm sure affects all the sciences to at least some degree. I believe it is absolutely pervasive in the climate sciences. Here are two paragraphs from the recent Nature Publication:

After 20 years of trying to promote this idea, I am no longer surprised that scientists are reluctant to accept it. In advancing beliefs that support their political interests, scientists are simply acting like a special interest group, no different from dairy farmers or chief executives.

But the myth of the miracle machine harms science and society because it shields scientists from accountability, governance and being responsive to human needs. A major reason that pervasive problems such as poor quality publications, hyper-competition and hype have been allowed to fester is the miracle-machine ideology: give us money, leave us alone and we’ll solve the world’s problems.
​

Link: Kill the myth of the miracle machine; 11 July 2017

I have a subscription to three Nature publications, and several other science journals. I don't know if this whole article is open at all or not without a subsription.

A thought provoking article. Thanks.

 

[Lord of Planar]

A disgruntled douchebag getting his 15 minutes from gullible, uneducated, CT-pushing deniers.

The author of the article?

In Nature Journal no less?

I think you are the disgruntled one...

 

[Lord of Planar]

A thought provoking article. Thanks.

I take it that it isn't paywalled?

 

[ecofarm]

The author of the article?

In Nature Journal no less?

I think you are the disgruntled one...

Funny how, when it comes to scientists, you only listen to the handful of disgruntled douchebags getting their 15 minutes from ignorant people.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Funny how, when it comes to scientists, you only listen to the handful of disgruntled douchebags getting their 15 minutes from ignorant people.

Call them what you want. They aren't the ones that lie and say "give us money, leave us alone and we’ll solve the world’s problems."

How many science journals did you say you subscribe to and read?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you just listen to the pundits rather than actually reading what real scientists say.

 

[ocean515]

Funny how, when it comes to scientists, you only listen to the handful of disgruntled douchebags getting their 15 minutes from ignorant people.

The scientific method requires all douche bags have their day, not just the ones the left prays to.

 

[ecofarm]

The scientific method requires all douche bags have their day, not just the ones the left prays to.

Yeah, spewing crap to get 15 minutes from the gullible and uneducated is the scientific method.

 

[ocean515]

Yeah, spewing crap to get 15 minutes from the gullible and uneducated is the scientific method.

Actually that is not what the scientific method is.

But the spew seems to have worked on the gullible and uneducated on the left.

Perhaps you could get out of that group by learning a bit about what the scientific method actually is.

Here is a link to a discussion on the method as it relates to climate science.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/21/the-scientific-method-and-climate-science/

 

[ecofarm]

Actually that is not what the scientific method is.

But the spew seems to have worked on the gullible and uneducated on the left.

Perhaps you could get out of that group by learning a bit about what the scientific method actually is.

Here is a link to a discussion on the method as it relates to climate science.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/21/the-scientific-method-and-climate-science/

WUWT

:lamo

 

[BillRM]

We should not fund basic research as it will never produce economic benefits and therefore worthless?

Quantum mechanical for example as in.........

Chinese Satellite Relays a Quantum Signal Between Cities | WIRED
https://www.wired.com/story/chinese-satellite-relays-a-quantum-signal-between-cities/
Jun 15, 2017 - Launched last August, China's QUESS satellite recently achieved its ... If a hacker tried to steal the key in transit, quantum mechanics theory ...

Chinese satellite beats distance record for quantum entanglement ...
https://www.newscientist.com/.../2134843-chinese-satellite-beats-distance-record-for-q...
Jun 15, 2017 - Chinese satellite beats distance record for quantum entanglement ... The team also tested the fundamentals of quantum mechanics. Einstein ...

 

[ocean515]

WUWT

:lamo

It's cool with me if you want to stay in that group you described.

:thumbs:

There are other sources where the problem has been discussed.

https://science.house.gov/legislation/hearings/full-committee-hearing-climate-science-assumptions-policy-implications-and

https://www.sciencedaily.com/terms/scientific_method.htm

 

[SocialD]

I normally post in the General Political Discussion/Environment & Climate Issues forum, but this I'm sure affects all the sciences to at least some degree. I believe it is absolutely pervasive in the climate sciences. Here are two paragraphs from the recent Nature Publication:

After 20 years of trying to promote this idea, I am no longer surprised that scientists are reluctant to accept it. In advancing beliefs that support their political interests, scientists are simply acting like a special interest group, no different from dairy farmers or chief executives.

But the myth of the miracle machine harms science and society because it shields scientists from accountability, governance and being responsive to human needs. A major reason that pervasive problems such as poor quality publications, hyper-competition and hype have been allowed to fester is the miracle-machine ideology: give us money, leave us alone and we’ll solve the world’s problems.
​

Link: Kill the myth of the miracle machine; 11 July 2017

I have a subscription to three Nature publications, and several other science journals. I don't know if this whole article is open at all or not without a subsription.

I find his closing paragraph interesting

"Universities and science organizations should come together to develop a plan to deliver better social value at no additional cost to taxpayers. Congress might just listen. Science and the world would benefit."
It would have been nice if he would have suggested how exactly they were going to do that but he didn't.
He laments a few paragraphs previous to that that "After all, from the US National Institutes of Health’s translational science centre to the UK’s Research Excellence Framework, scientists are being pushed to demonstrate the impacts of their research."
Umm yes if people are going to give you money they want to see what the money is being wisely used.

Yes I am going to have to agree with ecofarm on teh disgruntled douchbag analysis.

 

[Manc Skipper]

WUWT

:lamo

Speaking of myth machines, WUWT, the dropout's favourite.

 

[Visbek]

I normally post in the General Political Discussion/Environment & Climate Issues forum, but this I'm sure affects all the sciences to at least some degree. I believe it is absolutely pervasive in the climate sciences. Here are two paragraphs from the recent Nature Publication...

OK, and...?

The author is criticizing the idea that funding basic scientific research provides the biggest benefits. He suggests that we should fund more practical efforts (applied science).

That shift is already under way, and we've seen a fair amount of criticism of basic or theoretical research over the years (e.g. string / m-theory) so the tone seems rather odd.

Unfortunately, all the issues he identifies -- hype, competition, poor quality publications, lack of accountability -- and one he doesn't (replication) are just as prevalent in applied as basic research. E.g. we know quite well how pharmaceutical companies occasionally bury research they paid for which is not entirely complimentary to their products.

Further, it seems his trigger here is... reading mainstream media articles that mention "basic science?" Seems like an odd way to judge the validity of basic research.

So what exactly are you advocating, by telling us about the existence of this article?

 

[Jack Hays]

I take it that it isn't paywalled?

I was able to read it.

 

[Lord of Planar]

It's cool with me if you want to stay in that group you described.

:thumbs:

There are other sources where the problem has been discussed.

https://science.house.gov/legislation/hearings/full-committee-hearing-climate-science-assumptions-policy-implications-and

https://www.sciencedaily.com/terms/scientific_method.htm

He's just a denier of the scientific method.

You are wasting your time. His faith of the dogma is unwavering.

 

[Lord of Planar]

I was able to read it.

Cool. I can't tell without logging out of my subscription links.

 

[Lord of Planar]

So what exactly are you advocating, by telling us about the existence of this article?

Just presenting a side that you unscientific types don't ever see, since you get your -not- facts from pundits.

 

[Port & Starboard]

Big money has corrupted science on both sides of the global warming argument.

I am glad that there are still enough adults left in the world to see through the BS.

 

[ocean515]

He's just a denier of the scientific method.

You are wasting your time. His faith of the dogma is unwavering.

As are most who would bludgeon any naysayer to the cause, oblivious to the fact they were proving the point.

 

[Jack Hays]

[FONT=&quot]Tracking retractions as a window into the scientific process
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot][h=2]Nature Chemistry issues its first retraction[/h]without comments
For the first time in its eight-year history, Nature Chemistry has retracted a paper, citing “data integrity issues.”
The 2010 paper, which explored how various iron-based molecules interact with water and ethanol, was withdrawn after the authors uncovered possible duplication in two images.
According to the retraction notice, the authors could not provide the raw data to confirm their findings and could not reproduce the figures because the experimental set-up had been dismantled. The authors subsequently requested the paper be retracted because the issues undermined “our full confidence in the integrity of the study.”
Here’s the retraction notice for “Charge transfer to solvent identified using dark channel fluorescence-yield L-edge spectroscopy”: Read the rest of this entry »

[/FONT]

 

[Jack Hays]

OK, and...? Further, it seems his trigger here is... reading mainstream media articles that mention "basic science?" Seems like an odd way to judge the validity of basic research.

• “Most important factors associated with high online media attention were the presence of a press release and the journal impact factor,” not robust study design. (Research Integrity and Peer Review)