We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
... it's not unusual to hear statements like those from The Lancet editor Richard Horton that "Much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue." He continued: "Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness."
Oh dear--now you have to go to those "research departments" that came up with homosexuality being a bio based drive rather than a socio/cultural distinction. Couple of those "institutes" REALLY R E A L L Y benefitted financially for those "scientific discoveries"!
OMG! I just thought of something--do you suppose that Dr. Watson was right about the differences in race particularly his "scientific" work about African genetics? Too, too bad those damn liberals never set a standard for moral/ethical guidelines and stick with it!
The worst part is that those who publish the statistically faulty studies know they are meaningless and misleading. Sometimes the fault is pure bias where they are trying to prove their own biases to be true. Sometimes it is all about the publish or perish requirements. But when it happens it is never science.
I don’t know who said it first, but science is a tool more than a body of knowledge, and that body of knowledge is in constant flux. There were several articles a while back reporting on how many peer reviewed articles have been recanted and/or withdrawn. Between conflicts of interest, grants (regardless of source: public/private), coopted peer review, fiddling with the data(especially anything exculpatory), the CULT of algorithms, I am very skeptical of academia, and not just the soft sciences. Don’t forget that academia is all about getting published. Since all the low hanging fruit, that speaks to any kind of recognizable reality, is long gone, the pressure is on to be more arcane, even bizarre and perverse, aka sexy and faux "avant garde" or hide behind metadata.
Media shares the blame. Have you ever read a scientific paper that didn’t limit its conclusion to a very specific set of parameters? The media doesn’t communicate these qualifying conditions but instead extrapolates wildly to broad generalizations.