PDA

View Full Version : Neuroscientist tricked 4 journals into accepting fake paper on Midichlorians. Bwahaha



Dr. Gonzo
11/09/2018 8:21am,
Neuroscientist tricked 4 journals into accepting fake paper on Midichlorians.
Bwahaha...

https://futurism.com/a-neuroscientist-just-tricked-4-dodgy-journals-into-accepting-a-fake-paper-on-midi-chlorians

DCS
11/09/2018 9:04am,
Wait a minute, are you saying midichlorians are not real?

Bneterasedmynam
11/09/2018 9:07am,
It's **** like this that gives people pause when taking science at its word.

Dr. Gonzo
11/09/2018 4:49pm,
It's **** like this that gives people pause when taking science at its word.
That academic research article was not science.
Many academic research articles are not science.
Real scientists do not say "science says" or refer to studies without carefully disclosing and presenting the limitations of the study or the article they are referring to.
If they violate this rule, they are being pseudo-scientific at best, or committing scientific fraud, if done with intent.

brend0_
11/09/2018 6:55pm,
That academic research article was not science.
Many academic research articles are not science.
Real scientists do not say "science says" or refer to studies without carefully disclosing and presenting the limitations of the study or the article they are referring to.
If they violate this rule, they are being pseudo-scientific at best, or committing scientific fraud, if done with intent.I am slightly torn on this one. On one hand it is pretty funny and it is good that they can basically make fools of these publications that would print this and show they arent trustworthy.

But I do kind of agree with Bneterasedmynam that this could be potentially harmful to the reputation of science. Despite what you wrote above I think there are two camps of people who won't see or care about the distinction you made:

-The general public who aren't very knowledgeable or interested in science and just hear that scientific journals can be fooled. I actually kind of like John Oliver's bit about science and it's misuse that would probably describe these sort of people.

- The people who would use this as proof that science doesn't know everything/is easily fooled and thus their brand of pseudoscience or outright lies could therefore be valid.



Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

Dr. Gonzo
11/09/2018 7:18pm,
I am slightly torn on this one. On one hand it is pretty funny and it is good that they can basically make fools of these publications that would print this and show they arent trustworthy.

But I do kind of agree with Bneterasedmynam that this could be potentially harmful to the reputation of science. Despite what you wrote above I think there are two camps of people who won't see or care about the distinction you made:

-The general public who aren't very knowledgeable or interested in science and just hear that scientific journals can be fooled. I actually kind of like John Oliver's bit about science and it's misuse that would probably describe these sort of people.

- The people who would use this as proof that science doesn't know everything/is easily fooled and thus their brand of pseudoscience or outright lies could therefore be valid.



Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk
Academic journals should not be regarded with any more validity than any other form of publication.
It is the study that matters, not the publication channel.
Channels are only useful in their in resonance,
but when resonance becomes a proxy for reliability,
the potential for garbage, fraud, or pseudo science becomes large.
And studies that have not been replicated multiple times outside of that journal, or channel, should be regarded with skepticism.

Bneterasedmynam
11/09/2018 7:37pm,
Academic journals should not be regarded with any more validity than any other form of publication.
It is the study that matters, not the publication channel.
Channels are only useful in their in resonance,
but when resonance becomes a proxy for reliability,
the potential for garbage, fraud, or pseudo science becomes large.
And studies that have not been replicated multiple times outside of that journal, or channel, should be regarded with skepticism.

Very true, but most people Unfortunately don't take the time to research such things and take articles at face value.

brend0_
11/09/2018 8:30pm,
Very true, but most people Unfortunately don't take the time to research such things and take articles at face value.^
This is probably a much clearer summary of what I was trying to get at.

I'm not a scientist by any stretch but have had at least some exposure to research papers when I was doing some engineering study, but too many people just play "Science says".

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

MisterMR
11/10/2018 4:57am,
As far as I can understand, the main problem is this:

If you're an academic who wants an academic job, a substantial part of your CV consists on the number of academic papers you published, and on the quality of the scientific journals that accepted your work.

This creates a market for pay for publication journals, that are alluring for academics who want to beef up their CV, and on the other hand gives an unreasonable bargaining problem to those scientific publishers who actually own serious big name journals : for example I heard that in some case academics at a university (perhaps public founded) work on a research and publish through, say, Springer, who keeps the copyright on the article even if the research was actually paid by the university. Then the university 's library has to pay big bucks for buying the same article.

At times, libraries are pushed to pay even bigger bucks to purchase the copyright for the same article and make it open access.

So the problem IMHO is not that scientists or academics are fraudolent, but that the whole concept of scientific journal should be changed in the age of internet, and academics should find a different way to evalue each other.

Permalost
11/10/2018 1:36pm,
To be fair, the midichlorean expert may have used the Jedi mind trick to convince them to publish it.

Dung Beatles
11/10/2018 1:47pm,
Neuroscientist tricked 4 journals into accepting fake paper on Midichlorians.
Bwahaha...

https://futurism.com/a-neuroscientist-just-tricked-4-dodgy-journals-into-accepting-a-fake-paper-on-midi-chlorians

OK, that's hilarious and simultaneously so, so wrong. The Force as being powered by psychic bacteria should be retconned.

PDA
11/11/2018 5:03pm,
I’m not sure I believe the retraction.

What if the government made him retract it so they could continue to hide the force from us?

We will know if he gets Hilaried .