|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On December 31 2017 05:58 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On December 31 2017 05:34 mozoku wrote:On December 31 2017 03:52 ticklishmusic wrote:On December 30 2017 13:21 FuzzyJAM wrote:On December 30 2017 11:32 mozoku wrote:
Another hoot is the $25B annual revenue for-profit journal industry that charges people to read papers written by academics (paid by universities) that do experiments funded by tax-payers--and their margins are better then Apple lol. No wonder, considering they don't foot the bill for their own product. I'm in the arts so I can't usefully comment on the science stuff, but our publishing is similar enough for me to comment on this, and it absolutely baffles me. The estimates I've heard for commercial outfits gives them profit at around 35% (though there are claims of up to 50%). How have we been hoodwinked into allowing a massive industry to parasitically leech off research they don't pay for, reviewed by people they don't pay for, and sold to the very people who have just done all the work without pay so that they can use it to educate and produce more work that the publishing industry won't pay for but will sell back to them? In short: why do commercial publishers exist? What mozoku conveniently forgets to mention is that much like shitty for profit colleges no one takes shitty for profit journals or research mills seriously, except amateurs and laymen. Yeah, like Nature for example. Nobody takes that shit seriously. Or half of all medicine and natural science publications. I think you're confusing for-profit journals with pay-to-publish journals. Even if we we're to assume you were right, for the sake of argument: How exactly are you, as a supposed pro-science and pro-education liberal, trying to argue that requiring the public to pay large sums to private companies to view research completely funded by public money is good for either the advancement of either science or education? I don't think he is arguing that or ever claimed that. at least I don't recall him saying that, or anything that could be reasonably construed to be that. can you point to where you think he argued that? also your second link doesn't work.
That's literally the argument you have to make to defend the status quo. If he's not arguing that, I'm eager to hear why he's wording his post as if he thinks I'm in the wrong.
Even if it's "shitty research" (which, judging from the fact that Nature/Science/PNAS replication rates aren't demonstrably higher from lesser-known journals iirc, is terribly wrong and he's just talking out of his ass), it benefits nobody to have the public being duped out of its money when the same "shitty research" could simply be available online open-access for a fraction of the cost (i.e. taking out the journal's share). Academic publishing is like healthcare--it's not a competitive market in any sense and consequently it's abused to the benefit of everyone who profits from it.
His "not shitty" journals (Science, Nature, PNAS, etc.) are a significant driver of the replication crisis to begin with because they're all-important for funding and career advancement, yet have publication biases that favor "sexy" research topics and grand sounding claims, and disincentivize replication efforts. These are hardly things you associate with good science.
If you're on half the honesty crusade you constantly implicitly claim to be on, I have no idea why I'm your top target in this discussion.
|
On December 31 2017 07:06 ShoCkeyy wrote:
So in South FL there is non stop c130s and f16s flying above civilian airspace. It's getting a bit weird.
That happens when the President decides he wants to spend his time in a non-secure area like a golf club rather then established area's like Camp David.
Also don't forget the small airplane businesses that are impacted by the no fly zone.
|
The replication crisis happens for a variety of reasons.
The first is that there is nowhere near enough money for everyone. Something like <1% of PhDs become professors. The rest have no future in academia. Science funding is ludicrously competitive.
The second is that it's extremely difficult for a layman to assess the merit of a scientific study until long after the fact. This means that funding bodies, the gatekeepers of literally everyone's careers, rely on proxies such as journal "quality" to determine whether a researcher made good use of their last grant.
Next, the high powered journals prioritise sexiness, as mozuku said. Getting your work into one of these journals is all about assembling a narrative to convince the reader/editor/reviewer that what you have found is important.
Unsurprisingly, this adds up to an astronomical pressure on researchers to find interesting things. If I have discovered a new gene, it is enormously better for my career if I can then show that that gene is implicated in cancer.
This pressure is antithetical to the idea of the unbiased scientist discovering truth. I am tremendously biased when performing the experiment to determine whether my gene is linked to cancer, because my entire career may hinge upon the outcome. By human nature, I will therefore be quick to dismiss negatives as artifacts and accept positives as truth. In the worst case, the person may be motivated to outright fraud.
The final point is that publishing things that didn't work is not sexy at all, and consigns you to trash journals and a quick ticket out of research. Publishing straightforward checks on existing work is also unsexy, and is politically damaging as well, because it can be taken as a personal attack by people who are likely to end up on your review panels or tenure board at some point.
That is how you arrive at a replication crisis. It is not easy to fix.
Source: I have papers in sexy journals
|
|
|
On December 30 2017 22:38 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
send all the high quality iranians north. we'll take 'em. my best friend is iranian. great guy.
top notch iranians only though. no losers. we have enough local losers. we don't need any more of them.
|
On December 31 2017 09:17 JimmyJRaynor wrote:send all the high quality iranians north. we'll take 'em. my best friend is iranian. great guy. top notch iranians only though. no losers. we have enough local losers. we don't need any more of them.
You pretty much only get good ones due to the harsh immigration rules and far distance to travel. It isn't exactly like you walk over the border to the US or Canada from Iran.
|
the v.p., Mike Pence, is like a wet noodle. Seeing him in office makes me miss the days of Dick Cheney!
|
All Trump’s done to involve America in this is a tweet in support. I hope for more behind the scenes. The Iranian people deserve freedom from the repressive Islamic Republic. (Whole twitter thread is worth seeing)
|
I love how people in the US so easily forget how Iran got this way in the first place.
Remind me again what tyrannical maniacs ousted Iran's democratically elected leader and sponsored a dictator? Then who was it that sponsored Iraq invading Iran after they overthrew that dictator that others installed?
The US has no interest in promoting freedom and democracy if it isn't subservient to US interests. Pretending otherwise is how we've been spending the last ~60 years fighting former allies armed with weapons they got from us.
|
I think its telling that Danglers follows or follows people who follow Rita Panahi. No supporter or apologist of Pauline "I believe we are in danger of being swamped by Asians" Hanson has any opinion worth considering. Any debate will never be in good faith, Rita Panahi and Andrew Bolt have been trying to prop up Australia's racists since they feel the current Liberal Party isn't hard enough on immigrants of all kinds.
For people who aren't aware, she's a regular columnist in Australia's version of the UK's The Sun. Basically the definition of a wank rag. Australians don't get Page 3 spreads like The Sun but they get the equivalent "fashion" spreads a bit further down. Yes, the publication that you write for does matter because it honestly tells you everything about the writer.
On December 31 2017 12:47 GreenHorizons wrote:I love how people in the US so easily forget how Iran got this way in the first place. Remind me again what tyrannical maniacs ousted Iran's democratically elected leader and sponsored a dictator? Then who was it that sponsored Iraq invading Iran after they overthrew that dictator that others installed? The US has no interest in promoting freedom and democracy if it isn't subservient to US interests. Pretending otherwise is how we've been spending the last ~60 years fighting former allies armed with weapons they got from us.
But you see, Islam is the issue and Iran can fix itself if only its citizens were smarter and
|
|
|
On December 31 2017 13:05 doomdonker wrote:
I think its telling that Danglers follows or follows people who follow Rita Panahi. No supporter or apologist of Pauline "I believe we are in danger of being swamped by Asians" Hanson has any opinion worth considering. Any debate will never be in good faith, Rita Panahi and Andrew Bolt have been trying to prop up Australia's racists since they feel the current Liberal Party isn't hard enough on immigrants of all kinds.
For people who aren't aware, she's a regular columnist in Australia's version of the UK's The Sun. Basically the definition of a wank rag. Australians don't get Page 3 spreads like The Sun but they get the equivalent "fashion" spreads a bit further down. Yes, the publication that you write for does matter because it honestly tells you everything about the writer
... radical SJW writers always apologists for this and never with any opinions worth considering ...
Wait that was Breitbart again. You’re just their twin. Smear the writer and save the effort of actual arguments and responses. I’ll throw you both out if that’s all you got. Protest as you wish, but you’re morally and intellectually equivalent.
|
I'm aware that I've got no opinion worth anything. I've never really professed otherwise. The thing is that I'm also aware that the person you're trotting out doesn't have one worth anything either. Whether or not her Twitter thread is valid, she's going to pick and choose anything related to Islam because that's her game. I don't know how an American came across such a person but I think it really says a lot about you and your media consumption habits.
She's basically a hatemonger in the Australia media landscape. There's basically no way to put it in any way, she's in the same boat as Andrew Bolt where they have not once ever hit back against the racist whether it be Pauline Hanson or actual fascist groups like Australia First. The fact that an American who has been accused of being insensitive to race in this thread is looking up the Twitter page of an Australian journalist who wants to eliminate Section 18C on the basis that it "silences" conservatives speaks volumes.
For people who aren't aware, Section 18C basically says that you're not allowed to publicly offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another person based on race or nationality. Section 18D protects people who might say something controversial that breaches 18C if said comments were said in good faith. You're not going to get into trouble for saying Islam is a problem for Western society due to their beliefs towards women. You're not going to get into trouble saying Australia's harsh immigration policy is needed because we need to secure our borders. You only going to get into trouble if you say that the Holocaust didn't happen and Jews are making it up because they're greedy backstabbers in a public forum like a newspaper or political ad.
You literally have to pull an Andrew Bolt and say that light skinned Aboriginals with some degree of European decent cannot sufficiently identify as Aboriginal, and only identify as such to game the system like the welfare cheats they are, to get busted by 18C. Its that difficult, even "The Australian" newspaper completely making up paragraphs from a French study investigating Muslim gang raping gangs didn't get busted by 18C because the overall point they were making could be considered fair. Only overt racists have an actual problem with 18C (and 18D) since you're only ever going to get busted if you run around newspapers and TV shows saying Aboriginals are petrol sniffing wastes of skin.
So really, how did you end up following Rita Panahi out of all the journalists in the world?
|
On December 31 2017 12:47 GreenHorizons wrote:I love how people in the US so easily forget how Iran got this way in the first place. Remind me again what tyrannical maniacs ousted Iran's democratically elected leader and sponsored a dictator? Then who was it that sponsored Iraq invading Iran after they overthrew that dictator that others installed? The US has no interest in promoting freedom and democracy if it isn't subservient to US interests. Pretending otherwise is how we've been spending the last ~60 years fighting former allies armed with weapons they got from us.
That's an incredibly self-serving (given your overall anti-US beliefs) and shallow view of the history between Iran and the US. And the part about the 1980 "sponsorship" of Iraq's invasion is literally just wrong. There's no evidence that the USA greenlit Saddam's invasion, and the invasion wasn't even in US interest by its own calculations iirc.
Not to mention, I have zero idea why you're using 1953 USA actions about to inform judgements about how 2017 USA uses its power.
|
On December 31 2017 19:02 mozoku wrote:Show nested quote +On December 31 2017 12:47 GreenHorizons wrote:I love how people in the US so easily forget how Iran got this way in the first place. Remind me again what tyrannical maniacs ousted Iran's democratically elected leader and sponsored a dictator? Then who was it that sponsored Iraq invading Iran after they overthrew that dictator that others installed? The US has no interest in promoting freedom and democracy if it isn't subservient to US interests. Pretending otherwise is how we've been spending the last ~60 years fighting former allies armed with weapons they got from us. That's an incredibly self-serving (given your overall anti-US beliefs) and shallow view of the history between Iran and the US. And the part about the 1980 "sponsorship" of Iraq's invasion is literally just wrong. There's no evidence that the USA greenlit Saddam's invasion, and the invasion wasn't even in US interest by its own calculations iirc. Not to mention, I have zero idea why you're using 1953 USA actions about to inform judgements about how 2017 USA uses its power.
Greenlit or not, there are plenty of evidence for US sponsoring Iraq prior to, during and after the war.
|
On December 31 2017 19:02 mozoku wrote:Show nested quote +On December 31 2017 12:47 GreenHorizons wrote:I love how people in the US so easily forget how Iran got this way in the first place. Remind me again what tyrannical maniacs ousted Iran's democratically elected leader and sponsored a dictator? Then who was it that sponsored Iraq invading Iran after they overthrew that dictator that others installed? The US has no interest in promoting freedom and democracy if it isn't subservient to US interests. Pretending otherwise is how we've been spending the last ~60 years fighting former allies armed with weapons they got from us. I have zero idea why you're using 1953 USA actions about to inform judgements about how 2017 USA uses its power.
Really? No idea?
|
You actually think geo political influences evaporate because they were set up 50+ years ago?
|
On December 31 2017 23:20 Uldridge wrote:
You actually think geo political influences evaporate because they were set up 50+ years ago?
I didn't realize that Geo political influences follow newtons laws of physics. I'll go let cuba know that the USSR falling didn't influence their geo political situation.
|
On December 31 2017 23:42 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On December 31 2017 23:20 Uldridge wrote:
You actually think geo political influences evaporate because they were set up 50+ years ago? I didn't realize that Geo political influences follow newtons laws of physics. I'll go let cuba know that the USSR falling didn't influence their geo political situation.
I mean if for no other reason it matters because the elders of the population have it in their living memory. I feel it's pretty obvious the reason I was referring to was the part of my post mozo ignored though.
|
@Sermokala
I don't know what you're arguing, really. It's against my hyperbolic speech or something? Of course Cuba'a situation jas changed, but the USSR heavily influenced the situation they're in today. It's the same with all the parties involved in the Middle East.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
