Block, SkipCaptcha, Upload, Automoderated users, edit, rollback
14,708
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 413:
Line 413: + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Conservapedia:Community Portal (view source)
Revision as of 10:25, April 2, 2017
, 10:25, April 2, 2017→Deplorable state of science: new section
I tried to find out how to change my User Name but was unsuccessful. Can anyone help me? <small>-Unsigned comment by [[User:BertSchlossberg]]</small>
I tried to find out how to change my User Name but was unsuccessful. Can anyone help me? <small>-Unsigned comment by [[User:BertSchlossberg]]</small>
:I could be wrong, but I don't think the wiki software permits username changes. Other than creating a new account and switching to that, I don't think there is a way. However, if anyone here would know, [[User:Aschlafly]] probably would; you could ask him directly. --[[User:DavidB4|<font color="ForestGreen">David B</font>]] <sup>([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]])</sup> 23:43, 29 March 2017 (EDT)
:I could be wrong, but I don't think the wiki software permits username changes. Other than creating a new account and switching to that, I don't think there is a way. However, if anyone here would know, [[User:Aschlafly]] probably would; you could ask him directly. --[[User:DavidB4|<font color="ForestGreen">David B</font>]] <sup>([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]])</sup> 23:43, 29 March 2017 (EDT)
== Deplorable state of science ==
A while back I was shocked to learn that when an investigator performing a trial of a sample of scientific journal articles whose scientific procedures supported a conclusion, half the studies' conclusions could not be reproduced when the procedures were repeated.
I noted that reproducibility is an essential element of scientific knowledge, and that those journal articles that didn't share that quality, didn't deserve to be called science, a word that originally meant "highly established knowledge". Instead, the most it deserved to be called was empirical opinion.
Now I have become horrified to learn that ''more than 99% of scientific studies in journals did not follow the scientific method!''<ref>Bokhari, Allum (March 31, 2017). [www.breitbart.com/radio/2017/03/31/j-scott-armstrong-no-one-asks-researchers-scientific-method "J Scott Armstrong on Breitbart News Daily: 'No one asks' researchers to follow scientific method"]. Interview with Dr. J. Scott Armstrong and Dr. Kesten Green. Breitbart/Radio website.</ref> I at least thought that the studies described above at least ''pretended'' to follow the scientific method and not that the now-so-called scientific community had abandoned the scientific method wholesale!
Fortunately a big player in scientific journals, Public Library of Science One (PLOS) is trying to turn this around, but we ought to expect this library will face the same time difficulties they would face if they were to attempt to turn a large ship around.
They have revived the definition of the scientific method and reduced the method to eight minimum responsibilities:
#Test multiple reasonable hypotheses
#Provide useful findings
#Fully disclose methods, data, and other relevant information
#Conduct a comprehensive review of prior knowledge
#Use valid and comparable data
#Use valid and simple methods
#Provide any experimental evidence
#Reach conclusions consistent with the evidence
The author of the article, Allum Bokhari, reported that one of the scientists, J. Scott Armstrong noted that "the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) violates all eight of his checklist for following the scientific method. 'If you don't believe me, you can go and look at their work and you can use that checklist.'"
[[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) 06:25, 2 April 2017 (EDT)
===References===
{{reflist}}