Hi,

interesting vid about " p-hacking " and why most published & peer reviewed science is not.

It purest bullshit.

....... Phil

On Saturday, December 11, 2021 at 1:02:39 PM UTC+11, palli...@gmail.com wrote:
> Hi,
>
> interesting vid about " p-hacking " and why most published & peer reviewed science is not.
>
> It purest bullshit.

Videos about p-hacking - cherry picking your data to make it look as if it statistically significant - do tend to be pure bullshit.

Phil doesn't usually know enough about this kind of stuff to notice, but I'll give him the benefit of the doubt.

Peer review does catch most of this kind of cherry-picking, but human beings do make mistakes and some of it does get into the peer-reviewed scientific literature. It isn't cited all that often. Critical insight works at a number of levels and Phil doesn't have access to any of them.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

IEEE Bullshitter bill....@ieee.org wrote:

===========================
> >
> > interesting vid about " p-hacking " and why most published & peer reviewed science is not.
> >
> > It purest bullshit.
>
> Videos about p-hacking - cherry picking your data

** Bet the fucking asshole did not even watch the vid.

> Peer review does catch most of this kind of cherry-picking,

** Yep, the fucking lunatic did not watch a thing.

> human beings do make mistakes and some of it does get into the peer-reviewed scientific literature.

** So called " peer review" prior to journal publication = scientific fraud.

IEEE Bill sucks it all up like a caramel thick shake.

...... Phil

On Saturday, December 11, 2021 at 2:27:35 PM UTC+11, palli...@gmail.com wrote:
> IEEE Bullshitter bill....@ieee.org wrote:
>
> ===========================
> > >
> > > interesting vid about " p-hacking " and why most published & peer reviewed science is not.
> > >
> > > It purest bullshit.
> >
> > Videos about p-hacking - cherry picking your data
>
> ** Bet the fucking asshole did not even watch the vid.

Since the link to it didn't show up on google groups, I didn't have the chance. The story has been around for a while, and I have read the original paper - John Larkin liked it when it first came out.

> > Peer review does catch most of this kind of cherry-picking,
>
> ** Yep, the fucking lunatic did not watch a thing.

Phil is the kind of fucking lunatic who would forget to post the link - or post a link to site that Google might snip as dangerous.

> > human beings do make mistakes and some of it does get into the peer-reviewed scientific literature.
>
> ** So called " peer review" prior to journal publication = scientific fraud.

Far from it. I've done it, and been through it, which is more than you can claim.

> IEEE Bill sucks it all up like a caramel thick shake.

It's been part of my life for quite a while now, and a larger part of the lives of quite a few of our friends. I do know how it works - from both sides. You clearly don't.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

Phil Allison wrote:

interesting vid about " p-hacking " and why most published & peer reviewed science is not.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=42QuXLucH3Q
It's purest bullshit.

..... Phil

On Saturday, December 11, 2021 at 2:37:41 PM UTC-8, palli...@gmail.com wrote:
> Phil Allison wrote:
>
> interesting vid about " p-hacking " and why most published & peer reviewed science is not.
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=42QuXLucH3Q
>
> It's purest bullshit.

No, the video clearly says it's not pure. The amazing thing is, Phil seems to think this
is news? The Journal of Irreproducible Results has been publishing science humor
since 1955, based on this well-known bit of truth; it has been discussed in this very
newsgroup several times during the last few decades (notably in the Currents of Death era).

The important benefit of peer review is that no questions are closed; science can see past this
kind of obstruction, and (given time) those obstructions do not survive.

The BIGGEST LIAR on usenet = whit3rd wrote:

=========================================
>
> >
> > interesting vid about " p-hacking " and why most published & peer reviewed science is not.
> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=42QuXLucH3Q
> >
> > It's purest bullshit.
>
> No, the video clearly says it's not pure.

** Wrong.
> The important benefit of peer review is that no questions are closed;

** Garbage.

FOAD you vile lefty retard.

...... Phil

On Sunday, December 12, 2021 at 12:50:23 PM UTC+11, palli...@gmail.com wrote:
> The BIGGEST LIAR on usenet = whit3rd wrote:
>
> =========================================
> >
> > >
> > > interesting vid about " p-hacking " and why most published & peer reviewed science is not.
> > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=42QuXLucH3Q
> > >
> > > It's purest bullshit.
> >
> > No, the video clearly says it's not pure.
> ** Wrong.
> > The important benefit of peer review is that no questions are closed;
>
> ** Garbage.
>
> FOAD you vile lefty retard.

Phil doesn't like it when his silly - and ill-founded - opinions are treated with the contempt they deserve. His reaction is childish and obnoxious, and he doesn't seem to realise that they generate at least as much contempt as his original idiocies.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

On Saturday, December 11, 2021 at 7:50:45 PM UTC-8, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> On Sunday, December 12, 2021 at 12:50:23 PM UTC+11, palli...@gmail.com wrote:
> > The BIGGEST LIAR on usenet = whit3rd wrote:
> >
> > =========================================
> > >
> > > >
> > > > interesting vid about " p-hacking " and why most published & peer reviewed science is not.
> > > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=42QuXLucH3Q
> > > >
> > > > It's purest bullshit.
> > >
> > > No, the video clearly says it's not pure.
> > ** Wrong.
> > > The important benefit of peer review is that no questions are closed;
> >
> > ** Garbage.
> >
> > FOAD you vile lefty retard.
> Phil doesn't like it when his silly - and ill-founded - opinions are treated with the contempt they deserve. His reaction is childish and obnoxious, and he doesn't seem to realise that they generate at least as much contempt as his original idiocies.
>
> --
> SNIPPERMAN, Sydney

Coming from the idiot who wants to NUKE his own country...

On Sunday, December 12, 2021 at 5:23:11 PM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote:
> On Saturday, December 11, 2021 at 7:50:45 PM UTC-8, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> > On Sunday, December 12, 2021 at 12:50:23 PM UTC+11, palli...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > The BIGGEST LIAR on usenet = whit3rd wrote:
> > >
> > > =========================================
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > interesting vid about " p-hacking " and why most published & peer reviewed science is not.
> > > > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=42QuXLucH3Q
> > > > >
> > > > > It's purest bullshit.
> > > >
> > > > No, the video clearly says it's not pure.
> > > ** Wrong.
> > > > The important benefit of peer review is that no questions are closed;
> > >
> > > ** Garbage.
> > >
> > > FOAD you vile lefty retard.
> >
> > Phil doesn't like it when his silly - and ill-founded - opinions are treated with the contempt they deserve. His reaction is childish and obnoxious, and he doesn't seem to realise that they generate at least as much contempt as his original idiocies.
>
> Coming from the idiot who wants to NUKE his own country...

Tom Seim is silly enough to think advocating effective scorched earth policies - if they ever turn out to be necessary - is expressing a desired to nuke his own country (as opposed to a remote and selected part of it, in reaction to a foreign invasion).

This is moronic on several levels, but Tom Seim is much too stupid to follow a detailed analysis.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney