Hawaii proposes repeal of the Second Amendment .....

What do you think the "replication crisis" means?

"If the replication crisis is a sign that science isn’t broken, then what does “broken” even mean?
In the stem-cell case, self-correcting science did appear to work as advertised: Problems in the paper were discovered by attentive colleagues shortly after it appeared in print. But the recent history of science fraud suggests that many more examples come to light not quickly and not via any standard self-corrective mechanism—e.g., peer review or unsuccessful replications—but rather at a long delay and through the more conventional means of whistleblowing. That’s how Diedrik Stapel, a notorious fabulist with 58 retracted papers in social psychology, was discovered in 2011. The fact that Stapel’s brazen fraud had not been caught (or self-corrected) earlier made his case a seminal event in the current replication crisis. Why had no one noticed, in strictly scientific terms, all the false effects that he’d slipped into the literature?"
SLATE: SCIENCE, Is Science Broken? Or is it self-correcting? By Daniel Engber, Lisa Larson-Walker, AUG. 21 2017.
http://www.slate.com/articles/healt...is_not_self_correcting_science_is_broken.html

 

Don't worry is correct. It reminds me of when NV approved prostitution. When it approved gambling all over their state. When they had no such thing as a speed limit on the highways.

Did not spread to all states.

We learned that to Democrats, there is no such thing as common sense. Guns are so loathed by them they rather remove the freedom of humans than to see them own guns.

 

If you knew any thing about science, you wouldn’t fall for Depak chopra, his woo woo talk nor fake “replication crisis”.
Really what is your background in science.
Name one university that backs your “woo woo.”.
Woo woo is stealing a few words from science then throwing them into a statement to sound legitimate.

 

Most nra members want UBCs. They must be Dens in the nra.

 

When over half the studies are exposed as Fake Science is that too much?

"Now, a painstaking years long effort to reproduce 100 studies published in three leading psychology journals has found that more than half of the findings did not hold up when retested. The analysis was done by research psychologists, many of whom volunteered their time to double-check what they considered important work. Their conclusions, reported Thursday in the journal Science, have confirmed the worst fears of scientists who have long worried that the field needed a strong correction.

The vetted studies were considered part of the core knowledge by which scientists understand the dynamics of personality, relationships, learning and memory. Therapists and educators rely on such findings to help guide decisions, and the fact that so many of the studies were called into question could sow doubt in the scientific underpinnings of their work."
NEW YORK TIMES, Many Psychology Findings Not as Strong as Claimed, Study Says, By Benedict Carey, Aug. 27, 2015.
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/28/...ings-not-as-strong-as-claimed-study-says.html

Fake Science does not inspire trust.

 

Over half the studies in what, underwater basket weaving or woo woo.

 

You don’t trust every university in the world when they agree ?
Hmm. You’re one smart fellow.

 

I cited Slate, the NYT and The Scientist. Why are you challenging my background?
Your problem is with the public record. The Fake Science crisis is real, well documented and serious.

Your blind trust in science is misplaced.

 

So, are you dismissing the NYT as a fake news source?

NEW YORK TIMES, Many Psychology Findings Not as Strong as Claimed, Study Says, By Benedict Carey, Aug. 27, 2015.
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/28/...ings-not-as-strong-as-claimed-study-says.html

 

Do the collective minds at Johns Hopkins and MIT continually get taken and fooled by fake studies and papers? Studies that are supposedly peer-reviewed, only to be pulled years after they have been published due to being nothing more than fraud?

 

Are universities scientists?

Why would any thinking person trust universities? As I am sure you know - money corrupts.

"Whatever nostalgists think, there was never a golden age when students did all their work and attended every lecture. When Aquinas held forth in Paris, and Heidegger in Freiburg, lazy undergraduates were doubtless squirreled away in their rooms, frantically skimming other people's notes to prep for the final exam. What makes our age different is the moment that happened over and over again at Harvard, when we said This is going to be hard and then realized No, this is easy. Maybe it came when we boiled down a three-page syllabus to a hundred pages of exam-time reading, or saw that a paper could be turned in late without the frazzled teaching fellow's docking us, or handed in C-quality work and got a gleaming B-plus. Whenever the moment came, we learned that it wasn't our sloth alone, or our constant pushing for higher grades, that made Harvard easy.

No, Harvard was easy because almost no one was pushing back."
THE ATLANTIC, The Truth About Harvard, It may be hard to get into Harvard, but it's easy to get out without learning much of enduring value at all., By Ross Douthat, MARCH 2005 ISSUE.
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2005/03/the-truth-about-harvard/303726/

 

You should notify all 4000 universities immediately. After all, this is a fraud of epic proportions when only the brietbart and fix knows that AGW isn’t real. You need to throw everything away that was developed by science.

 

Are universities scientists ?
I guess you never graduated from college or you wouldn’t have asked that question.

 

Given that universities are not scientists why would even someone with faith in science trust universities?

 

When did Brietbart buy The Scientific American?

"The past few decades of research in cognitive, social and clinical psychology suggest that confirmation bias may be far more common than most of us realize. Even the best and the brightest scientists can be swayed by it, especially when they are deeply invested in their own hypotheses and the data are ambiguous. A baseball manager doesn’t argue with the umpire when the call is clear-cut—only when it is close."
SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN, Fudge Factor: A Look at a Harvard Science Fraud Case
Did Marc Hauser know what he was doing?, By Scott O. Lilienfeld on November 1, 2010.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/fudge-factor/

 

The entire peer-review process is nothing but institutionalized fraud and trickery. It is as simple as that. Something being peer-reviewed means absolutely nothing of substance.

 

Haha
Please, only university science departments and research institutes and NASA and Govt. departments are qualified to present concensus science. Individual scientists do not have anywhere near the credibility of these institutions unless they speak for them in official capacities. Absolutely NONE of your fake science is represented by an institution of note. These trivial little presentations by paid for lackies and are quite funny...like a bunch of Deepak Chopra and his woo woo. .

If you want credible science, you simply go to the most reliable on line opinions of these institutes. Anything else is a joke.
You guys are obviously unaware of what real science entails or you wouldn’t keep making these really funny assertions.
But it’s all in good fun. No one in the field takes you guys seriously. But, troop on. I like finding out how the other dudes think when their afraid of caravans.

 

You guys are such legends in your own mind. Amazing how smart you are. The biggest fakery in the history of man kind, AGW , and you found out that the people who put the man on the moon, cured cancers and developed the cell phones are all frauds. AMAZING.

 

Got anymore info on the grassy knoll ? Lee Harvey didn’t act alone did he ? Lee Harvey was a right wing terrorist you know.

 

I didn’t have to look anything up. Nor am I a Republican or a Trump fan. Unlike you, I don’t banty about regurgitating things into dialogue I know nothing about in an attempt to blow smoke to cover my ignorance and try to cloak in some garment of authority. It’s pretty risky considering you might run into someone that knows considerably more than you and able to raise the BS flag on your posts which tend to be used to go beyond the topic being discussed to try to denigrate those you argue with. When you interject a comment to support your arguement referencing Quantum Theory, and more particularly, having trust in it, be prepared to discuss the specifics. But, it is obvious from your phasing and asking the question, ‘do you trust Quantum Therory?’, that you are throwing the proverbial crap at wall to see what sticks; you have no clue about the state of the field of Quantum Research. Yet, from that position of ignorance, you characterize an entire political group of operating in ignorance. And, you want someone to take you serious... really? You remind me of those that trying to warn that scientists could potentially create a black hold at CERN that could swallow the earth, a warning of course, built on the physics of Hollywood, where the world’s greatest thinkers reside.

 

Quite the contrary. Few of us have anything but crudest representation of what quantum theory is, yet we have a life where 1/4 if our economy and nearly everything we do is dependent upon “ someone's “ understanding of it. Then, we take these same people and abuse their knowledge and reputations for political purposes by claiming they are frauds when it comes to AGW. It’s quite annoying listening to people pretend they know that the entire scientific community is embroiled in a scheme which includes every major corporation, every university and research center and every govt. official that isn’t named Trump. Now, claim you know what quantum theory is before you start dissing the scientific community for their contributions.
One thing is for sure, you do use woo woo....physics of Hollywood ?

 

That's because many gun huggers panic at the mere mention of the 2nd Amendment being repealed (even tho' it's unlikely to occur in our lifetimes). You think they'd have enough common sense to look at the reality of the overall picture but that's too much to ask them. Just the thought of losing possession of their Bushmaster's causes them to have a panic attack.

 

I hear you. But maybe in the mean time, repealing the 2@ is unnecessary. Maybe giving everyone a lesson in reading comprehension or reminding everyone that we can regulate firearms well enough to serve our purposes. In reality, doing away with “citizens united” would accomplish more then dealing directly with the nra to rewrite some of our firearm regulations.

 

Utter bovine excrement.

 

Well, I have more than a passing understanding of the state of quantum research because of my field of research. As to people accepting, acquiring and utilizing technology based on someone else’s knowledge, that is true to the extent that the knowledge has been used to create practical, marketable products. It’s easy to say anything is based on quantum technology if we assume every consists of the quantum building blocks of our universe. But, to say these things are based on Quantum Theory is not true. We used radio communications, radar, light, electrical devices and many other derivative technologies long before we began to develop a framework of understanding. And, despite the development of the Standard Model which has been extremely predictive, it still is considered incomplete, doesn’t mesh well with the thus far successful framework embodied by the Theory of Relativity...particularly are the relate to gravity and no one has managed to develop a unified model that can be demonstrated experimentally despite candidates being explored like the various flavors of Quantum Field Theory, String Theory, M Theory, Quantum Loop Theory, or Quantum Geometry, none have emerged around which a universal concensus has been developed. Hell, we still can’t explain one of the earliest experimental observations... the duality of matter, quantum entanglement, what imbues elements with mass, or why the measured speed of light appears constant to any observer. Yet, we are able to continue to push technology boundaries without reliance on quantum research. Then too, one of the attractions to various fields of study are the questions associated with any established theory...is it complete? Is it right?
Science is like every other human endeavor, it is fraught with group politics, dogma, greed, deception, bias, cultural entrenchment, Popes and Priests, renegades, and etc. that can result in competition that doesn’t always follow the path of idealism. There are frauds, cheet, biased enclaves, and those motivated by things other than knowledge and discovery. And, sometimes mistakes can be made as Einstein admitted and also publicly admitted submitting papers that were wrong. We publish to share our discoveries and for a host of motivations and often those that do the publishing have their motivations such as confirmation bias, profit, prestige, etc. The great thing about the scientific process, sharing can inspire and also provides opportunity to critique.
Want to make a career, consider that you can do so by being a Sir Aurther Edington confirming Einstein, or you can be the one that finds a discovery that violates the Theory of Relativity or that violates the Standard Model, signaling a new frontier for science.
If one is going to do a comparison of Quantum mechanics to that of understanding gun related violence and strategies for effectively reducing it, we don’t even have the flimsiest model that provides a understanding of the predicate, measurable causual variables ... just emotional speculative suggestion solutions tied to the various motivations and objectives of those pushing their political agendas... or those of trolls.

By the way, one thing science can’t provide are values... the major thing upon which most of the gun debate is based.