The reproducibility crisis

Watts Up With That? does a good job covering the climate scam, the only flaw being that they post so much good data that one is apt to lose sight of the forest for the trees.

The have recently posted an excellent post on the reproducibility crisis. The short of it is that nineteen out twenty science papers seem to be making up their data.

I would say that this reflects incentives. If you actually make observations, you are bound to run into some land mine of an ever growing and ever holier orthodoxy enforced by peer review, while if you simply make stuff up, you will be fine. So any scientist who believes in actual observation eventually finds himself in some other career.

The influx of priestly types into science was bound to result in an exodus of scientist types, in the same way we are seeing an exodus of engineering types from open source, and it appears that this transformation is now complete. Science is now about one third global warming, one third the neglected role of women, and one third making stuff up in the style and subject matter of famous science papers from back in the day when scientists actually did science. Soon scientist will stop bothering with those postmodern pastiches on old fashioned science topics, and it will all be about the oppression of drag queens.

And, since I am covering WattsUpWithThat, here is the short on global warming science. So I am going to give you the view from twenty thousand feet, and suggest you spend a week reading Watts Up with That to get a glimpse of a small part of the trees.

For the full sordid tale, search their site for references to the Climategate files.

The climategate files, most of which I myself read, are the internal emails of the climate conspiracy. It is obvious from their internal emails that the official climate scientists do no know and do not care whether the world is warming or cooling, whether humans are causing it or not, and whether it would be bad or good.

Their objective is to indict humans in general, whites and western civilization in particular, and anglos specifically, for crimes against Gaia.

In the climategate files, one encounters a few low status scientists who are worried about actual facts. They did not doubt holy global warming, they just wanted the data proving the sins of mankind to be genuine data. They all swiftly ceased to have careers in science.

What is the motive for this conspiracy?

Lots of motives, but the motive we saw on display with South Australia’s Green Energy program was to shakedown the electricity grid for a few bucks in the course of destroying South Australia. Instead of turning wind and solar power into electric power, and electric power into money, they turned wind and solar into superior holiness, superior holiness into status, and status into money.

South Australia wound up with blackouts, brown outs, sky high electricity prices, and massive imports of electric power from coal mining states.

I think most of them are in it for the shakedown. Global Warming resembles the Aztec religion, in that human sacrifices are required to ensure that the sun rises tomorrow. And then the priesthood get something in return for their influence over who gets sacrificed.

Of course there are some, the Greta Thunberg Bernie Sanders crowd, who just like human sacrifice. If not global warming, they would find some other justification, as Trump told us at the Davos conference.

90 Responses to “The reproducibility crisis”

  1. simplyconnected says:

    Just want to point out that Peter Thiel recently gave a talk that would not be out of place here:
    * the need to reform the academy
    * professors being a “priestly class”
    * technological decay
    * cost of 1 mile of NYC subway 50x compared with 100 years ago.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SO_00POR-Po

    • jim says:

      Barr has also been giving some good stuff on progressivism as a religion that intends to immanentize the eschaton, and has been campaigning for praetorian support.

    • Not Tom says:

      Was fairly good right up until the bit where the host started yammering on and on about “anti-American” institutions and derpity derp China man bad.

      I think/hope Thiel was just playing along to be a good guest, because the host is clearly still in thrall to the cardboard history that Moldbug exposed a decade ago. I know there are degrees of comprehension, I don’t fault normies for being less far along than we are, but it’s like Top 40 music, all saccharine and formulaic and devoid of authenticity and generally unlistenable.

      • pdimov says:

        Thiel was probably holding back a lot, but I don’t think Metaxas was that wrong. The institutions really are anti-American in the sense he meant it, America here referring to the great America of the past. It is a central tenet of progressivism that the present is better than the past, as it is a central tenet of global warming that the present is warmer than the past; and if the present is in fact not better or warmer, the past must become worse and colder.

        • Not Tom says:

          He was rather explicit in some parts that anti-American actually meant pro-China and related concepts.

          In the abstract, I suppose I’ll agree that American companies should look out for American interests over foreign interests, no matter what those interests happen to be. However the real issue isn’t that American corporations are prioritizing foreign interests, it’s that they’re prioritizing the most evil and dysfunctional American interests, some of which happen to include globalization as a matter of convenience or moral posturing.

          I didn’t really hear him [Metaxas] talk much about being against the America of the past, or even show any in-depth understanding of what the America of the past used to be. I think Thiel may have been trying to nudge him in the right direction, but all the host wanted to talk about was bad actors or unspecified decay in otherwise wonderful institutions.

          The whole thing reminded me of SSC’s “cost disease” – depersonalizing the problem and turning it into an uncrackable abstract. Thiel alluded to this when he said “we can talk about what, but not whom” – Metaxas either didn’t get it or was stopped by crimestop. Even after Thiel had adamantly explained that the technological and scientific slowdowns were extremely unlikely to be due to running out of low hanging fruit, minutes later, Metaxas felt it was necessary to give his hot take that there just wasn’t anything else close enough to the moon, that we’d just climbed the highest mountain and that was it. How facile and halfwitted.

          Thiel is a very smart guy, but Metaxas strikes me as basic-bitch conservative. I’m pretty sure his idealized vision of “America” is Stars and Stripes and Apple Pie and Constitution – or something between that and today’s clown world.

  2. James says:

    It’s interesting to speculate about where the scientist types and engineer types might go. Obviously, they have fled the commons for the enclosures. Which enclosures will they go to? A lot of the larger private fortunes are outright hostile to truth telling in science and not exactly friendly to engineers with big mouths.

  3. Anonymous 2 says:

    In somewhat related news, I see that Eric S Raymond just got kicked out of OSI for being a hurtful person.

    http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=8609

    • jim says:

      His position is that social justice warrior are the real bigots.

      He concedes all their principles and all their anticoncepts, and complains when they are applied in the fashion that inevitably and necessarily they always must be applied.

      He endorses evil and is indignant when evil has evil consequences and evil people act in evil ways.

      He complains about social justice warriors, and in the comments the social justice warriors point out that blacks and women are nonexistent in open source, and he has no answer to them.

      • nerdbash2020 says:

        I like ESR a lot since he got me into technology, but he really does fall into this classic trap of half wokeness where he’ll realize Tradition was correct about X. But this fact is just a coincidence, and while we must not deny the truth about X, it would be far worse to embrace Tradition. The list of this coincidence grows to X, Y, Z, A, B C as the redpills grow, but still, it’s more important we don’t just listen to Tradition.

        I think it’s just classic Yankee psychosis, just manifest in a particularly smart individual. Yankee values themselves being poison is the one pill that just cannot be taken. Every bad outcome of them is just a strange coincidence.

        • Anonymous 2 says:

          I revisited the thread and watched ESR’s sad meltdown with (somewhat ironic!) bannings of unacceptable right wingers and retreats into vague, yet apparently finely honed, appeals to modal logic to keep some light between him and the HBDers. It’s actually philosophical statements, you see, not statistical ones.

          In case you wonder about modal logic, I think this page summarizes ESRs position reasonably well:
          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Possible_world

          So “HBD is true” is a ‘true statement’ (i.e., true in our world) but ESR claims it is not ‘necessarily true’ (i.e., true in ‘all possible worlds’), so he rejects it.

          Yet I suspect we shall never see his kripke-semantics of our existence, nor that he will judge all statements about biology and indeed science to be ‘accidental’ rather than ‘essential’, which he by the same reasoning should. Well, too bad but perhaps not surprising. He prefers to remain clubbable, and perhaps not unreasonably so.

          • jim says:

            That is high IQ progressivism not being acceptable to progressives. It will not save him. If Trump fails to become Caesar Augustus, esr will be killed by the left, and I will not be. As the Khmer Rouge killed all high IQ Khmer Rouge, the progressives, if not stopped by a Cromwell, a Napoleon, or a Stalin, progressives will kill all high IQ progressives.

            His too clever by half rationalization will be deemed fascism, and fascists, we are told, only understand violence. If progressivism continues without being stopped by a Sulla, a Cromwell, or a Stalin, all such cleverness will be fascism, and esr will killed along with Scott Alexander, Scott Alexander likely being ahead of esr in the line up to the guillotine.

  4. Bilge_Pump says:

    Jim, this is the first time Ive seen you use “I” in a post. I didn’t think you had actually written it at first.

  5. Mordicha Goldshekel says:

    Don’t worry about carbon tax. You’ll pay it if we say you will goyim. Just keep behaving like shabbos goy and maybe we’ll let you lick our boots.

  6. notglowing says:

    While I certainly believe that these problems in science are real and widespread, I don’t think that it’s nearly at the same level in every field and some real, useful science is still being done today.
    There are fields where it’s easier to fake results and some where it’s harder, and I can say that there are still scientists who are very passionate about the importance of rigor in research.
    I have a lot of respect for my own professor (physics) who is extremely strict and thorough in evaluating our experiments and our papers, and who always demands quantitative proof for any claims we make in our papers.
    If our results are incorrect, we have to find out why, and prove exactly how our mistakes affected the data.
    He’s certainly hammered in his students’ heads the importance of proper methods in experimentation, and also sound statistical analysis.
    I wish there were more people like him. He’s not afraid of being very rude and “abusive” to his students, male or female. And I think other students respect him for it, from talking to one who graduated.

    • Jan Martense says:

      I don’t think that it’s nearly at the same level in every field and some real, useful science is still being done today.

      For sure, the level of corruption is directly correlated to how “politicized” the field is, i.e., how much of a threat true research would pose to the current order. Since the current order’s claim to legitimacy is itself predicated on social and (human) biological claims, these fields are the most repressed. Physics discoveries don’t pose a threat to their rule except insofar as those discoveries are made by badpeople, and hence the only requirement imposed on it is diversification.

      This is yet another reason to prefer absolutism of some kind. Only when power is completely secure will the sovereign have no incentive to manipulate knowledge in order to bolster his own legitimacy.

      • RedBible says:

        One interesting study that makes a more blatant openness to suppress studies that don’t fit the narrative is the Rind et Al study. First and only study to be disavowed by congress, and the idea that “The social impact of a study should be considered before letting it be published” was openly canonized.
        Funny thing is despite all the claims that it didn’t properly control for “factors”, all studies that have attempted to control for said “factors” have resulted in the same conclusion/result.
        But honestly the results of the study aren’t really the mind boggling if one already understands and accepts Jim’s position on how 9 year old girls flirt/seduce on/with adult men.

        • Leon says:

          What was the finding of that study? Every summary I have read simply stated that CSA wasn’t as harmful across the board but the summaries didn’t state for which genders/ individuals it was not as harmful. The study seems to be quite suppressed, even on the internet.

  7. Jan Martense says:

    >What is the motive for this conspiracy?

    The biggest motive is as a means to co-opt the environmental movement into something subservient to leftist political goals. As bloggers like PA have pointed out the term “conservation” is naturally in the domain of the right; we conserve natural spaces for the same reason we conserve traditions: humans have evolved, are literally meant, to enjoy those things. Before the hippie movement environmentalism was widely placed on the rightist side of the political spectrum and traditionalist writers (Chateaubriand through Tolkein) embraced it. In this period it usually implied stuff like preserving land from development, not dumping garbage around, etc.

    Certain aspects of this “real” environmentalism (like land usage laws) are naturally acceptable to leftists, but many fly in their face. Most glaringly, stuff like opposition to migration to prevent sprawl and trash-chucking third-worlders. Similarly, it has become evident that globalization is terrible for the environment; invasive species like Dutch Elm disease have done far more catastrophic damage than global warming even if the latter is real. Finally, allowing whites to flee to hideous suburbs built on former farmland or forest masks many of the ill effects of diversity.

    Notice how environmental organizations which used to oppose suburbanization and globalization now solely focus on getting you to stop eating meat and using electricity. How convenient.

  8. Encelad says:

    https://www.researchgate.net/publication/332210820_Atmospheric_CO2_Concentration_and_Other_Limiting_Factors_in_the_Growth_of_C3_and_C4_Plants

    In this scientific article, the author admits that a higher CO2 concentration has benefitted plants to a great extent. However, he still concludes that CO2 is bad because of climate change and booming population that will lead to water scarcity. Note that by booming global population, he actually means booming black African population. I may be biased to see things that are not there, but to me it seems that he is somehow forced to stick to the Narrative and he couldn’t just present positive results from CO2 without still warn about doomsday.

    • James says:

      That’s because he knows he won’t get published. This is a very common tactic in papers. The abstract says what it needs to say in order to get through peer review and not torpedo the academic’s career; the data contradicts the conclusions in the abstract.

      Since people who care about truth can extrapolate an accurate conclusion from the data, but the gatekeepers really only care about the conclusion and don’t give a damn about how you got there, the paper’s author can still get good data out while not being immediately eaten alive by the progs.

  9. Aldono says:

    It’s just what happens when civilization rejects God.

    As pointed out by one James Hannam, what we call “Science” is deeply rooted within Chrisitan Europe and dependent on its vision of Creation where a God designed rules to be discovered by men and held Himself to them (rather than hordes of capricious beings/creatures like in pagan theologies or one legalistic god jumps from one whim to another like in Judaism/Islam). The West rejects God and rejects any standards for behavior that not only keep society healthy but keep art beautiful. Becomes more lower-trust.

    Your “Celebrity Scientists” are either ancient Anglos like Dawkins who knows somethings off about his society but can’t or won’t admit his work for much of his life played a role in its current state, Jews like Pinker there to glorify Globohomo, Affirmative Action Babies like Neil Degrasse Tyson and Angela Saini (bonus for Angie shilling womyn/Darkie resentment or Kill Whitey books), and mega cucks like that Phryrangulaa (or whatever you call it) blog’s owner. The lot of them won’t say anything against multiculturalism or tranny bathrooms out of either cowardice, dishonesty, or them being proud progs.

    • info says:

      Even pagan europe was more aesthetically sound than modern european man.

      • Mike says:

        Well no fucking shit. Pythagoras would blow any of the above retards out of the water.

        • info says:

          @Mike

          Pagan Europe still had connection to Eden the Paradise of God. But modern man in his hatred of God even severs that link.

          To spite God unlike the Pagans who still reached for God they made monuments of blasphemy.

  10. Omar is just a Trump card now. says:

    There is a movement in US science now, led by the University of California and a few similarly Woke institutions, to add a Diversity Statement as a required job application essay (of course it will be used as the single most important item) in addition to the usual research and teaching statements. The point is to have the Diversity office take over the school by progressively (sic) replacing the faculty with diversitroids, who will agitate for a bigger diversity office, which will demand more energetic hiring of the ‘roids, ad infinitum.

    The business end of the rot is not peer review that Jim harps on, but hiring and research funding done by the usual social means. Journals have for practical research purposes been replaced by online open archives in which anyone who wants to practice reproducible research can do so.

    • BC says:

      Universities appear to be in the process of self destructing themselves with diversity hires.

      • Omar is just a Trump card now. says:

        This business with Diversity Statements is a new and more pernicious thing, Woke flexing its muscles because it is feeling strong.

        Before, in science, having a few extra faculty and graduate students that would not have been there otherwise was a modest cost of doing business. The cost was often zero in that these people came with extra funding from separate sources rather than cannibalizing positions that would have gone to the non-diverse.

        The new philosophy is to “institutionalize diversity at all levels”, which is to say, make it all Woke all the time with control agents installed everywhere, in a way designed to accelerate the process toward a complete takeover and gutting (what Jim calls “wearing science as a skin suit”).

  11. JP says:

    Did you see that the AMS now rejects the fact that the Sun heats the Earth? Seriously. If you submit a scientific paper to the alarmists which states that the Sun heats the Earth and creates and sustains the weather and climate, they’ll reject it!

    https://youtu.be/kUNQTyH76j0

  12. Hudson H Luce says:

    I ran across this 40 years ago. I’ve got a PhD in physical/organic chemistry, one of the synthetic routes used to make a particular compound we were interested in involved a step which reportedly gave a much higher yield than the usual reaction employed – and since the reaction for that step was developed by a Fellow of the French National Academy of Sciences, it should probably work. It didn’t, not after two months of doing it over and over under slightly different conditions, purifying reagents, solvents, changing solvents, you name it – it didn’t work, and I saw the sun come up numerous times after a long night of hard work. So I told my prof, showed him my rather extensive notes, and we took another route. My prof called this guy in France, but he wasn’t up to talking about it too much for some reason. Another friend in grad school at Cornell had been working with the same reaction for a year, no results, same as me, and we wrote each other letters about it, and finally *his* prof got this French guy in a corner and got out of him that the reaction was bogus, the paper was totally made up – and it was finally retracted. In the course of my graduate career, I also did peer review on papers, and got a few tossed because their claimed results couldn’t be repeated. But that was 30 to 40 years ago, and things may have changed. A place to look that’s often interesting is https://www.retractionwatch.org

  13. Speaking as an ex-climate scientist (well published in the field), I can certify everything Jim says it true.

    It’s not at all restricted to climatology, either. Any and all fields that are connected in any way with politics are corrupted and becoming worse. Climatology you know. Sociology is nearly all progressive propaganda. Anthropology is lost. The late and great philosopher David Stove called such areas as Education as “intellectual slums”. And that was before “Studies” fields came along.

    What about math? Pozzed, like everything. Math is hard, and produces “disparities”. The only known way to eliminate them—for this is mandatory—is to redefine math. It’s happening.

    Science is not completely infiltrated, but the trend is everywhere in that direction.

    The good news is that…anybody now can be a scientist.

    • Hudson H Luce says:

      Sociology was pure BS 40 years ago, it’s just gotten worse, same case for the rest of the “soft sciences”. And in any field, there’s way too much garbage being published, lots of sexy results that get lots of big grant bucks – but which don’t hold up. From time to time, there’s a scandal – look at Retraction Watch sometime.

      • Paulus says:

        The problem with sociology is the sociologists.

        A “good” sociologist right now, could be uncovering the data concerning the amount of garbage parading as science right now, and this would be legitimate non-BS sociology.

        Currently, our religion proclaims the superiority of peer-review science over any and all kinds of other “religions”. It is kind of sad really.

    • lavpur~davduc says:

      I’m not sure if math is completely pozzed yet. At least not in the same way those other fields are. It is not propaganda they are producing, but it is totally useless.

      The way it seems to work is that small groups cluster around tiny niche topics, only ever being cited by each other. Its always possible to construct some new kind of mathematical object and then spend your entire career proving various properties about it. Claims about the real world applications of these objects are almost always rubbish.

      This setup makes the constant pressure from the woke HR even worse, because success becomes fully dependent on cosying up to these freaks and creeps, and its not enough to survive purely on merit. Funnily enough, even they aren’t delusional enough to try and get the Abos into math.

      Much of math is so far abstracted away from reality that it isn’t even possible to politicise the results. The complete corruption of academia just means that nothing of value ever gets done.

      Then again, there is this: https://blogs.ams.org/inclusionexclusion/2017/05/11/get-out-the-way/

      • yewotm8 says:

        Should I be ashamed to admit it took me a long time to figure out this was an ostensibly serious article?

      • Dave says:

        To get around the hiring ban, just declare yourself a trans-black homosexual woman. No need to change your name, clothing, or body — lots of black women have pale skin and penises, you transphobic bigot!

        Not for me personally because play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

        • Contaminated NEET says:

          You don’t even know what you’re trying to say:
          >just declare yourself
          >play stupid games, win stupid prizes
          So is declaring oneself a member of a protected class an easy, common-sense, foolproof measure, or is it an idiotic move that sets you up for severe punishment? It can’t be both, Dave.

          • Dave says:

            The “stupid prize” I had in mind involved getting a paycheck but having to spend eight hours a day in a thoroughly converged workplace. Like Randle McMurphy faking insanity to get out of prison, then having to live with people who aren’t faking it.

  14. Mike says:

    The real question is, do Chinese and Russian scientists reproduce it? If not employed by a Western institution, they’re just about the only independent scientists left.

    • Not Tom says:

      I don’t want to go all “China sux” boomercon here, but Chinese scientists will reproduce whatever they’re paid to reproduce, and while Russia has come a long way since the days of Lysenko and Chernobyl, there is clearly nothing in their genetic makeup that prevents them from making stuff up, and Russia is known for having high levels of corruption.

      The reproducibility crisis, as it currently stands, transcends national boundaries. Progressives are making it way worse, but peer review and perverse incentives are rampant in every country.

      • Mike says:

        To some degree I concur, but from what Spandrell and Karlin have said, it sounds like scientists over there get to do quite a bit of wrongthink that we can’t do over here.

        • Not Tom says:

          Karlin is a leftist midwit who routinely peddles disinfo and can be safely ignored, while Spandrell, though I love the guy and appreciate his significant contributions to the DE, is deeply black-pilled and needs to be taken with a grain of salt.

          I have no doubt that Chinese and Russian scientists get to do more studies that would be taboo in the American empire – but this isn’t about that, it’s about even the non-taboo fields being broken by peer review, an influx of incompetence and an exodus of competence.

    • Hudson H Luce says:

      My experience with Chinese scientists over here is that very few of them are competent, a lot are just out and out spies, who come over here to steal. I knew one who was extremely competent and intelligent – and I helped him to defect – this was in the mid-1980s. He had “minders” – two other fake Chinese “scientists”, probably PLA types, they were pretty dumb. Don’t expect that Chinese will be high in creative intelligence, the Chinese school indoctrination system gets rid of them on a routine basis – can’t have free thought in a police state.

      • jim says:

        The proposition that China is more of a police state than we are is untrue, and science here is suffering worse from lack of free thought than science in China is.

        A society where you cannot honestly depict the courtship dance is more severely unfree.

      • Atavistic Morality says:

        >Don’t expect that Chinese will be high in creative intelligence, the Chinese school indoctrination system gets rid of them on a routine basis – can’t have free thought in a police state.

        Let me get this straight, you are here because you realize the falsehood of progressivism, but even though you’ve never set foot in China you somehow believe you possess a keen insight into its culture and country.

        It’s getting really boring, to read even among “fellow reactionaries”, this constant China bashing like you people knew what the fuck are you talking about. I think it’s time to wake up, the only information you’ve ever gotten about China is from the same institution telling you that drag queen hour is the best thing ever and that your existence as a white man is a sin.

        I’ve never been to China, but China isn’t trying to have me hanged for being a white man. China doesn’t destroy countries to teach 9 year old girls to put condoms on bananas. China doesn’t glorify faggots and strong independent womyn. China is not responsible for diversity and multiculturalism. No matter how you look at it, the only evil empire here is called Federal Government of the United States, and I don’t see the word China there.

        Or perhaps you think that China is still the same country it was in the 1980s, lost track of time, never realized it’s been 40 years, 40 fucking years, that’s almost twice what I’ve lived! And in my lifetime, I’ve seen Zapatero and PSOE turn my country into a formal progressive soviet. Can America even be called the same country it was in the 80s? Should I consider Trump’s America, Obama’s America? Even though it’s been like 4 years only. No, a reasonable person can’t do that, a good faith actor doesn’t do that.

        And also, the Chinese man you “helped defect” was trusted, given resources and supported by his country, then he decided to betray them to support progressivism and the evil empire that literally discriminates against Asians like him because niggers and womyn need to be proven effective engineers. Sounds like a fucking traitor to me, like one the guys that are getting some quality time with Cominator.

        • Mike says:

          Eh, I get annoyed when Spandrell and others circlejerk China as the great savior of the world. They aren’t my people buddy, I don’t need to love them. However, I’m not a retard, China is not responsible for the pozz.

          • Atavistic Morality says:

            Sure, I’m not saying you have to believe that China is a great savior of the world. You don’t need to love them, like them, mention them or even fucking acknowledge its existence. I just don’t want to be fed fucking enemy propaganda by “my own people”. If I wanted to listen to the official narrative of the State Department I’d go to harvard.edu.

            CHINA BAD is as retarded as ORANGE MAN BAD, unless someone is willing to offer recent personal experience, I don’t give a shit what the progressive media says, give me a fucking break.

        • I don’t say much about China because I don’t know much about it, one way or another. Especially not modern China.

          Historically, China achieved a high level of civilization and simply stayed there. Dynasties changed hands, civil wars killed millions, barbarians came in and took over, and none of this seemed to matter at all. Kublai Khan took over China, but in a few generations it was back to business as usual except the ruling class was a little buffer.

          Somehow, China always avoided complete collapse, but at the cost of what some commenters call “innovation”. Their explorers went as far as Africa, but the will to colonize was simply not there. “China invented gunpowder and only used it for fireworks for a thousand years” is one of those things that hints at a deeper truth.

          Only time will tell if contact with the West, with physical and ideological modernity, actually shook it out of its slumber, or if this is another “business as usual” case of power changing hands, and China will simply revert to its imperial system under communist names, with a “President” instead of an emperor and a “Party” instead of a mandarinate.

          I will reserve my judgement on China until it becomes obvious one way or another whether this is a new China or the same old China. But I do believe that what is good for China is not necessarily good for us. There are very deep differences between the Chinese and European man that are masked by the fact that both have converged on a generally high level of competence. It is easy to get along with a Chinaman, but I do not think I will ever truly understand him.

          • info says:

            @Aidan Maclear

            Would be interesting to see the impact of Christianity there. But in places like Africa we will not be alive to see it.

      • Dave says:

        I’ll believe that China is capable of developing its own technology when they start building safe, reliable liquid-thorium reactors. They certainly aren’t holding back for lack of thorium, of which they have thousands of tons in the tailing piles of their rare-earth mines.

        • BC says:

          I’ll believe that China is capable of developing its own technology when they start building safe, reliable liquid-thorium reactors.

          China invented the E-cig in 2003. They’ve been steadily innovating in a lot of fields. China’s building there own tech. Remember the US stole English tech for almost a century before we started inventing our own tech.

          • ““I must study politics and war that my sons may have liberty to study mathematics and philosophy. My sons ought to study mathematics and philosophy, geography, natural history, naval architecture, navigation, commerce, and agriculture, in order to give their children a right to study painting, poetry, music, architecture, statuary, tapestry, and porcelain.” —John Adams

      • Aldono says:

        China hate in these circles is just its version of Russian hate: Seeing an ultimately more healthy society than one’s own (if only on one’s inside) and scorning it for it.

        Both China and Russia have a stronger sense of an organic identity (read: not coomsumerism or Wahabbist Islam) than Americans and aren’t afraid to tell who doesn’t belong among them (hint: it’s not about “ideals” but blood). Don’t pretend being a fag or dyke is normal and is okay for kids to be but shove them in the closet (where they belong if they can’t just be thrown in bogs). Don’t let too many racial outsiders have a position in the state like Obongo had. Have foreign policies that serve their core populations rather than hostile elites.

      • Oak says:

        Don’t expect that Chinese will be high in creative intelligence, the Chinese school indoctrination system gets rid of them on a routine basis – can’t have free thought in a police state.

        This may be more to do with having more feminine personality traits (more agreeable and conscientious).

        This is Dutton’s theory on why higher avg. IQ, but less innovative. Similar reasons to why very high IQ women don’t innovate.

        It may also have something to do with having a more feminine IQ distribution (clusters around the mean, fewer outliers). But they statistically they should produce lots of genius-level IQs, even with lower deviation.

        Don’t know about Russia, although their military technology is now starting to surpass US in some areas which is promising.

        Russia was genetically strip-mined by WW1-Revolution-WW2. Very dysgenic, but might recover and surpass western white IQs in next 100-200 years if nothing changes.

  15. Wilbur Hassenfus says:

    “The short of it is that nineteen out twenty science papers seem to be making up their data.”

    That’s not what it says. It does say that a shocking number of “scientists” who submit papers to this particular editor — 40 papers out of about 200 — are made up their data.

    That number is not a universal constant, but it confirms a serious problem.

    Yeah, I know you deliberately exaggerate for effect. And I love you anyway.

    • Oak says:

      It looks like 40/180 are confirmed to have made up their data, the rest being indeterminate as we don’t know if raw data was requested/provided.

      Of the 21 that withdrew upon request of data, some still got published elsewhere.

      All looks very dishonest, publishing for credentials with no concern for truth-seeking.

      • Not Tom says:

        Yes, looks like about 20-25% of papers in this field are making shit up, not quite the 95% originally implied. Still, a huge number to be literally making shit up.

        • Oak says:

          20-25% at the very very least. Looks like some of the rest got through without submitting raw data.

          Also not sure what credence to give ‘raw data’ if 20-25% caught red-handed making stuff up. Probably some others fabricating data.

          Need to make academia low-status to attract only truth-seekers.

          • Not Tom says:

            No, 20-25% got flagged, and of those, about half had bad/suspicious data and the other half appear to be straight up bullshit. The ceiling is about 25% for this journal if we assume that this reviewer was looking at a random sample.

            Of course it’s possible that more bad studies simply weren’t flagged, particularly in soft sciences. “Molecular Brain” sounds like hard science to me. It wouldn’t surprise me to see that number go up to 50% or higher in psychology, sociology and so on.

            • Oak says:

              No the remaining 75% are indeterminate.

              If only 1/40 of those that were flagged were deemed good enough, their flagging system is not very rigorous. Also lol that some withdrew but still got published at another journal.

              Anyway all that matters is that science is becoming Fake and Gay, article shows that clearly.

              • jim says:

                Most of those that published at another journal published in journals that theoretically required the data to be available.

                And yet, it was not.

              • Not Tom says:

                They were not indeterminate. They were reviewed by the same guy, who did not flag them for a lack of raw data, implying that they did have it.

                It wasn’t a case where he drew 41 out of 180 and only reviewed the 41, he reviewed all 180.

                Yes, science is becoming fake and gay, but facts matter. Ignore facts, and you also become fake and gay.

                • pdimov says:

                  No, it doesn’t imply that they had raw data. He just didn’t request it. The 40 were flagged as “too good to be true”.

      • jim says:

        We do know that despite rules and demands requiring them to present their data, they did not present it.

      • Javier says:

        Most studies are observational so even with the data they are of limited value. Consider the classic “Global warming vs Number of Pirates” graph. When a study ‘suggests’ a causal link it means further research is needed, but further research is not conducted and the media declares the suggestion a ‘proven fact.’

  16. I had a girl once who was a grad student in a hard science. She felt like her thesis was a horrible mess of fake science that didn’t make sense, I looked it over, and it was indeed a pile of bullshit, but everyone reviewing it nodded their heads and told her how good it was and she got her degree. Tells me that all science being done today is cargo cult science, and all scientists don’t know what they’re doing. The generation that knew how to do science died, and didn’t pass down their knowledge sufficiently to a generation of midwits and affirmative action hires.

    It’s an intuition of mine that education is necessarily a personal process, and without the in-person master-apprentice transmission of skills, it is impossible to pass down expertise. Information can be transmitted at a distance; can learn a lot about history by reading a book. But cannot learn to -do- science without actually -doing science- under supervision of a master scientist. When the masters were forced to stop doing real science, students stopped learning how to do real science. Thus all scientific institutions are fundamentally corrupt. Even a noble-minded student who wants to do real science is incapable of it, even if we had the right people in charge incentivizing good science.

    • R7 Rocket says:

      @Aidan MacLear

      “I had a girl once who was a grad student in a hard science. She felt like her thesis was a horrible mess of fake science that didn’t make sense, I looked it over, and it was indeed a pile of bullshit, but everyone reviewing it nodded their heads and told her how good it was and she got her degree.”

      The astronomerettes who attack Prophet Elon Musk’s Starlink after every Starlink Falcon 9 launch are a good example of this.

      • Malachi says:

        “When the foundation is destroyed, what are the righteous to do?”

      • Aldono says:

        There’s been a prog meme that space travel/rocketry is bad. Came up in Hunters.

        • alf says:

          That does sound like the next logical step.

          • R7 Rocket says:

            The BaiZuo prog cannot attack space travel directly, they must attack it indirectly lest the generals notice the BaiZuo progs jibber jabbering evil.

            Starship / Superheavy reusable rocket’s extremely fast testing and development iteration is spooking them. They did not expect someone to land orbital rockets like God and Heinlein intended.

            “Waaa! We’re supposed to have endless fake spaceplane projects looping back and forth between Boeing and Lockheed Martin!”

          • R7 Rocket says:

            @alf

            I just asked one of these anti-space travel flat earthers a multiple choice RedPill on women question.

            Refused to answer the question. When I asked the anonymous flat earther to just randomly select one of the choices, he still refused.

            It looks like the negro-worshipping half of the USG state religion is sending fed shills to promote flat earth stuff.

        • Mister Grumpus says:

          > There’s been a prog meme that space travel/rocketry is bad.
          > Came up in Hunters.

          On Jeff Bezos’ TV network of all places too. The Blue Origin guy.

          Can you elaborate on what you saw?

          Because yes, I know that you’re onto something. Enthusiasm in real-life space stuff is starting to take on a certain defiant undertone. Raging against the machine in a way that’s of course quite nerdy, but also more loud, proud and muscular than web and crypto stuff.

          It’s big, it’s loud, it’s assertive and of course mostly white and male and everybody knows it.

          That movie First Man was obviously an attempted proxy humiliation ritual. Just a bunch of dumb insensitive white men with no EQ who found this rocket one day and got lucky. The (unmarked) red ballcap that Gosling wore in his memory montage while impotently standing still on the moon was the giveaway.

          • Aldon says:

            It (Hunters) is a show that’s one big Jewish revenge fantasy (ala Schindler’s List) complete with throwing Negresses in for extra Negro support. It’s backstory is that Operation Paperclip was a conspiracy between the Fourth Reich and Mean White Men to get Nazis into Murica. The threat of the Soviet Union is ignored as much as possible (nor is Commie infiltration ever both recognized and treated as a problem as big as imaginary Nazi infiltration is).

            The rocket example comes up for Werner Von Brahn. He gets electrocuted by the Nazi hunters with the Uglier Negress yapping about the millions killed for rockets.

            And it doesn’t stop there. A woman meant to be Leni Riefenstahl gets feed excrement for being Goebbels’ favorite filmmaker. You think it might be ridiculous garbage, but it’s really the pinnacle of Holocaustianity and Capeshit.

            • R7 Rocket says:

              Nigger worship vs taking Mankind to the Stars.

              Today’s Great Schism.

            • Mister Grumpus says:

              Hold the fuck on. This fictional TV show portrays the capture and torture of very much non-fictional historical figures like Werner Von Braun and Leni Riefenstahl?

              Is that even legal?

              Characters with these names? Or “just” characters who are obvious stand-in pinatas of these people?

    • S.J., Esquire says:

      Yeah. It’s been clear to me for a long (long) time that anyone who doesn’t realize that most scientific data is made up hasn’t done any hands-on science in an academic setting, that’s all. I was an undergraduate working on my honours project in biology – doing the bitch work of taking actual measurements, as undergrads or grad students do, because that’s how it works – when I realized that I could make anything up and my supervisor would never know. She’s just running stats on the raw data that I provide.

      And now that’s what I see every. Single. Time. I look at a paper.

      • purpletigerbot says:

        Similar situation with my research. Was basically told to run simulations and adjust parameters until the data was close enough to expected results.

      • Anonymous 2 says:

        The Satanic Verses (Science Edition). When not even flagship studies can be reproduced the state of the art becomes clear.

    • Johnny Caustic says:

      Really spot-on comment, Aidan. You should add it to your Orgy of the Will blog. In particular, your second paragraph is exactly right. At the highest levels, science can only be learned through appenticeship.

      Bruce Charlton has made the same point, as eloquently as you albeit in different ways, but I haven’t seen anybody else say it but you and him. He’s watched as the last generation of honest scientists retired and were replaced by careerists.

    • Dr. Jim says:

      Bruce Charlton pretty much has the Death of Science covered in several works going back to 2010.

      A summary is here

Leave a Reply for The reproducibility crisis | Reaction Times