RFK Jr.’s health department calls Nature “junk science,” cancels subscriptions
-
And, for that reason, about half the papers (depending on the field) published in Nature are wrong.
Citation needed
-
Because the journal is so highly respected, half the papers are wrong?
What
I'm a researcher. Nature is good but it still has mistakes. Sometimes they are a tad sloppy but they are still far, far better than what you may know from popular science. In general, some mistakes are normal and expected because science works by finding and fixing mistakes, not by immediately discovering ultimate truth. This applies even in math.
-
Have you tried suntanning your asshole?
Only if I can help Gwyneth Paltrow steam-clean her Gua Chakra.
-
Got evidence for that bold claim?
Anecdotal only, sorry. I'm sure it varies by field, and it's more about letters than longer papers. There are probably fields where Nature is excellent, but I know that there is at least one where the odds of a letter to Nature being accurate a few years later is about 50%.
-
I'm a researcher. Nature is good but it still has mistakes. Sometimes they are a tad sloppy but they are still far, far better than what you may know from popular science. In general, some mistakes are normal and expected because science works by finding and fixing mistakes, not by immediately discovering ultimate truth. This applies even in math.
I can agree with that. And I'm sure it's because letters on the forefront are published quickly without time to consider all the possible problems.
-
He used to pop the eye balls out of birds heads and eat them raw
- fucking why?
- how did you learn this abomination?
-
And, for that reason, about half the papers (depending on the field) published in Nature are wrong.
Yeah that's just stupid
-
And, for that reason, about half the papers (depending on the field) published in Nature are wrong.
tell me you have never read a Nature published piece, without saying you have never read a scientific paper
-
Anecdotal only, sorry. I'm sure it varies by field, and it's more about letters than longer papers. There are probably fields where Nature is excellent, but I know that there is at least one where the odds of a letter to Nature being accurate a few years later is about 50%.
Ok, so you got nothing, and you're talking out of your ass. Great, thanks. Go outside.
-
This post did not contain any content.
Did they just hear the term junk science and went "no u"?
This administration is so fucking frustrating, but it seems they want to remove any meaning of that word, the same way they always do.
-
that sounds like the dumbest horseshit I've ever heard of, both because an educational journal is built on its reputation, and because even if it were true, you'd still be wrong to imply that's a bad thing for a different reason: proving some other guy wrong is part of the process.
let's assume -- even for a brief moment -- you are, in fact, 100% correct with this claim.
You're almost definitely not, but hey, let's assume.
scientists are all about being right, so much so that they loathe their own frauds (watch some BobbyBroccoli documentaries if you don't believe me), and they also take extreme pleasure in disproving each other. sometimes, good science is in trying to disprove what some other guy or some other team said because "I want to be right/I want that fucker I hate to be wrong (we're all petty humans, even scientists)/I want us to understand the world better, and we need to know if this is in fact as they claim". Peer review is ingrained in their doctrine, that's what good science is. You think if someone, a person with enemies, competition, and friends alike, got their paper in one of the most prestigious educational journals in the world, someone, somewhere wouldn't be going "nuh-uh! I bet I can prove otherwise!"? And at that point it's two scholars betting their career dick to swing around that they're right and the other guy's wrong, unless of course peer review actually means that prestigious journals generally don't publish horseshit.
in short: your claim is not only wrong, it is... a fundamental misunderstanding of how science works as a concept, I feel? Maybe not always in practice -- there's always politics sticking their dick into the mix to muddy the waters -- but that's part of what these journals pay and charge for. Prestigious peers. To review papers and generally make sure that nothing they publish is outright bullshit.
now, are they fair prices for knowledge that helps us all is another debate, but suffice to say: going "fuck you I'm gonna find out if you're wrong" is literally part of the job.
Are you just, like... not that bright? Or is this just a transient phase, a hard night for you?
the problem with this is you wrote an epic takedown. it took you so much more time and effort that the pigshit you replied to.
this world isn't fair.
but you deserve more, you nailed it
-
the problem with this is you wrote an epic takedown. it took you so much more time and effort that the pigshit you replied to.
this world isn't fair.
but you deserve more, you nailed it
wrote on last edited by [email protected]it's not about a takedown, really, I'm not trying to be mean (not especially hard, anyways), I just want to understand what Nature, or science as a whole, did to piss them off enough to make shit up about it. Or if they're just having a bad day they oughta just say so.
-
This post did not contain any content.
Damn, what a bad
weekmonthdecadecentury for US healthcare! -
Did they just hear the term junk science and went "no u"?
This administration is so fucking frustrating, but it seems they want to remove any meaning of that word, the same way they always do.
Did they just hear the term junk science and went "no u"?
That's EXACTLY what they did, yeah. Just like when they appropriated "fake news" which was originally a term describing their own disinformation.
-
- fucking why?
- how did you learn this abomination?
You know I'm part of a club where we try to eat one of everything to maintain our dominant position in the food chain, but he makes us look like freaks. And not the fun kind of freaks.
-
Kennedy is a germ-theory denier who believes people can maintain their health not by relying on evidence-based medicine, such as vaccines, but by clean living and eating
I fucking hate this timeline
Must be why he looks like he has a bad liver or too much colloidal silver, like some dumb smurf-hillbilly Hoosier
-
Just when I'm about to retire, Medicare will only cover chiropractors and horse paste.
And colloidal silver!
-
Anecdotal only, sorry. I'm sure it varies by field, and it's more about letters than longer papers. There are probably fields where Nature is excellent, but I know that there is at least one where the odds of a letter to Nature being accurate a few years later is about 50%.
wrote on last edited by [email protected]but I know that there is at least one where the odds of a letter to Nature being accurate a few years later is about 50%.
...
you know, there is a difference between "getting published in Nature" and "submitting your work to Nature". It's subtle, perhaps: one involves being published in the journal. For the world to see and scrutinize.
I bet they get lots of letters that they do, indeed, find aren't well substantiated enough to publish.
Also, one field. Lmao.
Also, please tell me why you made your first comment, I'm genuinely curious. Did you read about this somewhere? Where, if you recall?
-
This post did not contain any content.
They're probably already in the data set of whichever LLM they use to write their policy documents anyway, so sure, fine.
-
This is all going to be covered by a snarky longform YouTube (or equivalent) documentary in 200 years.
wrote on last edited by [email protected]keep me in the screenshot unless you want your subscriber base to know this guy from the past thinks you suck.
also, we're so sorry. not all of us, but some of us.
