President Donald Trump
I assume it's still acceptable to have a Trump thread in a Politics forum?
So this is an obvious lie - basically aimed at
I think it’s pretty stupid to make a claim about a reproducibility crisis as the Vice President of the US and not cite any evidence of it.
guys try for a second to just examine the claim, and tell me what you thinkJD Vance@JDVanceThere is an extraordinary "reproducibility crisis" in the sciences, particularly in biology, where most published papers fail to replicate. Most universities have massive bureaucracies that inhibit the translation of basic research into commercial adoption. The voting patterns of universi
Bro, you spend like 18 hours a day posting... why haven't you taken a couple of seconds to figure out how to embed a tweet?
I think it’s pretty stupid to make a claim about a reproducibility crisis as the Vice President of the US and not cite any evidence of it.
Yes, Vance is an idiot and is parroting whatever right wing talking point he heard, but of course biology and social science can't wait for 5 sigma results like particle physics to publish. Publishing lower level results that are actually possible to obtain and then failing to reproduce them in independent studies is actually the best way to figure out whats true in messy fields with tons of variables and unknowns.
Yes, Vance is an idiot and is parroting whatever right wing talking point he heard, but of course biology and social science can't wait for 5 sigma results like particle physics to publish. Publishing lower level results that are actually possible to obtain and then failing to reproduce them in independent studies is actually the best way to figure out whats true in messy fiel
only if the incentives to publish null results are the same and if journals publish your null results the same.
otherwise you end up with literature littered with false positives and you are actually worse off than if you had never published in the first place wrt knowledge accumulation.
which means that a ton of subsidized "science" is actually detrimental right now to the accumulation of knowledge, if it stopped we would be more informed about reality than if they keep going like this.
we are subsidizing the actual pollution of knowledge.
They can publish null results all they want. Nobody is going to cite them so scientists have little incentive to waste time looking for them These are just market effects that the Trump/Vance low IQ brigade don't understand and don't really care about. They are just trying to excuse Trump's obviously ridiculous behavior like demanding the name and country of origin at foreign Harvard students. That's obviously unjustified and targeted harassment because Harvard is demanding the Trump administration follow the law. Vance's point that this is somehow the fault of liberals is Vance level dumb.
no they can't publish null results, journals won't publish them often enough.
nobody is citing them because... they don't care about knowledge, only about being relevant.
and you aren't relevant in science by just denying some claims are true.
those are the incentives in place today which make science often a negative externality endeavor.
which means it is time we stop subsidizing that horror show.
Vance is justifying the slashing of federal subsidized science which is happening right now and it's going on parallel to the war on Harvard and other leftist strongholds which is motivated by other reasons.
Harvard (among others) is violating civil right laws because it still uses race as an admission and hiring criteria.
They should just stop giving any consideration to race in admission and hiring, as it is fully illegal to do that.
it is completely illegal to ever take race into consideration for any determination about hiring or admission.
it's very linear and everyone who wants the rule of law to apply should agree.
the federal government should use it's full power against actors doing illegal, and disgusting, things like using race for admission or hiring.
Nobody is going a cite a paper saying broccoli shows no positive correlation with leukemia because it is not interesting and everyone assumes that anyway without even studying it. I don't think it’s a coincidence people like Vancxe and you who have no understanding of just science or high school level statistics suddenly pretend to care when you have to defend this idiocy.
If conservatives care about academia find people smarter than you and affirmative action cases like Trump and Vance to make the arguments. As it stands now, there is no interesting argument in Trump vs Harvard no matter how much republicans demand DEI hires of low IQ conservatives on the Harvard faculty for political balance.
I think it's incredible to ask for evidence of what is uncontroversially known to be true among everyone who spent any time researching that
Is he making public statements to only those people or to the entirety of the US?
Also calling it a crisis is in itself a claim that requires rational justification. So why should this claim be privileged over other claims that are supposedly unreproducible.
Crisis implies there is a problem, is there something preventing the advance of science for this lack of reproducibility?
no they can't publish null results, journals won't publish them often enough.nobody is citing them because... they don't care about knowledge, only about being relevant.and you aren't relevant in science by just denying some claims are true.
lol.
Im so glad trump doing that stupid idiocy presently , im just hoping all those useless scientist that will lose their jobs will migrate to Canada !
We love fake News and fake science here !
I figure if Trump spends the morning tomorrow fixing healthcare, he'll have plenty of time in the afternoon to fix academia and then the evening will be free to broker world peace. MAGA!
no they can't publish null results, journals won't publish them often enough.nobody is citing them because... they don't care about knowledge, only about being relevant.and you aren't relevant in science by just denying some claims are true.those are the incentives in place today which make science often a negative externality endeavor.which means it is time we stop subsidizing
About using blind loyalty with no competences for admission or hiring ?
Is it more acceptable ?
Lol. Are you that banned dude named lag something that had a closeup of a face for an avatar?
That be me! I was unbanned by Crossnerd.
You can pray all you want to whatever you want, but you're a narcissistic little cnut if you think any know-all deity is going to be influenced and persuaded by your prayer. Gtfo.
Please don't think for one minute that you can gain favor with me through flattery! (Money might work though.)
Yes, 100%. And it wouldn't make sense from a faith perspective if they didn't believe they were talking directly to God. The problem is the talking back from God part.
I agree.
I have heard none of them say it's an audible voice but that it's a message that comes to them via deep thought with a strong sense of peace. Kind of like dudes that have taken DMT, acid, ayahuasca, or whatever that get a different perspective to handle a problem in their lives.
Fair enough.
Is he making public statements to only those people or to the entirety of the US?
Also calling it a crisis is in itself a claim that requires rational justification. So why should this claim be privileged over other claims that are supposedly unreproducible.
Crisis implies there is a problem, is there something preventing the advance of science for this lack of reproducibility?
man it has been called the replication crisis for like 10+ years now.
the expression has a wiki page
yes it is a problem. a huge one. it's a combination of journals being biased, of peer reviewed not doing their work, of p hacking and so on.
it's all well known and again, uncontroversial. even rectitude isn't denying that. everyone knows that, or he has no clue about the topic. it's like saying water is wet.
the state is funding fraud to a growing extent basically. and that fraud is being managed and profited from overwhelmingly by leftists as they control all ganglia of academia.
it's a bottomless pit of money poured toward the pockets of leftists.
It is largely a statistical fact that when you publish 3 sugma results you will get a ton of false positives but in some fields it would be impossible to say even something like exercise reduces risk of heart disease to 5 sigma so scientists get around it by publishing and independent verification. Vance and the modern conservative are too stupid to understand what amounts to high school math so they make it political and pretend like the president banning foreigners or asking Harvard to name names is somehow a reasonable or se social response.
man it has been called the replication crisis for like 10+ years now. the expression has a wiki page
yes it is a problem. a huge one. it's a combination of journals being biased, of peer reviewed not doing their work, of p hacking and so on.it's all well known and again, uncontroversial. even rectitude isn't denying that. everyonI challenge anyone to read the wikipedia page on the replication crisis and come away with the takeaway that JD Vance knows what it means and he understands what the proposed causes are, or what has been put in place to cure it.
Do you think that a government bureaucrat who doesn’t know what it means would be able to tell you how to fix it? Because that is what JD Vance proposed.
You and JD make is sound like no scientific paper has ever been reproduced, and by specifically calling out BIOLOGY he is implying that BIOLOGY is a field in particular that has been hurt by this crisis.
So again, JD Vance is misrepresenting what’s going on, and if he is going to use that phrase he should explain what he means with data and examples.
Edit: Also “the state is funding fraud”. Luciom read the Wikipedia page that you posted! There is nothing there about fraud. You don’t understand what the phrase means and neither does JD Vance. The people who discovered the crisis were scientists and philosophers, not insane conservatives like you and Vance. Many people who use the phrase outside of academia, like you, don’t know what they are talking about.
Breaking news: Luciom is a lying piece of ****
Up next: which celebrity just released a sex tape? The answer may surprise you
It is largely a statistical fact that when you publish 3 sugma results you will get a ton of false positives but in some fields it would be impossible to say even something like exercise reduces risk of heart disease to 5 sigma so scientists get around it by publishing and independent verification. Vance and the modern conservative are too stupid to understand what amounts to
Why do you think the bold is true?? you can have small but almost certain effects , even much more than 5 sigma. Antibiotics being efficacious against various bacterial infections is 10+ sigma.
And btw if a genuine 3 sigma result was published, it should replicate 997 times out of 1000... that is if the study design was proper (you fixed the effect you wanted to look for BEFORE doing the study).
Now if you do a study of a population doing (or not doing) something and you measure 3000 variables as outcomes... and publish the 3 sigma results , 10 of those variables are expected to have variated outside the 3 sigma by random chance and that's not going to replicate ofc.
You don't get a "ton of false positives" at 3 sigma looking for a specific effect of a treatment if you declare what you are looking for beforehand.
Now in medicine you will have problems pinpointing the actual quantification of the effect. The range will be wild at low p values. That can make political tradeoff decisions impossible unless you are willing to use the median of the range to quantify benefits.
But for exercise reduction cardiac risks the fact that at least a small effect is basically certain is in literature and is replicated, the range doesn't go into the negative even at 5 sigma.
I challenge anyone to read the wikipedia page on the replication crisis and come away with the takeaway that JD Vance knows what it means and he understands what the proposed causes are, or what has been put in place to cure it.Do you think that a government bureaucrat who doesn’t know what it means would be able to tell you how to fix it? Because that is what JD Vance proposed
The bold is the logical sequitur , politically, from a rightwing position. I was trying to guide you through the process.
So the replication crisis is massive, it exists, and it is getting worse. And this is uncontroversial (i think you now agree on this?). It happens because of a complex web of reasons, all linked to academia and scientifical publishing.
Academia and scientifical publishing is controlled by leftists (do you need data on self -identification of professors, journal editors and so on politically?). Everything that happens in that field is because of leftist decisions.
He cites BIOLOGY because some people do acknowledge and admit social sciences are fully captured by leftism , but they think STEM isn't. Biology having a massive replication crisis disproves that notion.
Therefore leftism is CAUSING the replication crisis.
That's the logical political conclusion.
The solution must thus start from *removing leftism from academia and scientific publishing*. You cannot fix it without fixing the root cause we just determined is upstream of the replication crisis (and any other problems in academia).
Given a lot of money is given to academia to perform leftism and create those problems, i use the word fraud to describe what's going on: money syphoned to leftists to do leftists thing while they destroy the very element they should purportedly nurture with that money (science).
Keep in mind the context is "why is Trump slashing funds for research and why that's a good thing". It is a good thing because those funds are used to encrust even more leftism in academia, while destroying science.
And the replication crisis is the iceberg tip showing us clearly how disastrous the situation is.
The giant Trump banner at the USDA is another sign the U.S. is sliding into autocracy
softening people up for potentially more authoritarian behavior
Many strongmen love to display giant photos of themselves wherever they can.
Attorney General Pam Bondi,
Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem
and Secretary of State Marco Rubio have all taken turns to give
dictator-style tributes to the president during recent meetings.
The military parades, the idolization of the leader, the sycophantic comments —
those are the kinds of things that we’ve witnessed from afar in places like North Korea
It’s softening people up for potentially more immoral and authoritarian behavior.
Because if Trump can dress up the White House like a palace for a king,
then why can’t he accept a $400 million plane from a foreign government?
If he can put up a giant banner of himself on a government building,
then why not put up more until Trump becomes omnipresent
Why do you think the bold is true?? you can have small but almost certain effects , even much more than 5 sigma. Antibiotics being efficacious against various bacterial infections is 10+ sigma.
Lol? There aren't enough humans on Earth to test any drug to 10 sigma. The chances of you dying spontaneously by no clear reason while reading this post or right after taking an antibiotic is significantly higher than 10 sigma. Again, maybe people like you and Vance that literally have to go back to high school level course work if you want to understand just the background reading on this should not be picking fights with Harvard and actual scientists who not only know all this but are significantly smarter to begin with?
