I prefer audio because I'm not stuck in a chair but, more importantly, I can speed up voices to 1.5X or even high if necessary to speed through a three hour radio show into ~75 minutes. I can also "re-read portions (or the whole thing) to pick up anything I missed.
As for the Wiley retractions, John Ioannidis' work on scientif…
I prefer audio because I'm not stuck in a chair but, more importantly, I can speed up voices to 1.5X or even high if necessary to speed through a three hour radio show into ~75 minutes. I can also "re-read portions (or the whole thing) to pick up anything I missed.
As for the Wiley retractions, John Ioannidis' work on scientific fraud and incompetent peer review is well documented, although I don't think he went far enough. If we factor in the fraudulent references that are used to support new publications, I suspect that the rate of bad publications is closer to 100%. Just as a faulty pin or fan blade can take down an airliner, the progeny of bad science is more bad science. Once you dig through everything with an objective and intellectually curious eye, it becomes clear that much of our library must be burned down, completely. Enduring truths will survive.
I agree with you. John Ioannidis is a lovely man and highly intelligent. I think he is well respected. Let's hope there is at least 1% which are correct. Hope. I has lost my hope. I am clinging to that 1%.
That one percent should be easy to find because it usually comports with easily verified and reproducible common sense. And because common sense is so easily understood, there's little need for more than a free online library of meaningful work that's available to everyone, including serious researchers. Charlatans and alchemists could not survive such a scheme.
Great idea!
I prefer audio because I'm not stuck in a chair but, more importantly, I can speed up voices to 1.5X or even high if necessary to speed through a three hour radio show into ~75 minutes. I can also "re-read portions (or the whole thing) to pick up anything I missed.
As for the Wiley retractions, John Ioannidis' work on scientific fraud and incompetent peer review is well documented, although I don't think he went far enough. If we factor in the fraudulent references that are used to support new publications, I suspect that the rate of bad publications is closer to 100%. Just as a faulty pin or fan blade can take down an airliner, the progeny of bad science is more bad science. Once you dig through everything with an objective and intellectually curious eye, it becomes clear that much of our library must be burned down, completely. Enduring truths will survive.
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/11/lies-damned-lies-and-medical-science/308269/
I agree with you. John Ioannidis is a lovely man and highly intelligent. I think he is well respected. Let's hope there is at least 1% which are correct. Hope. I has lost my hope. I am clinging to that 1%.
That one percent should be easy to find because it usually comports with easily verified and reproducible common sense. And because common sense is so easily understood, there's little need for more than a free online library of meaningful work that's available to everyone, including serious researchers. Charlatans and alchemists could not survive such a scheme.