The reason that social science studies are so junky is obvious–they are often loaded up with political agendas, driven by intellectual passion and the beneficiaries of journal editor publication bias and a desire to be covered by the mainstream press.
Psych and other social science journals are easy on authors and accepting of their papers if they are writing about what the lefty psych community wants to promote as reality.
Methodology and scientific integrity give way in the social sciences research community to consensus political agendas and confirmation/tunnel vision bias in the service of the “consensus.”
J Scott Armstrong, professor at The Wharton School of the U of Penn, has made a career of being an expert on modeling for good predictive accuracy.
I have put his essays up favorably recently because he has adopted the outline as presented by this less authoritative or lesser known writer. Scott warns don’t get too far away from reality, and study your subject carefully.
Indeed that is good advice–so why can’t the IPCC modeling community listen to common sense?
Because they need to push the agenda and get that treaty in Gay Paree.
John Graham’s well regarded paper on the problems of EPA research is linked below.
Posted in Climate Change, climate science, Economics, Environmentalism, EPA, Junk scientists, Methodology, Researcher Misconduct, Risk assessment, Scientific method, scientific misconduct, Uncategorized
Tagged weather extremes
As you might know the new exec at American Council on Science and Health (ASCH) is Hank Campbell, who started up Science 2.0
Here below I pasted what I think is a thoughtful and informative essay on the research funding issue we mentioned in the last 2 days. I have a couple of comments that are critical of Hank’s analysis but we agree on the big point that big jumps in research funding are not necessarily going to be efficient or productive. Hank agrees but says more that needs to be said.
We still don’t know cancer very well, what we can do with the genome is very limited.
This essay discusses how money for research in Biotech is not paying for much output.
You can read hear what a lefty mag has to say about science fraud, junk science in service to an agenda or ambition. The Atlantic is troubled that the statist hegemon would be corrupted. Me too.
At the big journals they always ignore the government conflicts and emphasize the private sector conflicts. Full time government and heavily funded government researchers don’t include their obvious conflicts on their papers.
Why is it they think that they are not corrupted by agency pressure and the knowledge that they better put up what the agency wants or it’s no promotions, no grants, no appointments, no AAAS or NAS memberships, no awards and status to help their academic careers along.
This letter could have been written by the JunkScience. com team.
However, we won’t object to the source, since we approve the content.