SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
This latest result is "pretty damning," says University of Maryland, College Park, cognitive scientist Michael Dougherty, who was not involved with the research. "Citation counts have long been treated as a proxy for research quality," he says, so the finding that less reliable research is cited more points to a "fundamental problem" with how such work is evaluated.
[...] University of California, San Diego, economists Marta Serra-Garcia and Uri Gneezy were interested in whether catchy research ideas would get more attention than mundane ones, even if they were less likely to be true. So they gathered data on 80 papers from three different projects that had tried to replicate important social science findings, with varying levels of success.
Citation counts on Google Scholar were significantly higher for the papers that failed to replicate, they report today in Science Advances, with an average boost of 16 extra citations per year. That's a big number, Serra-Garcia and Gneezy say—papers in high-impact journals in the same time period amassed a total of about 40 citations per year on average.
And when the researchers examined citations in papers published after the landmark replication projects, they found that the papers rarely acknowledged the failure to replicate, mentioning it only 12% of the time.
Well, nobody likes a Debbie Downer, do they?
Journal Reference:
Marta Serra-Garcia, Uri Gneezy. Nonreplicable publications are cited more than replicable ones [open], Science Advances (DOI: 10.1126/sciadv.abd1705)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 01 2021, @02:23PM (9 children)
You are assuming people won't believe what they are being fed. When in fact, people are believing it. The News Paper or News Channel said it, so they believe it. Survey's say the media trust is low in the US. That isn't stopping people from believing what they are being told. Just look at the state of US Society and how divided it is on almost everything. People are not thinking for themselves, and they aren't accepting people who think for themselves. Believe the Social Science news reports, and if you don't you are wrong. Weird situation we are in.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Socrastotle on Thursday July 01 2021, @03:06PM (1 child)
Ah! But again I think you're not considering the order of causality here. Somebody does not become right wing because they stumbled onto and started reading Breitbart. Instead people with right wing tendencies seek out Breitbart and then believe what they read because they *want* it to be true. And similarly, somebody does not become left wing because they picked up a copy of the NYTimes and started reading it. Instead people with left wing tendencies seek out the NYTimes and then believe what they are told because they *want* it to be true. If you swapped the ideological narrative of both sites, yet kept the same respective quality (or lack thereof) of truthfulness, their readers would most certainly suddenly stop believing what they were told. Because it would not be what they *want* to be true.
And so people are thinking for themselves, on at least a basic level. They choose what they want to be true, and then seek out information to confirm that view. If their news sources of choice stop confirming that view? No problem they just move to the next one that does. In the age of the internet, they are limitless.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 01 2021, @06:42PM
I used to believe that, but I'm no longer sure. The Trump presidency stands as empirical evidence of that. There are literally too many instances to count, but the big one which got me was how quickly "Lock Her Up" disappeared when Trump said a word about not wanting to pursue that anymore. And remember how much of the Republican Party was "Never Trump"ers, but how quickly that changed?
As another example, consider the Democrat's (and the "left") opinion of Russia. It want from "why can't we all get along, this isn't the cold war anymore" to "you don't understand, they are a major threat to our democracy." Likewise, the Republican's (and the "right") quickly went to "you can never trust a Russian" to "ehh, Putin isn't such a bad guy."
My current theory is that people establish their affiliation with something (be it an idea, a group, or what have you), and then that defines them. If that group changes, then most people go along with that change. If The Party announced "the cacao ration has been raised from 10 grams to 8 grams," sure, some would question it... but I think a lot more would cheer the party for doing such a great job.
(Which is why it is all the more important for Benjamins of the world to not just be cynical asses and to actually do something to help the situation... to mix fictional metaphores.)
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 01 2021, @03:07PM (6 children)
My favorite is when you point out to someone a particular claim is completely false with documentation, sometimes even a retraction. Yet they repeat the lie even if they don't completely believe it because somehow it makes them feel good. Example lie: Donald Trump suggested people inject themselves with bleach for coronavirus. What moron could've ever believed Trump would say this in the first place?
(Score: 2, Flamebait) by DeathMonkey on Thursday July 01 2021, @03:20PM (5 children)
The morons who believe their own eyes and ears over the words of a liar?
Here, try for yourself. [youtube.com]
(Score: 5, Insightful) by PiMuNu on Thursday July 01 2021, @03:37PM (4 children)
To state the obvious, he isn't suggesting people inject themselves except through a very perverse reading of the words. You are exactly confirming GP's point.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Thursday July 01 2021, @04:33PM (3 children)
He said doctors should try injecting people with bleach. Is that supposed to make it less stupid?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Socrastotle on Thursday July 01 2021, @05:33PM
No, he said that disinfectant has the ability to completely destroy the virus in the realm of 1 minute and it'd be interesting to see if doctors could find a way to inject it or somehow use it for a "cleaning."
Consider, for instance, antibiotics. Part of the reason the uptake was so slow (it took more than a decade) on penicillin, the first antibiotic, is because it's extracted directly from the penicillium mold. You know that bluish green fungus that forms of rotting food? That is (or at least may contain) penicillium molds, which can be harmful to you in a number of ways if directly exposed. The idea of isolating that and then injecting it just because it seemed to destroy some bacteria in a petri dish is, to say the least, counter-intuitive, and so the discoverer had substantial difficulty simply getting people to accept what he claimed - which would ultimately revolutionize healthcare and the entire world.
It's like saying in that case that Fleming was suggesting people toss some mold into a blender and inject. That's just being intentionally obtuse, at best - and, again, rather emphasizing the above posters points.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 01 2021, @05:35PM
You do see the question mark at the end, dont you?
(Score: 4, Touché) by PiMuNu on Friday July 02 2021, @07:33AM
No, he is asking for research into using bleach or equivalent stuff to kill coronavirus. It clearly is a stupid idea, but that is irrelevant.
You have *twice* deliberately misinterpreted what Trump said to make a political point, which confirms exactly what the GGP said - i.e. people don't look at evidence, they would far rather confirm their own political bias.