As a mathematics graduate I'm fucking pissed. This is a direct assault upon verifiability levied on the grounds of social sciences producing results that show statistical significance yet are not replicable. That's because social science isn't science, but these (((800 scientists))) are hedging their bets on tearing down statistical significance for real science to keep up the farce that is their cultural marxist based worldviews. Science has become a joke because of these hook nosed parasites.
Another step towards the fall of western civilization.
Cameron Davis
Your scope of research would probably be each individual leg then chief. You know how temperature works anyway right? That’s why you get evaporation despite not being 100C
Anthony Cook
They told us it was a fallacy to recognize the slippery slope, but here we are
Gabriel Bennett
Statistics are easy to manipulate, and the results of statistics are often times stated incorrectly.
Game companies will quote average time played as the amount the average player plays. Subtle, but completely different metrics.
Kevin Perez
What's wrong with Vox??? They bring us hard hitting FACTS like how statistics are RACIST and DON'T EXIST
Evan Bailey
>Study Shows not to listen to Studies Wat...
Ethan Robinson
I mean I'm a statistics graduate student and I've had several professors discuss this since the replicability crisis extends well into all disciplines (not just MUH SOCIAL SCIENCES) and the p-value is easy enough to manipulate tests and results for. So encouraging either 1) moving away from the p-value as the decision maker, or 2) restructuring how we accept results of studies seems to be the 2 most common responses I've heard. I mean it doesn't matter when everyone is testing at significant levels if they are purposely misconstruing data and results to get to that level, replicability is the main way to keep pharmafags and the lot from ruining our good names.
Leo Wright
how convinient, throw out the measurement method for effects vs placebo so you cant even measure if an effect is "real" or not anymore and you can just make shit up as you go along. "science" is officially done
inb4 a bunch of things arnt real anymore, you can just fuck off
Joshua Mitchell
They cannot be manipulated. That is the point. Perception and understanding can be manipulated. But if the statistics stay a hard science we at least have a chance of seeing the truth through digging.
They want to take that away. This is just marxist bullshit of there is no truth.
Nicholas Moore
This says the opposite of what you claim, OP.
“Statistical significance” is how scientists push falsehood as “proven fact”
Brayden Baker
>replicability
This.
Julian Fisher
No more 1 in 5 women are raped on college campuses No more whites use government assistance more than minorities No more cop vs blacks shooting statistics No more female discrimination in work place statistics
Are they sure they want to do this?
Tyler Parker
According to AAAS, there were 5.8 million science and engineering researchers in 2006. 800 is nothing.
Adam Butler
this OP is a troglodyte
Luke Rodriguez
>Vox employs 1000 people Fucking how?
Brayden Sanchez
Literally deleting the very idea of truth/reality in order to maintain their worldview.
Obviously, statistical significance is a racist, misogynist social construct meant to enforce white male colonist values. As a Nigerian, I would have expected you to be more sensitive to that.
Luis Flores
p>0.05 is bullshit though. One person said it and everyone decided to accept it for no good reason. It has been well known to everyone who actually cared enough to look
Juan Powell
Sounds like Climate Change Denial to me
Zachary Cruz
>The scientific method has lead science astray >Science has lead science astray >lol, who needs proof >Belief
>800 Not a very big number. Why the fuck do people write stupid headlines like this? The headline should be talking about why statistical significance is bullshit, not scientists SAYING statistical significance is bullshit.
Daniel Ward
>not replicable That's a fucking myth. Social sciences are highly replicable. (((Social Sciences) aren't. True research of human tendencies is possible despite the fact that it is corrupted today.
Ayden Rivera
>ITT: scientifically illiterate retards They're specifically talking about the t-test significance threshold alpha, which is usually 0.05 for most studies. It's mostly arbitrary and it makes sense to discuss what it actually means and what it doesn't, since many scientists use it without really understanding why or even when it's allowed.
Christian Morris
Lol that headline is b.s.
Statistic woo is a problem but stats in general is not a problem. Just like Physics has physics woo woo quantums and black nigger holes which divide by zero.
Grayson Parker
>Believing a Vox article will have any impact whatsoever on fucking anything on the planet
Ryan Rodriguez
I spoke with an old friend from school yesterday. She said that I have to accept that some people are not as smart as me and be happy that I am. Its ok that philosophy or other social science borderline retards spend only 4-6 hours a week for uni. She literally has an attention span of 1 minute. Like all of them. You have to understand that those (((people))) are legit stuipid and some 120IQ fags go there to satisfy their need to feel genious. Those become profs.
That is why they need to get the results presented. "I heard that scientists say" or "I red that book and it said" or "my prof said" or "scientists agree" is THE argument to be correct. Its because they are incapable of understanding any elaboration, they dont even get the concept of an elaboration or a logical chain.
William Bell
>Here is A >It actually means B
Is this peak onions journalism?
Luke Long
>t. I red a popular science journal once in my life
What a shock this is coming right after the entire field of psychology and other social sciences were revealed to be built on hoaxes and fraud with unverifiable studies.
In a way this is better. Cast off the pseudoscience trappings of these fields and reveal them for what they are, Jewish gaslighting.
Alexander Sanchez
Didn’t read but I’m guessing it’s 800 social scientists, they HATE not getting any citations followed by having their results not reproduced lmao.
David Rivera
Statistically speaking the errors present represent less than 0.05.
Logan Martin
>Vox Who gives a fuck about what a Vox article has to say?
I'm not going to dwell on the subject too long, but statistics absolutely can be manipulated. Many scientists have been paid or pressured into manipulating statistics. The simplest way is by rerolling your random sample until you get one you like. Let's say your random sample has 100 items, 30 of them have undesirable traits, you can then discard the samples until you get one that has less undesirable traits.
Brandon Nguyen
1) Appeal to authority
Just because they are scientists you believe everything they claim? Scientists have never been wrong *eyeroll*. In science, it's what you can prove with facts, not a dumb survey of their consensus. Where are these scientists from? How many were surveyed?
If a million scientists were surveyed and only 800 agreed with something on a survey, we should take that as fact or something? Bullshit. 800 scientists from North Korea and Cuba? We should take that as facts right? Bullshit.
800 scientists say we should hang niggers and jews. We should do it right? Never question it? Leftists would scream racism and ignore the survey. But if something they like from the survey..hurr durr but da scientists believe this, we should do it..
>Sir Ronald Aylmer Fisher FRS[3] (17 February 1890 – 29 July 1962) was a British statistician and geneticist. For his work in statistics, he has been described as "a genius who almost single-handedly created the foundations for modern statistical science"
>Fisher held strong views on race. Throughout his life, he was a prominent supporter of eugenics, an interest which led to his work on statistics and genetics.[8] Notably, he was a dissenting voice in UNESCO's statement The Race Question, insisting on racial differences.[9]
Modern science is not the pursue of truth, is just a tool to disseminate the liberal ideology. At the 30's (((they))) realized the only logical outcome of science is Nazism.
Samuel Torres
If scientists told you to jump off a bridge to strengthen your spine, would you do it? >t. Retard shill who thinks he can outbrain a Literal board of autists
Jacob Moore
But statistical significance doesn't let us twist the imprecision of our temperature recordings into a climate doomsday prediction.
WHY ARE YOU A CLIMATECAUST DENIER
Brayden Bailey
>800 (((scientists))) Wow, that’s a lot!
Gavin Hernandez
"Well, maybe OP is just a faggot and is trying to make it look like click bait." >reads article So much deflection from the real issues. Science has been completely jewed.
this. the standard values for statistical significance were chosen arbitrarily. P-hacking is endemic particularly when it comes to corporate and government statistics
Jacob Butler
Gonna check your rare flag.
Jackson Evans
(((vox)))
Joshua Kelly
Wow first objectivity was disproven objectivley
And now science is disproving data science.
Its really true when they say science is evolving exponentially
Parker Williams
As a Physicist I am appalled, but not surprised.
What are the backgrounds of these 800 scientists? Dietary Science?
Benjamin Diaz
>the layman doesn't understand how p values work >science needs to abandon it No. Fucking idiots need to stop telling us how to do our jobs.
t. pharma bro
Andrew Martin
Same with Galton and Pearson.
Benjamin Bailey
> We must learn to embrace uncertainty. One practical way to do so is to rename confidence intervals as ‘compatibility intervals’ and interpret them in a way that avoids overconfidence.
This is a good comment. I was a scientist and when talking to people about anything political I had to remember to be conservative in my speech. People wanted my take on climate and other geology related topics. What they wanted to do was take my casual remarks and copy them. So that they could say "Well a scientist I talked to said x". People don't want to learn. They just want to feel secure in knowing that someone else is doing the work and they can fuck around with whatever they want.
Kevin Howard
>Researchers can never completely rule out the null (just like jurors are not firsthand witnesses to a crime). Is it just me or is this a fucking retarded analogy?
Ryan Davis
Brainlets itt.
The standard for statistical significance is arbitrarily set to 95% confidence (p=0.05) intervals
This means that data reported is 95% certain to have an average value within the reported range of you were to replicate the study. The problem is people are improperly applying this 95% standard drawing improper conclusions or they are fixing thier data so that it fits within the 95% threshold.
The lack of general understanding of statistical modeling by the general population makes that data manipulation or erroneous analysis generally accepted.
This is scientists trying to fix the study and analysis of statistics so that it is more difficult to falsify or make mistaken inferences.
This is literally Stem trying to stop Studies disciplines from abusing stats for their own BS.
Aiden Moore
Saw this and thought the same things user. Social science isn’t a science in the way we mean it to be. Social science is a measure of effectiveness of propaganda. Not of sociology because sociology assumes organic social field. Not a heavily media-fed population with all the levels of subtly to implant mental viruses.
The point may be that at .05 , one out of 20 bullshit statistical findings is deemed statistically significant even though it’s bullshit. While this may be fine in the scientific community, the ideologues and advocates will latch onto the outlier and discard the 19 similar studies that prove otherwise.
Nicholas Powell
>Jow Forums will soon support post modernist ideas because they realized that science is used by (((them))) to maintain oppression. Wouldn't really surprise me since the right has just started copying the bullshit tactics of the left with all of the identitarianism and outrage culture.
Kayden White
Sounds like lying to me. Guess we should throw everything out because there is a way to cheat the truth
Dylan Barnes
worse then that they use the outliers to generate more statistically irrelevant studies and continues following desired outliers until 70+% of studies are non reproducible and statistical false positives.
Samuel Hernandez
No
Levi Diaz
I am a research assistant and can confirm that many people (students mostly) do not fully understand statistical significance, but the reason is ALWAYS that it is not intuitive, and significance values can be discussed. A significance value of 5% is just a rule of thumb, not something to blindly follow. These '800' scientists are surely in the minority if they think statistical significance is useless. It's basically the backbone of modern particle physics.
Jordan Reed
Sounds to me like (((they))) want niggers to be viewed as equals, even when reality proves otherwise.
Of course physicists tend to apply stats properly they are high level mathematicians.
The problem is stats are used by every discipline and the less math savvy disciplines abuse the everloving fuck out of statistical significance either from ignorance, malice or both.
Logan Reyes
I don't know enough about that stuff but it's true that a lot of the methods used in "science" now are horseshit.
Cooper Davis
They should then provide empirical evidence that this would improve scientific objectivity instead of bloating the (((scientific community))) with low IQ, successfully programmed, no SAT necessary subhumans. The article talks about science culture. There is no science culture. It’s a crab in a bucket race for tax payer funded money bags from NSF and other government led grant fund pools. They talk about the layman definition of p value but to any trained scientist, the scientist understands what a p value is. Also it has a ticking Wikipedia page. They don’t need to do away with significance. They need to shill the Wikipedia page harder.
A single source will almost always show bias or negligence. Look at global warming/climate change, or insect populations. But then again, you run into consortiums where any study that runs contrary to the generally approved political stance will be black listed. So really, the best way to proceed is to access the raw data and do your own analysis or be in a place where data is used to create policy, and ask for multiple sources and have them vetted in house.
Ian Nguyen
The prophecy of Saint Joseph foretold of the dark age we are about to enter. It will be a primitive world of superstition and libertinism and the most unholy abominations inspired by hell itself. We have not seen anything yet.
