> you’re directly trying to link “corruption” with the reproducibility crisis

Data that doesn't reflect objective reality is by definition corrupted, but yes of course human-related financial corruption is a major factor- from the clinic to the corpotate pharm boardroom. How could it possibly not be a factor, given human nature? What other explaination would you propose for the scientific vetting of oxycontin?

> I’m a career scientist

Who funds your grants?

You don't, others might.

https://www.futuremedicine.com/doi/10.2217/cer-2021-0137

>> a) if .01% of a system is genuinely rigged, is this statement as a binary True or False: "The system is rigged." > > > > Its false, the tiny minority does not define the overwhelming majority.

If you bought a product that says "Pure Product A" on the label, but it is not in fact composed of 100% Product A but instead also contains .01% of a carcinogenic substance, would you consider the label to be objectively accurate (aka: True):

a) considering the "fact" that the tiny minority does not define the overwhelming majority?

b) considering that "the tiny minority does not define the overwhelming majority" may not actually be factual?

> Calm down

?

[deleted]

[deleted]

Regardless of the purpose of a given study, if it isn't reproducible it isn't scientifically valid, full stop.

> who > has yet to > answer.

Calm down champ, I have a life.

> > a) if .01% of a system is genuinely rigged, is this statement as a binary True or False: "The system is rigged."

Its false, the tiny minority does not define the overwhelming majority.

> b) if two people answer differently, is one of them correct and the other incorrect, objectively and necessarily?

Yes, one of them is correct and one is incorrect.

> dangerous misinformation

Oh! Better alert the guardians!

> doing science, especially biological science, is very difficult to fully control

It wasn't brand-related enzymatic variance that caused oxycontin to be proclaimed non addictive. You're trying to obscure the argument with overtechnicality and moralistic finger wagging. How dare I criticise science? Bud, you're in the wrong sub.

Yes but clinical trials are studies run on humans and the goal is not to reproduce the results. The goal is to power the study well enough to show that you meet your endpoints. I completely agree that there is a replication crisis in reproducing research in the literature but talking about this in the same breath as clinical trials displays a fundamental lack of understanding about the drug approval process.

[deleted]

Sciece results can be replicated by definition.

> follow up study

Go find it. Use the internet.

> a lot of prerequisites or best practices that exist at one university or within one discipline are left out of the publication

So you think journals are omitting methodology to save on what, printing costs?

The crisis is systemic: researchers are forced to 'publish or perish' while those dying from little understood causes are blocked from accessing said knowledge... the whole thing is designed to enrich few at the cost of the many imo, not to accurately conduct scientific investigation and communicate findings for the benefit of humans and our habitat.

You don’t replicate clinical trials…

It might be, if the person was making an assertion rather than asking questions (which is what I'm doing), and then only if they asserted that the representation is an accurate representation rather than a hypothetical thought experiment, and also if they genuinely intended to mislead people.

But then, this assumes a flawlessly rational observer, which is perhaps not a safe assumption....so maybe you are (kind of) right after all!

Interestingly, it is very easy to mislead people while being genuinely sincere and acting "in good faith" - for example, might it be possible that your comment could be misleading?

>How is “knowledge” “owned”? Is he talking about parents?

he's talking about private organizations doing research and then keeping the information to themselves because its their intellectual property (since they did the work.)

its a bit of a conundrum because private industry has a great deal of capital to expend on research but their motivation is profit: if they can't own their discoveries then they won't invest. but that means if they find a cure for a disease they can keep it to themselves which defeats the purpose of motivating their research.

> What does this even mean? How can a system be 0.01% rigged?

Imagine a system composed of X departments or modules - simply divide the number of rigged ones by the total and you have your ratio - of course, to do this correctly one would need a flawless algorithm for objectively identifying rigged-ness, but most people would balk at that so they use heuristics or subjective algorithms that are claimed/implied to be objective.

> Are you staying that 1 in every 10 thousand drugs is going to erroneously pass a clinical trial - because what? The system chose to rig it in that particular drugs favour?

No, I am simply saying that if it is in fact rigged, then it is rigged.

EDIT: actually, this is technically incorrect - in my previous comment, I made no assertions, but rather asked two questions about your "facts" (which you didn't answer, for some reason I imagine). EDIT 2: I was wrong again! You are not the original poster...it is /u/TheTrueLordHumungous who has yet to answer. (Man, this is a lot more complicated than it seems.)

> That doesn't make much sense.

Well, one way it could "make sense" is that if people with decision making power have financial or ~personal interests in decisions.

> It's much more likely that in this proposed scenario the drug would be erroneously approved due to the actions of a single, or a few corrupt individuals....

"likely" is a heuristic prediction with an unknown truth value - I prefer to think tautologically: the level of rigged-ness of a system is equal to the level to which the system is rigged - this is better because it cannot possibly be incorrect.

> ...which does not represent the system.

Is this to say that there are zero corrupt individuals in the system?

Sorry if this is off-topic, but I think an extremely important thing that Karl Popper described is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

I believe that in most of the EU countries, and in the US, not understanding the "paradox of tolerance" is the number #1 threat to those societies.

What the "paradox of tolerance" explains, is the logical fallacy which the enemies of society hide behind, to prevent being punished and destroyed. Unfortunately, in most cases, they do it successfully, and each and every step leads closer to the destruction of those societies. It basically goes like this: "if you're tolerant, then you must tolerate my intolerance". In other words: "if you try to destroy fascism, you're a fascist, because only fascists try to destroy other cultures/ideologies".

In reality, killing a murderer is not murder - it's self-defense, capital punishment, etc. Taking stuff by force from a thief/robber is not theft/robbery - it's restitution, confiscation, compensation, etc. In the same way, destroying a fascistic culture/ideology is not fascism - it's whatever you want to call it, etc.

I get what you are saying but the point of all this was that none of what you said is ever going to be possible without using one or all of your senses to accomplish it.

I thought there was a follow up study on the "replication crisis" and when the follow up (people trying to replicate the studies) actually get in communication with the original study authors the replication failure rate went down to 10%. Still not great, but better.

From my pedestrian/bystander understanding, journals want the most succinct article to publish, so a lot of prerequisites or best practices that exist at one university or within one discipline are left out of the publication, with the understanding that they are known. When someone educated slightly differently follows up, they don't get the same result because, from the beginning, they didn't do the same experiment.

I don't care who owns it, the science is settled.

/s

u/mechanab is ranting.

>Once passed, you'd have no conscious self to keep track of "time" so even though it would take an unimaginable amount of time to happen, eventually in the cycle of the universe all the elements that make up us would surely come together again at some point and we'd experience what we know as conscious life again right?

Indeed; and this is how I've thought about it for a while. I don't believe that the dead consciously experience anything at all, including the passage of time. And any passage of time that we don't consciously experience, even the history of an entire cosmic cycle multiplied by the largest number you could imagine, is squashed down to zero time from such a perspective (really, the lack of a perspective, or no point of view). We literally have eternity to wait for the right conditions for nature to happen to produce us again, and no matter long that might take, it will subjectively be no time at all.

From a first person subjective point of view, I imagine it going something like this:

your "final" conscious moment -> blink -> you "first" conscious moment all over again

Since you're newly formed at that point, and memory seems to be mostly or entirely neurological, you'll never remember any moment of conscious experience prior to this. But maybe during the course of your life you'll hit upon the the idea that you might've experienced this all before.

For two current cyclic cosmologies, see Roger Penrose and Paul Steinhardt.

Who is ranting?