A Private Foundation that is funding Liberal agenda’s has one such agenda that bears definition: reproducibility in science.
The Laura and John Arnold Foundation funds research into the reproducibility in sciencewhich is: “a methodological crisis in science in which scholars have found that the results of many scientific studies are difficult or impossible to replicate or reproduce on subsequent investigation, either by independent researchers or by the original researchers themselves.”
This failure to uphold scientific research and conclusions is apparently massive:
Chemistry – 87%
Biology – 77%
Physics and Engineering – 66%
Earth Sciences – 64%
In medicine 67% of medical researchers admitted to knowing someone who falsified their research.
Forget Fake News, Fake Science is far more pervasive and the consequences more staggering. This means that the vast majority of all scientific fact cannot be verified as fact at all. It means that science has evolved into a crystal ball magnitude of false conclusions effecting every aspect of society from basic medicine to sports and exercise, to diet, to psychology and even globalization. The argument basis doesn’t EXIST.
This further denounces the cause for government sponsored University R&D on behalf of the pharma industry funded by taxpayer dollars! The fake news is that the research is positive – the real news is the research conclusions may be faked.
Initially the conclusions were founded in psychology research. Scientists from all over the world were asked to replicate the findings of a psychological conclusion that had been reported in a journal. Within social studies, the ability to replicate the supposed published results was as low as 23%. It is believed that authors were biased, careless, sometimes outright fraudulent, and of the belief that their conclusions would simply never be challenged. It was a tick mark for publication.
But this falsification of evidence expanded exponentially into all areas of science. It is believed that the perversity of reward created a decayed research for individual gratification instead of fact.
Today scientists are trying to backtrack on the problem by claiming it is not a crisis but more of a boo-boo. Afraid of the backlash, they are attempting to redefine ‘replication’. In addition, the number of studies that are failing in even small batches is highly significant. One scientist attempted to dissuade the failure rate by stating that not all aspects of a conclusion need to be replicated, and that even if a small percentage can be assured, then the study should be considered in good standing and positive.
But I’m not willing to be only 23% cured… I’m not willing to spend 100% for a 23% conclusion… If I buy a gallon of milk I don’t want to receive ¼ of a gallon…
It effects cancer research, vaccine research, psychological evaluations, and even global warming…
If a scientific conclusion cannot be replicated then the conclusion cannot be considered a fact, it can be considered a stated theory. Scientists try to argue that replication is a personal issue with the replicating scientists, and not the conclusion. But that might also indicate that the vaccine that is produced and manufactured is based on the conclusion of one study of one individual whose biological makeup is specific and not conventional, therefore individual number two would not respond the same way and the vaccine is ineffective on a mass level.
The entire scientific community argument in itself is filled with false and fraudulent convictions that further displaces the concept of fact. Unfortunately, if we call scientific conclusions as theory, it upends any argument affecting health, climate, disease, and psychology – it puts them out of business because they are now simpleton soothsayers. It opens the doors to massive lawsuits. And it turns the entire pharma industry upside down.
The ramifications could be a domino effect of such proportions that we have never seen before. And they have gone into scramble mode to attempt to justify the faked results, the falsified conclusions, and the disproportionately low success rates.