Re:Two decades of Alzheimer’s research was based on delibera...
by ad404b8a372f2b9 on Sunday July 24, 2022 @11:14AM
(#32214253)
None of what you said relates to the problem I described. It relates superficially to the sentence you quoted, but only if you strip it of its context.
I'm talking about malicious, fraudulent results. Made up numbers, code obfuscated and manipulated to do things different from what's being claimed. I resent the implication that my issues stem from a naive, idealistic reading of the discussion section rather than a thorough examination of the methods.
Sorting the good from the bad is one thing, creating and evaluating models, good models or bad models is one thing. Having to compete AND CITE fraudulent work, lies, imaginary models to be able to participate in the system is not "literally" science. And it's not the job any self-respecting scientist should want to do.
When in the trenches of science this is literally your job. What seems like the likely hypothesis, what model that explains the data is good or bad.
Papers are not textbooks. They are the boiling cauldron from with some bits eventually emerged as fully cooked facts.
The only way that I can square others' experience of science with my own is if they take the Discussion sections, which are free-form extrapolation about future directions, and treat them as if they were asserted as truth.