Tony BarkRFK Jr.’s health department calls Nature “junk science,” cancels subscriptions
compostgoblinI mean, correct me if I’m wrong, but aren’t Nature and its subject-specific varieties considered some of the most reputable and prestigious scientific publications?
CatoblepasYeah, getting published in Nature is a career gold star achievement. They’re very high impact (meaning many other scientific papers cite their articles).
And, for that reason, about half the papers (depending on the field) published in Nature are wrong.
Dogiedog64Got evidence for that bold claim?
Anecdotal only, sorry. I’m sure it varies by field, and it’s more about letters than longer papers. There are probably fields where Nature is excellent, but I know that there is at least one where the odds of a letter to Nature being accurate a few years later is about 50%.
Ok, so you got nothing, and you’re talking out of your ass. Great, thanks. Go outside.
archonetbut I know that there is at least one where the odds of a letter to Nature being accurate a few years later is about 50%.
you know, there is a difference between “getting published in Nature” and “submitting your work to Nature”. One involves being in the journal.
I think we found RFKs lemmy account
I’m dying at the irony of claiming 50% of all Nature articles are wrong while also providing literally no evidence
Because the journal is so highly respected, half the papers are wrong?
What
I’m a researcher. Nature is good but it still has mistakes. Sometimes they are a tad sloppy but they are still far, far better than what you may know from popular science. In general, some mistakes are normal and expected because science works by finding and fixing mistakes, not by immediately discovering ultimate truth. This applies even in math.
I can agree with that. And I’m sure it’s because letters on the forefront are published quickly without time to consider all the possible problems.
that sounds like the dumbest horseshit I’ve ever heard of
let’s assume – even for a brief moment – you are, in fact, 100% correct with this claim.
You’re probably not, but hey, let’s assume.
scientists are all about being right, so much so that they loathe their own frauds (watch some BobbyBroccoli documentaries if you don’t believe me), and they also take extreme pleasure in disproving each other. sometimes, good science is in trying to disprove what some other guy or some other team said because “I want to be right/I want us to understand the world better, and we need to know if this is in fact as they claim”. Peer review is ingrained in their doctrine, that’s what good science is.
Are you just, like… not that bright?
the problem with this is you wrote an epic takedown. it took you so much more time and effort that the pigshit you replied to.
this world isn’t fair.
but you deserve more, you nailed it
it’s not about a takedown, really, I’m not trying to be mean, I just want to understand what science did to piss them off enough to make shit up about it.
None of the Trump administration’s bullshit can stand up to peer-reviewed actual science.
Citation needed
TrickDacyYeah that’s just stupid
tell me you have never read a Nature published piece, without saying you have never read a scientific paper
Doubtful.
That said, you’re kind of describing how peer review works, no?
Even if true (which I doubt since you present no evidence) that’s still a 50% better error rate than RFK Jr and his band of cranks and quacks.