by fuzzfactor | 2025-08-06 05:21:16+00:00
> This really undermines the "trust the science" narrative.

Even more like undermining trust in journals.

With Science.org doing it to its own self.

Which should be living up to a higher standard than most so they can set an example.

At Science.org I think they have the responsibility to reverse the forces that are trying to build hatred for scientific endeavors across-the-board.

Looks like the haters are most concerned with climate and vaccines, and are perfectly willing to let everything else go down the tubes if that's what it takes to purge every last trace there is concerning progress in those areas past, present, and future.

So when you get the direct opinion of the most hateful where they explain why they don't trust vaccine and climate research, they can often further explain why they don't really trust very many scientists at all, not even NASA, so this is where the most concentrated anti-scientist effort can be found.

The worst of the haters are the ones painting with the broadest brush.

But it has already "trickled" outward from there and naturally the hatred is so extreme (and undesirable) that is the part that fortunately gets watered down as it spreads, but that can leave the anti-science momentum seeming more credible than where it emanated from. When the source hatred & superstition are less prominent, the non-haters and non-superstitious laypersons are more likely to be persuaded.

This fraud needs to be exposed, but the way it looks to me it just gives haters another arrow in their quiver.

This article looks very well researched itself and seems like the authors are on the right track and will only gain more expertise on the subject if they try.

What bugs me is that they're painting with as broad a brush as you can get, themselves.

With the resources at their disposal, they should be breaking down in great detail which fields of science are the most effected and least effected by the growing fraud industry. The numbers of scientists in these fields and the locations their research was conducted in, as well as the estimated fraud in each of the fields. We want University and institution affiliations, correlations with educational histories, numbers, why not?

If they try, and stick with it for a number of years, progress in one direction or the other should become measurable for each field.

So the most egregious fraud can be targeted first & strongest.

If there was a time when there was no fraud "industry" at all, I would say that some of most questionable findings were still heavily concentrated on the social sciences, and least of all on the natural sciences.

It would be good to know if this trend still holds based on true statistical data, this could indicate if or when the fraud industries are disproportionally targeting natural science. It would be good to have a sign whether fraud in natural science is on the increase or not independently, whether initiated for the purpose of promoting the lesser scientists or their institutions, or perhaps a source of uncertainty & doubt that can be put on steroids without any intention to promote scientists or their work at all, just the opposite effect could be intended.

You know natural sciences like climate and vaccines are in their cross-hairs so you can expect those to take a big hit without any proven or rumored fraud, but if you're not careful everything else will be equally destroyed even though it was not the primary target of the hate.

One of the worst ways to discredit natural science is to lump it in with social science or anything else.