STAFF NEWS & ANALYSIS
Academic Research May Not Be Accurate 85 Percent of the Time
By - February 27, 2017

Universities in America have typically been dominated by a liberal
bias. … The mindset of employees at such institutions is quite different than one might think. We’re not going to name any names in this essay; this isn’t about a person or individual University. It’s about the intellectual class, really the only public intellectual class in America with any respect; the Ivory Tower. If you haven’t heard this expression before, it refers to the high brow raised lip attitude class of University Professors and their associates. They have influence on every aspect of society. -ZeroHedge

This article states that academia is changing for the better after so many years of getting worse. It also makes the point that academia doesn’t really have any power, certainly not the way business does.

The intellectual class, the article says, is like Adam Smith’s hidden hand. They are subtle advisers who don’t control things “like the Illuminati does.”

They have influence rather than out-right power but they know how to wield that influence. They’ve influenced “literally every aspect of human life in America.”

More:

…  Have you been hearing recently “Studies show that … Obamacare is more popular after the election” or some such nonsense. Who are they polling? They claim their polls aren’t biased, they are scientific. But these are the polls and methods that had Trump losing by a landslide!

What does this mean? The article states we’re experiencing a major paradigm shift in which the influence exercised by academia is gradually waning.

“Many published research findings are false or exaggerated, and an estimated 85 percent of research resources are wasted.” It’s likely that some researchers are consciously cherry-picking data to get their work published … The problems of false findings often begin with researchers unwittingly fooling themselves: they fall prey to cognitive biases, common modes of thinking that lure us toward wrong but convenient or attractive conclusions.

This is a good deal of falsity, a massive amount actually, enough to render the entire academic infrastructure unworkable. But it feels right to us. We’ve wondered ourselves about the polls that show such a visceral and deep dislike for Donald Trump.

The article states that “We interpret observations to fit a particular idea. Psychologists have shown that “most of our reasoning is in fact rationalization.” Within this context academic “studies” can certainly have a large amount of rationalization. Scientists may ask “How am I right?” instead of asking, “How am I wrong,” which is what should be asked.

Partially as a result of the Trump election, the Ivory Tower Psychosis is happening in an obvious way now, at a class level, as a group.  Reality is crashing down, as it doesn’t fit with a given “reality.”

Their “Reality Based Community” is coming apart. The reality generated by empire is not working properly at a time when the current administration is anti-empire in many ways.

This is a very important point, though we would tend to think that the crashing of this reality is ultimately related to the Illuminati itself. We don’t think any of these realities are entirely de-linked.

In fact to take it a step further, we’ve often observed that, at this point in time, a chief goal is to spread chaos. There’s no reason why at the very top, chaos is being disseminated in academia as well as elsewhere.

Conclusion: In that case, the current chaos will probably grow a good deal worse along with many other kinds of disruption. The ultimate goal is to take down existing society and academia is part of that larger structure. It will therefore be part of the larger chaos and the disruption will continue.

 

 

Tagged with:
Posted in STAFF NEWS & ANALYSIS
  • Alan

    Too much so-called research today falls under statistical studies, oftentimes with very little effort to properly frame the conclusions or take into account all of the real costs when making conclusions. I see it time and time again when the government sponsored authors are promoting/comparing renewable energy like wind and solar against other fossil fuel alternatives. Similarly, sometimes sweeping generalizations or conclusions are made about the benefits of some food, vaccine, or product in medical/pharmaceutical studies that are referring to some ill-defined normal population.

    And, of course, on the subject of man caused global warming due to production of CO2, selective presentation of evidence and political science rules.

    • Ephraiyim

      It is also in medicine. The PC medical community is strongly biased against natural treatments and cures.
      If one reads their studies one finds that the way hypotheses arebformed is strongly biased toward pharmaceutical goals of developing treatments that can be protected through patents.
      On the occasions when they research alternative natural substances even those researchers who would like to have integrity are, because of NIH and other government controlled grant providers, cannot.
      Look into cannabis research as one glaring example. NIH controls nearly all the cannabis available to researchers in the States. Their bias forbids or at least strongly regulates what type of research is done.
      Almost exclusively, it prevents any research into benefits and only approves that research which supports the government status quo that cannabis is harmful and has little if any benefit.
      Yet, when research is done outside the US the research almost overwhelming supports that cannabis does have some benefit and often indicates great benefits both to the infirmed as well as to the recreational user.

      • Alan

        Couldn’t agree more…

      • Actually, to round out one’s education in the N.W.O. today, take a fascinating trip down the memory lane of just one “product” SODIUM Fluoride.
        Vastly easier to research than any other aspect of “The Owners” programs and a good starting point is http://fluoridealert.org/
        terrifying but totally scientific – as distinct from the propaganda, which focuses (cleverly) on CALCIUM Fluoride a useless additive to anything, but at least not totally poisonous as the artificial waste product SODIUM Fluoride.

  • autonomous

    “Psychologists have shown that ‘most of our reasoning is in fact rationalization.’”
    That’s especially true of psychology/psychiatry and sociology, much of which is pure fiction.

    Know the difference between conservatives and progressives? The former seek to preserve the best of past thinking, the latter seek to preserve the best of present thinking. The enemy of the conservatives is today’s thinkers, that of progressives are tomorrow’s thinkers.

  • Sol

    This is the problem with sites like The Daily Bell – the real Fake News as it were – though I agree mainstream media is problematic, it’s really only a problem for people who can’t formulate their own opinion. The mainstream media and the real, trained journalists who do the work behind it ARE good at one thing and that is presenting facts. Then they add some editorial spin and the stupid and uneducated accept the distortion of the facts as the truth, but smart people can see the facts and formulate their own opinion while ignoring the opinions of the source. So, for example, the MSM shows me a Trump speech and that’s the part I pay attention to, not the commentary. Trump tells me he’s an idiot who’s being manipulated by the people around him to do an even worse job than Hilary would have done. I don’t get that from the commentary; I get that directly from watching and listening to his speech.

    Sites like The Daily Bell – the oh-so-superior sources of wisdom – have no real journalists in the field obtaining and relaying facts – the real things occurring in the world. You’re nothing but second-hand information. Information that has not really been vetted other than it meeting the site’s own editorial tastes. You present a biased article and then you quote from it as if you’re quoting from fact and to the moonbats that take this site as the gospel truth, you’re telling them something true. But you’re just regurgitating. And regurgitating very subjective information at that. “Academic Research May Not Be Accurate 80% of the Time”???!!! Some nitwit is going to read that and actually go out into the world thinking that might be remotely true! And spread it to other nitwits! It’s shameful.

    • EDD

      The nonsense of your comment. I quote: “The mainstream media and the real, trained journalists who do the work behind it ARE good at one thing and that is presenting facts. Then they add some editorial spin and the stupid and uneducated accept the distortion of the facts as the truth, but smart people can see the facts and formulate their own opinion while ignoring the opinions of the source.”

      By your analysis, the biggest majority of the American people fit the description of the ‘unwashed masses’.

      And concerning ‘subjective information’, you add another slap to the same. Quote: “Some nitwit is going to read that and actually go out into the world
      thinking that might be remotely true! And spread it to other nitwits!”

      The the real shame and sad part is your ‘ivory tower’ comments which you have bestowed on the majority of freedom loving people, those who have desired to see more truth in media instead of the lies of the so called progressives.

      I suppose since you’re so smart, you may think I’m defending the DB. Not so, they need no defending. Like Trump, they are not afraid to call out the inconsistencies within the news when the msm adds some ‘editorial spin and the stupid and uneducated’ accept it as truth. I have been insulted by your comment.

      I am not college educated but I have had a lot of vocational training in the automotive field. I also consider myself to be a professional in diagnostics of the computerized technology in the automobile. This is a problem solving endeavor. And I am well aware when I’m being mislead which is anytime I watch national news on the boob tube. The 80% figure still might not reflect reality as it could even be much higher.

      I do not have the source anymore, but there was a retirement party for a well respected journalist and editor in the early fifties who stated to his contemporaries, (paraphrased), “You all know if you were to print the total truth, you would not have a job tomorrow’. The only change since then, it has simply gotten worse.

      • Katzenjammer

        “You all know if you were to print the total truth, you would not have a job tomorrow”.
        Hence the news editor’s spike for unwelcome stories. See ‘The Spike’.

        • EDD

          Katz, thanks for the tip. I did as you suggested and Arnaud de Borchgrave is indeed the person I was referring to. The quote may not be exact hence I mentioned it as a paraphrase. However, the paraphrase is accurate as to the comments he made. Actually, the original source of his comments was before the advent of the internet and I possibly no longer have the paperwork whereby I obtained the information. Thanks again.

          • Katzenjammer

            Welcome

      • Sol

        I consider auto mechanics to be some of the smartest people around.

      • Captain Turk

        “There was a retirement party for a well respected journalist”

        Was it Hunter S Thompson?

        “If I’d written all the truth I knew for the past ten years, about
        600 people – including me – would be rotting in prison cells from Rio
        to Seattle today. Absolute truth is a very rare and dangerous commodity in the context of professional journalism.”

        (He died by “suicide” – a day after telling his friend “They will make it look like suicide…”)

        • EDD

          Actually, Captain Turk, the comment was attributed to Arnaud de Borchgrave. Katzenjammer, (via this comment section), replied to my comment and advised me to research ‘The Spike’. It refreshed my memory to the source of the comment. My original reading of the comment was perhaps 20+ years ago before the rapid access of information provided by the ‘net. (Sorry for the overuse of the word comment in this reply). 🙂

          • Captain Turk

            Thanks EDD (and Katzenjammer),
            Memory and research working in synergy!

    • rahrog

      The mainstream media, and the real trained propagandists, who are shills for The Ruling Class working behind the scenes to destroy humanity, ARE good at spreading disinformation.

      Do you see how this works, Sol?

      • Sol

        But I’m not talking about that shit as my example makes clear. They do present objective facts – eg video of a speech – that’s what I pay attention to – that’s what I form an opinion from, not from someone else’s interpretation. This article is such a prime example of the DB’s “reporting” – sourcing highly subjective material (that fits their own confirmation bias) as if it were fact – it’s twice removed from the facts! Once is bad enough!

    • Captain Turk

      “Smart people can see the facts and formulate their own opinion”

      If the Daily Bell presents fake news, and the MSM presents ‘editorial spin’ and ‘opinions’ and ‘distortions of the facts’, then how are ‘smart people’ actually going ‘see the facts’ to begin with Sol?

      In other words, how do smart people like yourself become informed enough to know exactly WHEN to ‘ignore the opinions’ of the MSM?

      For example, CNN reports that Trump’s key speeches are written by Stephen Miller. How did you ‘formulate your own opinion’ about this claim without being subjective? Did you use first-hand information? If this report is true, then you risk dismissing a source of truth – and inadvertently ‘paying attention’ to the words of another person (usually a team of researchers) – instead of the words of a ‘manipulated’, ‘idiot’ president.

      And in terms of ‘watching and listening’ to Presidential speeches, can you recommend any techniques that will effectively neutralize Obama’s expert use of neuro-linguistic programming and covert Ericksonian hypnosis?

      And what are your thoughts about Doug Casey’s recent suggestion of “What better strategy for the establishment than to allow the conservative movement to take the helm of the political and economic ship just as that ship is about to sink”?

      But most importantly Sol, have you never read anything amongst all the fake news here on The Daily Bell about the Hegelian dialect?

      Here are some old DB articles that are worthy of regurgitation:
      * Zimmerman Case and Chaos?
      * A Phony EU Crisis
      * Euro-Union Totalitarian Empire Emerges Full Blown with ESM

      The Hegelian Dialect (comprising the elite’s use of manipulated and polarizing memes) teaches us to ‘ignore’ nothing. The luxury of knowing what may be safely ignored is rarely available to the thinking woman or man; everything is ‘information’ – but not everything is ‘truth’. I consider this the superior wisdom of humility.

      The Hegelian strategy works reliably because people are very easily convinced that their own opinions are wise and true.

      Personally though, I think overlooking the enemy’s primary strategy is not only unwise – it’s downright shameful.

      • Sol

        I don’t care if Stephen Miller writes Trumps speeches – what difference would that make?

      • JohnnyZ

        A true observation. Propaganda works because people like Sol think they are too smart to be deceived by it. It is their own little arrogance that betrays them.

        The other problem Sol misses is that the whole establishment is owned and promoted by the illuminati /masons / jesuits etc.: politicians and controlled opposition, media, scholars and “science”, banks, leading firms, entrepreneurs like Gates and Musk, judges, police, religion, celebrities and sport stars – you name it.

    • The Daily Bell is a website in the style of pre Civil War broadsheets back when there was no pretense of objectivity. The Daily Bell has a libertarian point of view. Its articles are free-market oriented. Its perspective is anti technocratic. No one forces you to read The Daily Bell. It never delivers unvarnished facts without its own particular spin. If you want unvarnished facts, go to the New York Times or The Wall Street Journal. (Sarcasm off.) It is a very tiny fish in a large sea and you needn’t bother with us if we disturb you.

      • Sol

        Sometimes I like it. I used to like it a lot more. I wouldn’t want you to be better if I didn’t care.

        • We haven’t changed for 15 years. Maybe you have.

          • Sol

            I disagree – far more paranoid it seems to me. Also just far more skeptical of EVERYTHING. You see the elite using something to increase their control and their profits as reason itself to believe that thing is false. Like climate change, for example. Of course the elite are using it to manipulate people and policy. Why would that be reason to attack the science. The elite are equally good at using truth and lies (or turning truth into lies and lies into truth) to their advantage. Why constantly attack the source? You’re throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

          • After 15 years we have come to the conclusion the government lies about almost everything. You may think the government is well intentioned and just makes mistakes here and there. We used to think that.

          • Sol

            Whoa, whoa, see that’s what I’m talking about. (a) I’m Canadian. (b) I don’t work for the government. I work for a law firm to make a living but I wouldn’t say my heart is in it.

            I certainly don’t think the government is well-intentioned (though the Canadian govt is maybe slightly less malevolent than the US govt) – you’re putting a lot of ideas and words in my mouth.

            My criticism of the site is that it has taken its skepticism to the extreme. To the point that now you’re now just flat out questioning EIGHTY PERCENT of academic research – like the irony of using a flawed and biased study to attach flawed and biased studies is hard to bear. Skepticism is great – it’s essential even – but you’ll find a study that supports something you’re already skeptical about, but not apply your skepticism to that study. I don’t know, I just hate the extremes. Like I PREFER your extreme to the other extreme and I think the “truth” lies not in the middle of the two but closer to your/our end of the spectrum, so I just wish you’d move over a bit because you do our portion of the spectrum some harm with your over-the-topness.

          • Sol, just look at the list of articles provided by “Sad” above. We’re not trying to make government worse that it is. Our mission is to point out government falsehoods inherent in messages they put out. Additionally we’re under threat of being banned now by that same government. If government and those around and above it actually changed, we’d have nothing to write about.

          • Sol

            See DAILY BELL? These are the kind of moonbats you’re attracting! JohnnyZ up there doesn’t even believe the Earth revolves around the Sun!

          • JohnnyZ

            Hey Sol, start searching for your soul. And as I said above – I am not even religious. The comment above was meant for you as well.

          • Sol

            Well in touch with my soul and my brain – good luck with yours!

          • JohnnysZone

            The only thing you are in touch with is you ego and your arrogance. Your response is a typical ego defence mechanism.

          • JohnnyZ

            The only moonbat here is you, showing sheepish faith in what you have been told by authority. Your arrogance is too big for you to see that you have been lied to on so many fronts. Start researching instead of calling people names.

          • JohnnyZ

            Sol, science has been corrupted long ago. Here some examples of fakes or lies:
            – heliocentrism
            – gravity
            – planets and space
            – theory of relativity
            – big bang
            – wormholes, string theory etc
            – theory of evolution
            – dinosaurs
            – economics (e.g. Keynesianism, Monetarism etc)
            – philosophy of Kant, Hegel, Marx etc.
            – history, political science
            – climate change

            So if current science is based on these false foundations and corrupting trends, I would be surprised if even 15% were correct or unbiased.

          • Sol

            Oh no, let me guess: you religious?

          • JohnnyZ

            No. I am only spiritually awake. You? You believe blindly in the new religion called science. As if the scietific method is nit corruptible? After all it is carried our by people, who are very corruptible, not cold calculating machines striving only fir the truth. An example: Darwin was a mason and those “brothers” do follow a satanic agenda. They also take rheir religion very seriously. So instead of putting ne in a drawer start researching the topics I mentioned with an open mind (if you are capable of).

    • sad
  • Praetor

    Yes correct! The culture, the system is a joke. Money (funding), is and has been the driving force in research. Impact over substance. Example, research scientists five landmark cancer studies, other scientists tried to replicate and could only confirmed two of the research studies. Their all vying for taxpayer dollars. Just like studies on global warming, its all about bilking the taxpayer.!!!

  • John Stott

    I was recently amused by an “academic” on a well respected blog. He had peer reviewed another work, funnily by another “academic”. Without boring the pants off everyone with detail, he could not respond to my comment without resorting to academic speke. Now most intelligent and normal folk, the ones who have experience of the world beyond the ivory tower, would see right through what they are about. They are about protecting their own backsides and little worlds.
    Media love them of course, as do the ptb. They parrot what the ptb want through controlled media. Most readers take it as gospel, after all, “they must know what they are talking about, they are the experts”.
    Does this article reflect a truth? Yes in many ways it does. Collapsing a system that is rotten ensures continued power in the hands of a few. They see their empires crumbling daily. The net is their enemy, try as they might, it cannot be controlled. The historical reliance on academics as a fount of all knowledge is crumbling. In the longer term that has to be good for mankind.

  • Dennis Larkin

    There is a fabulous website, Retraction Watch, that tracks retractions of peer-reviewed scientific articles. It’s a treat.

  • Actually, to round out one’s educational research in the N.W.O. today, take a fascinating trip down the memory lane of just one “product” SODIUM Fluoride.

    A vastly easier way to research and see, than any other aspect of “The Owners” programs and a good starting point is http://fluoridealert.org/
    terrifying but totally scientific – as distinct from the propaganda, which focuses (cleverly) on CALCIUM Fluoride a useless additive to anything, but at least not totally poisonous as the artificial waste product SODIUM Fluoride.

  • BTW people this is such a change from most “comment” resources – I feel as though I should wear a tie to join in….. civilised commentary like a Gentlemens Club.

loading