• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

This could NVER happen in Climate science.

Even Science falters.


[FONT=&quot]Tracking retractions as a window into the scientific process
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot][h=2]“Remarkable” it was ever accepted, says report: Science to retract study on fish and microplastics[/h]without comments
Science is retracting a paper about how human pollution is harming fish, after months of questions about the validity of the data.
The move, first reported by the news side of Science on Friday, follows a new report from a review board in Sweden that concluded the authors were guilty of “scientific dishonesty,” and the paper should be “recalled.”
The report had some strong words for the journal and the university that conducted a preliminary investigation:
Read the rest of this entry »
[h=3]Share this:[/h]


[/FONT]
 
Jack Hays said:
Even Science falters.


[FONT="][COLOR=#FFFFFF]Tracking retractions as a window into the scientific process[/COLOR]
[/FONT]
[FONT="][h=2]“Remarkable” it was ever accepted, says report: Science to retract study on fish and microplastics[/h]without comments
Science is retracting a paper about how human pollution is harming fish, after months of questions about the validity of the data.
The move, first reported by the news side of Science on Friday, follows a new report from a review board in Sweden that concluded the authors were guilty of “scientific dishonesty,” and the paper should be “recalled.”
The report had some strong words for the journal and the university that conducted a preliminary investigation:
Read the rest of this entry »
[h=3]Share this:[/h]


[/FONT]
Click to expand...

Yes, science is not perfect, but it is self correcting....as this as well as many other instances demonstrate.
 
Russell797 said:
Yes, science is not perfect, but it is self correcting....as this as well as many other instances demonstrate.
Click to expand...

Perhaps self-correcting, certainly self-inflicted.

[FONT=&quot]The report had some strong words for the journal and the university that conducted a preliminary investigation:[/FONT]
…the Expert Group finds it remarkable that Uppsala University, in its preliminary investigation of 31 August 2016, found no support for the presence of dishonesty in the research carried out by Peter Eklöv and Oona Lönnstedt.
​
[FONT=&quot]And:[/FONT]
…it is remarkable that the article, given these deficiencies, was accepted by the journal Science.
​
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom