Scientific publications

Status
Not open for further replies.

Ghostisfort

Abominable Snowman
Joined
Jul 4, 2009
Messages
764
Likes
5
Points
24
#1
As if to prove my point, I've been looking in-vein through these subjects for a particular item I saw a couple of days ago. Obscured and obfuscated by the fog of scientific publication I've given-up the search for this item.

Any meaningful exchange of ideas has been made impossible on these pages by the deluge of sci-babble and I would expect the same to prevail in the scientific community at large.
Utter waste of time and effort.
"Results. We estimate that in 2006 the total number of articles published was approximately 1,350,000. Of this number 4.6% became immediately openly available and an additional 3.5% after an embargo period of, typically, one year. Furthermore, usable copies of 11.3% could be found in subject-specific or institutional repositories or on the home pages of the authors.
Conclusions. We believe our results are the most reliable so far published and, therefore, should be useful in the on-going debate about Open Access among both academics and science policy makers. The method is replicable and also lends itself to longitudinal studies in the future. "
http://informationr.net/ir/14-1/paper391.html
 

Timble2

Imaginary Person
Joined
Feb 9, 2003
Messages
5,688
Likes
1,009
Points
234
#2
You mean "in vain" (unless you're looking for material on venous thromboembolism). If your search criteria are as sloppy as your terminology, it's no mystery why you can't find anything.

I don't know what you think you're proving by that quotation. It's got nothing to do with your claim.
 

Ghostisfort

Abominable Snowman
Joined
Jul 4, 2009
Messages
764
Likes
5
Points
24
#3
So, we're back to spelling?
in vain
How about a defence of the indefensible?
"in 2006 the total number of articles published was approximately 1,350,000."
That's about 3700 a day, the majority of which serve no useful purpose.
This blather serves as a cloak for inactivity in useful areas.
I would dearly love to hear some justification in terms of cost-effectiveness.
"The three major theft offences are larceny, embezzlement and false pretences." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_pretenses
It would be fun to have a representative of science take me to court.
 

Timble2

Imaginary Person
Joined
Feb 9, 2003
Messages
5,688
Likes
1,009
Points
234
#4
How do you know they serve no useful purpose? It's not 3,700 articles on one subject, you realise? Science isn't one monolithic lump.

No-one's going to sue you, you're just an unimportant whinger on the internet. Technology, in the form of the internet allows people plenty of whinging room.
 

Ghostisfort

Abominable Snowman
Joined
Jul 4, 2009
Messages
764
Likes
5
Points
24
#5
It's a pity no one is going to sue. A court of law is the ideal place to air these things, that are spoken of so infrequently
I fully expect the group of "whingers" to grow. I can give you some links if you want?
The Internet is the last bastion of our free speech and it suits my purpose admirably. Every revolutionary thought starts with a small group or even one person.
I note with some interest that recruitment into science subjects is a serious problem these days and I suspect that the young are having similar misgivings.

I'm still waiting for someone to justify the expenditure versus results, but so far no one has taken-up the challenge. The usual reply is something to do with DNA structure, which has problems of its own, in that it does not seem to be the result of scientific method, as the phrase is usually understood. The whole basis of my threads is not about the word science, but about the assumption that qualification is a requirement for discovery. This is both currently and historically untrue.

What is happening at this moment in time is that academia is debunking ideas because 'they claim', lack of scientific rigour in the form of prior theory. Historically, theory - more-often-than-not - comes after successful technology. Thus, turning the natural order on its head, is robbing us of much needed clean energy technology.
 

Timble2

Imaginary Person
Joined
Feb 9, 2003
Messages
5,688
Likes
1,009
Points
234
#6
Ghostisfort said:
....The Internet is the last bastion of our free speech and it suits my purpose admirably.
And the World Wide Web wouldn't exist in its present form without Tim Berners Lee, a scientist who was working in highly academic field when he developed the concept.

Every revolutionary thought starts with a small group or even one person.
And most of them die right there. With the internet you don't even have to produce barely legible duplicated leafets and hand them out on Oxford Street wearing a sandwich board. At least that way you become know as a "local character".

I note with some interest that recruitment into science subjects is a serious problem these days and I suspect that the young are having similar misgivings.
No it's more because science is actually quite hard work (and medicine is bloody hard work) the pay compared to banking, say isn't impressive. Too many people are under the impression that they can get by on their natural talent and become famous (despite the fact that they don't actually have any talent, or even a likeable personality).


Off topic: Only just noticed that my screen name is a near acronym of Tim Berners Lee. :eek:
 

Ghostisfort

Abominable Snowman
Joined
Jul 4, 2009
Messages
764
Likes
5
Points
24
#7
Timble2 said:
Ghostisfort said:
....The Internet is the last bastion of our free speech and it suits my purpose admirably.
And the World Wide Web wouldn't exist in its present form without Tim Berners Lee, a scientist who was working in highly academic field when he developed the concept.
The Internet was well and up-and-running long before Tim Berners Lee. His contribution was to install software written by others, just like you install the latest Windows, he says as much if you read his words on the subject. Berners Lee is a Scientific Superman construct, just like Einstein and a few other mythical creatures like the griffin.
I've covered this in some depth on my website http://www.n-atlantis.com/computer.htm What emerges, is that academic scientists had little or nothing to do with the development of computers from their inception and adds further evidence that qualification is not a necessary ingredient of innovation/invention.


Every revolutionary thought starts with a small group or even one person.


And most of them die right there. With the internet you don't even have to produce barely legible duplicated leafets and hand them out on Oxford Street wearing a sandwich board. At least that way you become know as a "local character".
I note with some interest that recruitment into science subjects is a serious problem these days and I suspect that the young are having similar misgivings.



No it's more because science is actually quite hard work (and medicine is bloody hard work) the pay compared to banking, say isn't impressive. Too many people are under the impression that they can get by on their natural talent and become famous (despite the fact that they don't actually have any talent, or even a likeable personality).
At my age, the desire to get-on has long since left me and I've never taken part in a popularity contest. In other words, I know what I write is unpopular with scientists and even more so to those who use science as something to hide behind.
As someone who used to work in higher education, I know that if you do the work, you get the qualification. Not hard, just staying power.
Working in industry prior to education, the work-load was sometimes staggering.
On the subject of medicine: I have a downloaded government file PDF that was withdrawn due to complaints by the medico's. It's called "Cancer Trends in England and Wales 1950 to 1999". What it basically shows is that there were no cancer trends during that period.
The official and the real history of science, old and new, are on the Internet for all to see - who have the eyes to see.
 

Cultjunky

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Jan 26, 2009
Messages
1,922
Likes
463
Points
89
#8
Erm, what were you actually looking for, and where were you looking?
 

Cultjunky

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Jan 26, 2009
Messages
1,922
Likes
463
Points
89
#10
Ghostisfort said:
As if to prove my point, I've been looking in-vein through these subjects for a particular item I saw a couple of days ago.
This jog your memory? Clarify my post?
 

Ghostisfort

Abominable Snowman
Joined
Jul 4, 2009
Messages
764
Likes
5
Points
24
#11
Cultjunky said:
Ghostisfort said:
As if to prove my point, I've been looking in-vein through these subjects for a particular item I saw a couple of days ago.
This jog your memory? Clarify my post?
Thank you.
It was the one about mobile phones causing cancer.
 

Cultjunky

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Jan 26, 2009
Messages
1,922
Likes
463
Points
89
#12
I did a google search and got this

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-13608444

Can't find a link to any scientific paper, probably because it's a statement from a cancer charity, summarising the findings revealed at a conference, rather than an actual paper.

Is this what you were looking for?
 

Ghostisfort

Abominable Snowman
Joined
Jul 4, 2009
Messages
764
Likes
5
Points
24
#13
Scientific publications, by their very nature and written to impress academics and are more often than not, continuations of stuff already available. All of the ideas contained in scientific publications are well known and to tap alternative sources may lead to new ideas.
After completing a qualification, education does not cease and it may be a bright idea to look at things not included in that education - or you tend to continue on the same lines. The tendency to read only peer reviewed publications is the reason why scientists don't make original discoveries.

The other common problem in these publications is that when referring to subjects other than their own expertise, the writers often miss the point or just don't know what they are talking about, just like the Nobel Laureate a few threads ago who knew nothing of religion or of population explosions.
 

Cultjunky

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Jan 26, 2009
Messages
1,922
Likes
463
Points
89
#15
You're welcome :)

That makes sense of the PDF you downloaded, or at least of the 'why' you downloaded that PDF. I assume that there being no trends just means that of the number of cancers diagnosed in that time frame, the percentages of specific cancers remained about the same, ergo, no rise in one type of cancer suggests that nothing new is causing that cancer. Or more colloquially, same shit different day.
 

Ghostisfort

Abominable Snowman
Joined
Jul 4, 2009
Messages
764
Likes
5
Points
24
#16
Cultjunky said:
You're welcome :)

That makes sense of the PDF you downloaded, or at least of the 'why' you downloaded that PDF. I assume that there being no trends just means that of the number of cancers diagnosed in that time frame, the percentages of specific cancers remained about the same, ergo, no rise in one type of cancer suggests that nothing new is causing that cancer. Or more colloquially, same shit different day.
The reason for complaints about Cancer Trends was because on the figure titled "Deaths from all causes" there is a straight line from 1950 to 19999 for all cancers. In other words, there was no change in the number of cancer deaths in those 49 years up to 1999. This is in spite of all the money spent on research and all of the campaigns such as anti-smoking.
 

Cultjunky

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Jan 26, 2009
Messages
1,922
Likes
463
Points
89
#17
If there was no change in the number of cancer deaths in those years, it could be argued that the stability in the number of cancer deaths was due to research and anti smoking propaganda, I mean, initiatives. What with there being a bit of a population increase.
 

Timble2

Imaginary Person
Joined
Feb 9, 2003
Messages
5,688
Likes
1,009
Points
234
#20
As CJ points out while deaths might not have fallen overall, if the incidence of cancer changed it might turn out that more people were developing cancer, but fewer were dying from it, or even if the incidences of some kind of cancer were falling the rise in population may have masked the trends. Hard to say without seeing the other data.
 

Ghostisfort

Abominable Snowman
Joined
Jul 4, 2009
Messages
764
Likes
5
Points
24
#21
Cultjunky said:
If there was no change in the number of cancer deaths in those years, it could be argued that the stability in the number of cancer deaths was due to research and anti smoking propaganda, I mean, initiatives. What with there being a bit of a population increase.
Aggressive optimism, you can't beat that can you?
 

Xanatic_

Ephemeral Spectre
Joined
Aug 8, 2009
Messages
336
Likes
4
Points
24
#22
Also why would you look at "cancer" as a whole? Many types of cancer might have decreased while others increased. Just the increased lifespan of people would lead to more instances of, say, prostate cancer.
 

oldrover

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Oct 18, 2009
Messages
3,936
Likes
1,312
Points
159
#23
On the subject of medicine: I have a downloaded government file PDF that was withdrawn due to complaints by the medico's. It's called "Cancer Trends in England and Wales 1950 to 1999". What it basically shows is that there were no cancer trends during that period.
The official and the real history of science, old and new, are on the Internet for all to see - who have the eyes to see.
In which way has this been withdrawn, it’s still available on the government statistics website. Its still for sale as a hard copy. Not only that an update has been published updating the figures to 2003, which shows clear trends.

The reason for complaints about Cancer Trends was because on the figure titled "Deaths from all causes" there is a straight line from 1950 to 19999 for all cancers. In other words, there was no change in the number of cancer deaths in those 49 years up to 1999. This is in spite of all the money spent on research and all of the campaigns such as anti-smoking.
Can you give some sort of references for this? I can’t actually down load the original because my abode reader is buggered. I have to say I doubt your reading it right.
 

oldrover

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Oct 18, 2009
Messages
3,936
Likes
1,312
Points
159
#24
Also why would you look at "cancer" as a whole? Many types of cancer might have decreased while others increased. Just the increased lifespan of people would lead to more instances of, say, prostate cancer.
:idea:



If the bulk of research has been on treatment rather than prevention which has been more in the area of public health promotion, which people ignore, it's the mortality rates not the incidences that are important here.

Just re read the post and it is mortality Ghostisfort is talking about.
 

Ghostisfort

Abominable Snowman
Joined
Jul 4, 2009
Messages
764
Likes
5
Points
24
#25
Timble2 said:
As CJ points out while deaths might not have fallen overall, if the incidence of cancer changed it might turn out that more people were developing cancer, but fewer were dying from it, or even if the incidences of some kind of cancer were falling the rise in population may have masked the trends. Hard to say without seeing the other data.
The point of my mention of this is that it is a straight line (and I do mean straight, no ups or downs) across the page.
The medics were full of excuses in their complaints, longer life due to their efforts of course. The fact is that a straight line means that the number of deaths has remained steady for at least fifty years with no impact from treatment or campaigns. Otherwise, it's the most amazing coincidence ever encountered. If you want to reverse the finding into optimism, that's your prerogative

The longevity is also not due to modern medicine, but to health and safety and Tesco. The deplorable working conditions and poor food of the past are something I personally experienced first hand. While those who were well-off and well cared-for had life-spans just like today. Yet another myth.

Not forgetting that the mythical biblical three score years and ten is something much more than two thousand years old. Yet another coincidence.

I would post Cancertrends but as I said, it's a PDF with graphics. I will email it to anyone who sends an email address.
 

Ghostisfort

Abominable Snowman
Joined
Jul 4, 2009
Messages
764
Likes
5
Points
24
#26
oldrover said:
On the subject of medicine: I have a downloaded government file PDF that was withdrawn due to complaints by the medico's. It's called "Cancer Trends in England and Wales 1950 to 1999". What it basically shows is that there were no cancer trends during that period.
The official and the real history of science, old and new, are on the Internet for all to see - who have the eyes to see.
In which way has this been withdrawn, it’s still available on the government statistics website. Its still for sale as a hard copy. Not only that an update has been published updating the figures to 2003, which shows clear trends.

The reason for complaints about Cancer Trends was because on the figure titled "Deaths from all causes" there is a straight line from 1950 to 19999 for all cancers. In other words, there was no change in the number of cancer deaths in those 49 years up to 1999. This is in spite of all the money spent on research and all of the campaigns such as anti-smoking.
Can you give some sort of references for this? I can’t actually down load the original because my abode reader is buggered. I have to say I doubt your reading it right.
The original has gone I can assure you and I have a copy with no trends. Three years is not going to make much difference to an overall trend of fifty odd years. Make your own conclusion?
Send an Email address and I will be glad to send you a copy.
 

oldrover

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Oct 18, 2009
Messages
3,936
Likes
1,312
Points
159
#28
The longevity is also not due to modern medicine, but to health and safety and Tesco. The deplorable working conditions and poor food of the past are something I personally experienced first hand. While those who were well-off and well cared-for had life-spans just like today. Yet another myth.
I think you might find modern medicine has played a part in that too, or are you denying that the NHS has done any good over the years. Statins and anti hypertensives have played a part alongside as you say better living conditions and nutrition.

I ask you again to please post the complaints from the medics and some evidence that this publication which is still available was withdrawn.
 

oldrover

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Oct 18, 2009
Messages
3,936
Likes
1,312
Points
159
#29
As you say three years is not going to make any difference and my update does shows significant fluctuations in both incidences and mortality.
 

rynner2

Great Old One
Joined
Aug 7, 2001
Messages
55,273
Likes
8,878
Points
284
Location
Under the moon
#30
Timble2 said:
Off topic: Only just noticed that my screen name is a near acronym of Tim Berners Lee.
You are Tim Berners Lee, and I claim my £5! :D

But I'm sure TBL could afford far more, so cough up! :twisted:

Ghostisfort said
Not forgetting that the mythical biblical three score years and ten is something much more than two thousand years old. Yet another coincidence.
What's the coincidence? You need to have two things to compare to claim a 'coincidence'. Longevity has varied throughout history, and across the world.

From Wiki:
First World: 77–83 years (e.g. Canada: 81.29 years, 2010 est.)
Third World: 32–80 years (e.g. Mozambique: 41.37 years, 2010 est.; Uruguay: 76.55 years, 2010 est.)

Population longevities are increasing as life expectancies around the world grow:[1][2]

Spain: 79.08 years in 2002, 81.07 years in 2010
Australia: 80 years in 2002, 81.72 years in 2010
Italy: 79.25 years in 2002, 80.33 years in 2010
France: 79.05 years in 2002, 81.09 years in 2010
Germany: 77.78 years in 2002, 79.41 years in 2010
UK: 77.99 years in 2002, 79.92 years in 2010
USA: 77.4 years in 2002, 78.24 years in 2010

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longevity# ... expectancy
No 'coincidences' that I can see, so what's your point?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top