Are all the scientific articles we read, really scientific studies

[Long Duck Dong]

over the years that I have been in the site, I have seen study after study posted * proving * members stances on issues...... from the hilarious anti circumcision studies that were so flawed in their research that they have interviewed virgins about their years of experience having sex with cut and uncut cocks..... to the * search for the gay male gene * studies that found that the gay male gene does exist....in females brains........even maslows hierarchy that has been found to be very socially flawed and biased, can be held up as proof of how males can not survive without sticking their cocks in something......

well..... this scientific article beats them all...... and after review, was found to be excellent and for the low fee of $150, would be published in a journal of peer reviewed articles, to astonish the world with its profound findings ............

http://www.iflscience.com/technology/journal-accepts-paper-reading-get-me-your-fucking-mailing-list


just goes to show that anything can be scientifically proven and peer reviewed if you have money...... including the article that tells me that I can tell a persons sexuality by the way that they eat their bananas.... peer reviewed article so it must be true lol

[Melody Dean]

I have a friend who has a doctorate in brain science. Her job is to do and publish psychological and sociological studies, and she works for a big name scientist in that field. She's been told before to write the article to back up a hypothesis and to just leave out the details that don't.

So yep, take all scientific studies with a grain of salt, many of them have an agenda too.

[Neonaught]

The value of any peer review is always dependent on he professional stature of the journal and the "peers" doing it.

[nomorenomore]

Yeah, you just have to look at the various studies, coffees good, coffees bad, no wait coffees good, for guys. Wine is good, wine is bad, red wine is good.
There was a woman who had done the studies on cholesteral and eggs. Later she was interviewed and she admitted that the study was made to give the result they wanted. (to push cholesterol meds). She said that her cholesterol levels hardly change and she eats three eggs and bacon for breakfast. Newer studies coming out now are questioning things such as cholesterol, the BMI, and other reports. Before taking a study at face value, follow the money. Studies are paid for to support sales.

[12voltyV2.0]

It is for the reasons stated in the responses that in the cases where I have posted up links to such studies--I like to say that "this is interesting" but leave it at that since it is pretty clear that in many cases, a study comes out only to be totally debunked later.

Same goes when I find some article regarding bisexuality I find out on the net---but since such articles, essays, etc. are only the respective author's take on what they wrote about----you just have to "take it with a grain of salt" as well and just look at such stories as also being "interesting" but surely not "gospel."

[tenni]

The basic premise of this thread seems to fall under the anti-science philosophy. It has been increasing noticeably for about ten or so years. Neonaught has a good point. Studies are just that. They need to be backed up by further research. Still, there raise hypothesis or hypothesis proven by further research.

[fredtyg]

I won't go so far as to say science is for sale nowadays, but it is heavily politicized.

Still, even if some research is seemingly even handed, those that report on it will often cherry pick the information they present to fit their agenda.

[void()]

*nods, chuckles and grins* Seems to mostly be the way. "We studied it, got it peer reviewed, it has to be true." Mankind (all gender inclusive), is a subjective animal. Have a lot of doubt we could ever commit to objective Truth. May be surprised and we do someday, doubt exists though.

[tenni]

Peer review in journals and articles is there for a reason.
Objective fact is an interesting term. Doing research to "control" bias should be part of all scientific study. Truth is relative but scientific truth should be closer to the "truth" than any government policy. I think that most 'good" scientist would rarely go so far as their research is the "truth".