How of Much of Today's Science is actually real or valid?

[deepthinker]

Is someone playing games with the data. I am posting some random data before

Dinosaurs" were supposedly wiped out by an asteroid strike that occurred 66 million years ago. The earth supposedly moves through space at 66,000 miles per hour. The globe Earth model has an axial tilt of 23.4 degrees off of true north, which works out to 66.6 (90 minus 23.4)

The speed of sound is 666 knots per second
From Mercury, the Sun is 666 Times Brighter, Using the Inverse Square Law

The 6 feet or 6 meters social distancing rules, etc. So some interesting and weird data

Just find it amusing to see the recurring 666 all over the place. Almost like someone is trying to play a joke

Why So Much Science is Wrong, False, Puffed, or Misleading


take the don of behavioral economics, Daniel Kahneman, whose many quirky experiments convinced an entire economics profession of individual irrationality and ultimately earned him the Nobel Prize. The psychological literature on so-called ‘priming,’ part of which is used by behavioral economists, suggested that tiny changes in settings can produce remarkably large impacts in behavior. For instance, subtly reminding people of money – through symbols or the clicking noise of coins – makes them behave more individualistically and less caring of others. “Disbelief is not an option,” wrote Kahneman in his famous best-seller Thinking, Fast and Slow, “you have no choice but to accept that the major conclusions of these [priming] studies are true.”

Beginning in the 2010s, psychologists tried to replicate these famous results and more. When tried elsewhere, with other students, better equipment, or larger samples – or sometimes with the exact same data – the same results wouldn’t emerge. How odd. Lab teams tried to replicate many established findings, coming up way short: “The replication crisis seems,” writes Ritchie, “with a snap of its fingers, to have wiped about half of all psychology research off the map.” There was something structurally wrong in the way that psychology found and displayed knowledge. Some research.


What’s fascinating in Ritchie’s book are the discussions of many studies, claims, and experiments with which even non-experts are familiar. Well-referenced and comprehensively cited, Ritchie reports huge problems with the following hyped stories:

Larger plates make you eat more.
Going to the supermarket hungry makes you buy more calories.
Eggs cause cardiovascular disease.
In messy or dirty environments people display more racial stereotypes.
Power posing (manspreading or placing your hands aggressively on your hips) creates a psychological and hormonal boost that correlates with higher risk tolerance and better life outcomes.
Philip Zimbardo’s Stanford Prison Experiment and the inhuman cruelty by people in authority ( debunked perhaps most effectively by Gina Perry’s many in-depth writings on famous psychology experiments).
Sleeping less than six hours a night “demolishes your immune system [,] doubling your risk of cancer,” as the best-selling book Why We Sleep by Matthew Walker claimed.
All wrong. Every one of these much-publicized and discussed claims include at least one of the following: misleading conclusions not warranted by the research itself; fabricated data; data manhandled to pass significance tests; incompetent experimental designs; or experiments that wouldn’t replicate when tried by other scientists. Taking them apart for a non-expert audience is where Ritchie really shine

https://www.aier.org/article/why-so-muc ... isleading/