The Scam of "Studies"

[Bricktop]

On the other hand, perhaps this thread is targetted towards an individual who constantly declares "There's a study for that" when sh...er they are losing a debate.



You never know...

[Anonymous]

On the other hand, perhaps this thread is targetted towards an individual who constantly declares "There's a study for that" when sh...er they are losing a debate.



You never know...

Who here does that?

[RW]

On the other hand, perhaps this thread is targetted towards an individual who constantly declares "There's a study for that" when sh...er they are losing a debate.



You never know...

Who here does that?

Iron, dear Bricky here was shit talking unions and I put him in his place using facts.  He didn't like losing so he started this thread and because he's an old flamer he thinks telling porky pies is a valid debate strategy.

[Bricktop]

1. You used no facts. You used "studies".



2. I was not losing.



3. Where is the pork pie/s?

[GORDY GAMBINO]

Telling porkys....tut tut tut .....instant disqualification .



Sorry we will have no fucking bullshit posted here this is the fucken internet.



For fucks fucken sakes.



Result youse are all fucken losers.



Get stuffed.

[RW]

1. You used no facts. You used "studies".



2. I was not losing.



3. Where is the pork pie/s?

1. I said I would provide studies to back ONE of my claims.



2. I DESTROYED you.  You came to a sword fight with a plastic fork FFS.



3. Check your tummy.



(I hope no one is taking this seriously except for the part where I destroyed you. ;) )

[Bricktop]

No, you're fine.



NO-ONE takes you seriously.

[RW]

No, you're fine.



NO-ONE takes you seriously.

"No one" is two words with no hyphen ya nub.



I actually won part of a debate today comparing sources of studies and reading exactly what was being said because comparisons can be hard to make when data isn't the same.  I'll give you the example...



I was discussing what demographic represents the majority of minimum wage earners.  To get this data, I pulled up Statistics Canada to discover 60% of minimum wage earners live with parents or family members and are under the age of 24.  It was countered with a statistic saying a higher age group made under $15/hour.  The thing is, minimum wage in Canada ranges from $10.72/hr to $13/hr. These two studies don't contradict each other nor can they reliably used as comparable data.



You have to bring your brain to research data.

[Bricktop]

Once again, ad infinitum, you distort your argument by opening a bag of oranges and saying, "See, they're not yellow and sour".



Statisical analysis relies on hard data. It is a collation of numbers, allocated to a category. Statistics do not explain data. They merely present it.



"Studies" seek to answer the question, "Why?". They thus become subjective by definition, because the original question is usually biased by who is asking, why they are asking, and what do they want the outcome to be.



You can barely rely on statistics to provide anything but more questions. You cannot rely on studies to provide the answer. Like all things in human society, vested interests have turned them into weapons of ideology.

[Angry White Male]

I was actually paid to do a study when I was living in the Okanagan briefly...



Kelowna campus paid me $40 for less than two hours worth of work to show up, so I thought 'what the hell!'



I did the test (was not informed what it was for, or how it would be used), but I had second thoughts...



Since I am smarter than most people, I may have skewed the final results by agreeing to partake...



To this day, I regret skewing the numbers for the rest of the retards, for twenty bucks.

[Renee]

I was actually paid to do a study when I was living in the Okanagan briefly...



Kelowna campus paid me $40 for less than two hours worth of work to show up, so I thought 'what the hell!'



I did the test (was not informed what it was for, or how it would be used), but I had second thoughts...



Since I am smarter than most people, I may have skewed the final results by agreeing to partake...



To this day, I regret skewing the numbers for the rest of the retards, for twenty bucks.

And people think I'm an elitist... ..Here we have a dirt hauling drunk that thinks he's smarter than everyone else and has the nerve to call other people "retards"...



Fucken priceless.... ac_lmfao

[JOE]

....I take it that you don't believe in global warming or climate change,eh Leopardsocks/Bricktop?



Why does it's possible existence unnerve you?

Recently, I was debating (as usual) someone at the opposite end of the political spectrum to myself, whom I shall refer to as "X".



During heated dialogue, X remarked that they could look up "studies" in support of their viewpoint.



This brought to mind the issue of "studies", and how academia and publishing houses are committing a massive fraud on the community.



Firstly, we must ask how reliable are studies in the first instance. Academia is heavily populated by the Left, as we have recently and emphatically been reminded, in the US and elsewhere. Studies in areas such as sociology and the humanities carried out by Leftists cannot be relied upon to be objective...even if the author BELIEVES their work is free from deliberate bias.



We see the same phenomenon in the issue of climate change. "Studies" by left leaning scientist follow a doctrine; that is that the science is irrefutable.



No science is EVER irrefutable. But these climate alarmists become so entrenched in their religious fervour, that NO reliability can be placed on their objectivity.



But worse still, the issue of peer review has become utterly corrupted, to the extent that it is totally fraudulent. Publishing companies offering peer reviews of papers prior to publishing are simply whitewashing submissions to make a buck.



http://www.smh.com.au/national/education/academic-publishing-slammed-by-scams-20131122-2xzxs.html">//http://www.smh.com.au/national/education/academic-publishing-slammed-by-scams-20131122-2xzxs.html



This article clearly shows that many "studies" have been promulgated and validated by utter deceit. No peer review. No validation.



So, when a lefty stands up in a debate and waves a "study" in the air, you are entitled to be at best leery, and at worst skeptical. The use of "studies" has become a tool of deception.



What makes things worse is that to actually read a study and check the facts for yourself will take weeks, or months...even if you could follow the doggerel, hyperbole and chest puffing verbosity.



What is also interesting is that it is comparable to the "fake news" strategy of leftist media organisations.



Skepticism is becoming essential in determining truth.

[Bricktop]

Where is the evidence that climate change "unnerves" me?



And what is the point, if any, you're making?