If your research/analysis isn't popular it will be dismissed/neglected - no matter how truthfully it's made. Same thing if your research/analysis doesn't comply with those in power* (PC media - incl. so called "scientific" journals).
* Do understand that science has two legs, a particular and a general. The particular consists of tiny bits of research that then has to be translated into the whole. And whereas the former only demands technical knowledge of the research process, the latter demands both intelligence and as little bias as possible. Bias in the former would just mean it's no real science, whereas bias in the latter is inevitable, yet should be kept by all means to a minimum. Unfortunately many researchers are unable to distinguish between the particular and the general. However, Peter Klevius thinks he possesses more than average research intelligence. Why? 1) He had super intelligent parents, 2) he has been told by two of Finland's top professors (from two completely different disciplines - philosophy and neuroscience) that he has the perfect talent for precisely this altering between the particular and the general, 3) he has no financial ties with what he researches (which fact, in fact, is used belttle him), 4) he calls himself a physical as well as cultural "bastard" meaning that he is free from most types of "community bias", 5) he leads a happy life and has his moral stance towards others completely connected to the (negative) Human Rights declaration of 1948.
So true science and fake "science" are irreconcilable. However, this isn't immediately obvious because, like e.g. HIV, the scientific process that was aimed at eliminating bias, itself became the best hiding place for cultural, political, religious, financial etc. bias.
Fake science rooted in Stanford - and applauded by BBC (which is heavily connected to islamofascism via the islamofascist Saudi dictator family's UK connections).
So true science and fake "science" are irreconcilable. However, this isn't immediately obvious because, like e.g. HIV, the scientific process that was aimed at eliminating bias, itself became the best hiding place for cultural, political, religious, financial etc. bias.
Four academic examples from Klevius own experience:
1 A thesis in social anthropology was criticized for not being written "in the fashion we do it here", although the thesis was simultaneously highly praised for "the author's intelligent writing" and "superb use of citations" (Klevius himself warns for "citation cartels" in his 1992 book Demand for Resources).
2 An other thesis in sociology in the 1990s was criticized for showing that perpetrators of child sexual abuse, as reported in the most prominent scientific literature, was least likely to be a biological parent, and most likely to occur outside the home. This study was in response to the Swedish state radio which had a long daily "incest" insert in their main news hour over a period of 18 days, where sex abuse numbers by stepfathers, step siblings, peers etc. were presented in a way that made the listeners believe it was parental incest. The series seems to have been a direct support for more funds to the "social state"* (aka the "welfare state"). An opponent asked Klevius: "Why do you do this?" Klevius answer, that he wanted to warn for the serious consequences for the child in case of false accusations - and the fact that other more prevalent abuse went unnoticed, was met with total silence. Moreover, that the so far biggest study on the welfare of children taken into care in the Swedish system didn't stand up to even the lowest expectations, was also met with something resembling disgust. And finally, that the world's most extensive study on child sex abuse in Finland didn't at all correspond with the picture given by media and social state bureaucrats and politicians, seemed to have no value whatsoever compared to the state radio propaganda.
*To understadn the "social state" do read Angels of Antichrist and Pathological Symbiosis.
3 In Klevius thesis "Pathological Symbiosis" it was shown that social state bureaucrats directly influenced and managed to implement a criterion for abducting children from their parents based on a psychological non sense term (which history Klevius thoroughly traced back to Freud's time). When it became the law it wasn't any longer taken seriously even by researchers in psychology but became popular among welfare officials. And to hide this insidious criterion from ordinary people it was hidden in the preparatory works which people rarely read. And the text in the law paragraph used the old formulation "or some other condition in the home", but now also applying to the new hidden criterion "pathological symbiosis". Moreover, in psychologists' statements used in court hearings there was no mentioning about "pathological symbiosis" but rather its "legal synonyms" such as, for example, "the mother doesn't understand the needs of her child" etc.. Klevius would never have seen it was it not for him working as a solicitor in child custody cases and reading through several hundred cases which looked suspicious when it came to the reason for taking a child into the care of the social state.
4 A thesis about how to analyze restraints on girls'/women's freedom imposed by sex segregation and poorly understood/analyzed connection to heterosexual attraction, was criticized by a female professor with the following words: "Why don't you want to let women lead their lives as they wish?" Quite a surprising remark considering that Klevius thesis used the 1948 Human Rights declaration and its emphasis on 'sex' not being used as an excuse for restricting any Human Rights. The simple minded professor obviously thought it somehow threatening to let women free from sex segregation restrains.
BBC's guest from the Medical Research Council discussing fake research: Irreproducibility could give rise to new results.
Peter Klevius: Sorry, but that's not science - it's luck.
85% irreproducibility, i.e. replication failed.
Out of 5 cancer studies only 2 could be reproduced.
Causes mentioned:
publication crisis
pressure from funders
priority based on what the researcher have published before - not the scientific quality of the actual work at stake.
incompetency
too small sample size
studying the wrong thing (compare Klevius drawing above)
"curated" literature (compare what Klevius wrote 1992 - especially about citation cartels and lists.
selective reporting
statistics manipulated - usually by leaving out important data (i.e. not just simple tampering with data) or by sampling errors.
peer review - which may be equally polarized as politics, hence bundling/tying "peers" in a certain paradigm/discourse enclosure (see Klevius cure on Inside Klevius mind on Klevius' web museum - not touched upon for more than a decade).
Peter Klevius bias check on fake assessment of fake science - i.e. "pseudo-science quacks" from Stanford.
Here's an example of pseudo-science quacks (psychology) presented as science by John Ioannidis (Stanford) and commented by Peter Klevius (no surprise it's published in a "social state" paper - read Klevius' Angels of Antichrist or his thesis Pathological Symbiosis, to really understand this):
Yes, Klevius, who plays in the heavyweight class, apologizes for correcting a guy from a lower class. However, Klevius isn't interested in John Ioannidis' IQ disability but rather in his bias (witting or unwitting) and the framework he offers by defending "pseudo-science quacks" like psychology by calling it "science". Reminds Klevius of his own example in Demand for Resources (1992 ISBN 9173288411) where a phycisist and a psychologist studied the effects of an egg falling on the head of a person. Whereas the physicist's findings were replicable (the main pattern of the cracks in the shell and due flow of soft material), the psychologist's findings (reaction of the test person) were not. And even if the test person (compare test bench) was altered by being informed in advance, that would only either have made the study meaningless, or being used to "verify" the obvious without getting even close to a result deserving the term science. Not to mention the problem with citations, falsifiability etc.. Wittgenstein (the mentor of his successor at Cambridge, G H von Wright, who mentored Klevius) would probably not have approved of it.
John Ioannidis: Science is the best thing that has happened to humankind because its results can be questioned, retested, and demonstrated to be wrong. Science is not about proving at all cost some preconceived dogma.
Peter Klevius: Well, that's what child psychology has been doing since Freud. As is the sex segregation dogma that Klevius was the first to puncture (see e.g. Pathological Symbiosis, and other works by Klevius revealing the core problem of social state "science" and sex segregation). Children have no say of their own, and are therefore the perfect market place for "pseudo-science quacks". And only a child can today be legally forced into "gender dogmas" (compare DSM). Moreover, the "social state" (see e.g. Angels of Antichrist, and Pathological Symbiosis) is the perfect field for growing "quacks" because it not only pushes forward its own agenda and due legislation, but it also possesses authority - i.e. the exact opposite to the private sector (yet it of course transgresses into the private sector whenever it suits it). The "social state" exists in a protective bubble labeled "welfare" (for whom? - read Angels of Antichrist).
John Ioannidis: Despite this clear superiority of the scientific method, we researchers (sic) are still fallible humans. 270 investigators working for five years published in Science the results of their efforts to replicate 100 important results that had been previously published in three top psychology journals. The replicators worked closely with the original authors to make the repeat experiments close replicas of the originals. The results were bleak: 64% of the experiments could not be replicated.
Peter Klevius: "Working close with the original authors" was their first mistake, and probably gave a too positive result (also compare Tienari et al adoptive study and their own "instrument" for assessing their own evaluation of their own study, referred to in Klevius' Angels of Antichrist, 1996).
John Ioannidis: We often feel uneasy about having our results probed for possible debunking. We don’t always exactly celebrate when we are proven wrong. For example, retracting published papers can take many years and many editors, lawyers, and whistleblowers – and most debunked published papers are never retracted. Moreover, with fierce competition for limited research funds and with millions of researchers struggling to make a living (publish, get grants, get promoted), we are under immense pressure to make “significant”, “innovative” discoveries. Many scientific fields are thus being flooded with claimed discoveries that nobody ever retests. Retesting (called replication) is discouraged. In most fields, no funding is given for what is pooh-poohed as me-too efforts. We are forced to hasten from one “significant” paper to the next without ever reassessing our previously claimed successes.
Peter Klevius: "We"?! Try to hide behind the back of reliable quantitative science? Psychology is a so called "qualitative science" which started as a quantitative measuring of factual animal behavior, but sadly ended up as a "qualitative" guesswork about human future behavior - i.e. a mission completely impossible keeping in mind the endless and never reachable amount of existing (but not accessible) "experience data" and their possible reactions to a myriad of possible future settings for the child/adult. In other words this is just folk psychology wrapped in money.
John Ioannidis: Multiple lines of evidence suggest this is a recipe for disaster, leading to a scientific literature littered with long chains of irreproducible results. Irreproducibility is rarely an issue of fraud. Simply having millions of hardworking scientists searching fervently and creatively in billions of analyses for something statistically significant can lead to very high rates of false-positives (red-herring claims about things that don’t exist) or inflated results.
Peter Klevius: Let me just quote myself (in a hasty translation from Swedish) from my book Demand for Resources (1992:43): Especially within the realm of social science these tendencies are reaching worrying dimensions, and one can already see how citations are streamlined for political purpose in a way where legislation is "prepared" via tailored "research" as a part in society's - to borrow Habermas - "increased manipulation of motives/social control". However, the system itself becomes a new paradigm and discourse where this bias becomes so overwhelming that it can only be questioned outside itself (for how to do this, see Inside Klevius Mind - http://klevius.info/IQdepth.html?1076884215269 - on Klevius web museum, which is left untouched since more than a decade ago). In this respect it resembles sex segregation, where true* feminism (i.e. segregational) hinders scrutiny of women's own role in it.
* In popular usage 'feminism' is often seen as women's right to transgress over "gender lines" i.e. the very opposite to sex segregation in feminist theory/ies (read some of Klevius many 'sex tutorials'.
John Ioannidis: This is more likely to happen in fields that chase subtle, complex phenomena, in those that have more noise in measurement, and where there is more room for subjective choices to be introduced in designing and running experiments and crunching the data. Ten years ago I tried to model these factors. These models predicted that in most scientific fields and settings the majority of published research, findings may be false. They also anticipated that the false rates could vary greatly (from almost 0% to almost 100%), depending on the features of a scientific discipline and how scientists run their work.
Peter Klevius: Scientific bias feeds on noise! Without it politicized "science" wouldn't be possible. When Klevius in a TV debate critiziced the quality of social state interference in children's lives and that these consequences weren't properly dealt with, he was accused for not being the criminologist his academic credentials said he was. Obviously, being a criminologist meant that one should not be critical of the social state (which feeds most criminologists).
John Ioannidis: Probably the failure rate in the Science data would have been higher for work published in journals of lesser quality. There are tens of thousands of journals in the scientific-publishing market, and most will publish almost anything submitted to them. The failure rate may also be higher for studies that are so complex that none of the collaborating replicators offered to attempt a replication. This group accounted for one-third of the studies published in the three top journals. So the replication failure rate for psychology at large may be 80% or more overall.
Peter Klevius: By "lesser quality" Ioannidis apparently means journals publishing studies/analysis which aren't PC and/or streamlined for psychology and the social state.
John Ioannidis: This performance is even worse than I would have predicted. In 2012 my anticipation of a 53% replication failure rate for psychology at large was published. Compared with other empirical studies, the failure rate of psychology seems to be in the same ballpark as replication failure rates in observational epidemiology, cancer drug targets and preclinical research, and animal experiments.
Peter Klevius: There's no replicability in psychology. What he rants about is simply statistics. "In fields that chase subtle, complex phenomena, in those that have more noise in measurement, and where there is more room for subjective choices to be introduced in designing and running experiments and crunching the data" truly scientific results cab never be produced. And if the results are "replicable" it's just at the same level as folk psychology - or possibly even less if there's "scientific" bias involved.
John Ioannidis: However, I think it is important to focus on the positive side. The Science paper shows that large-scale replication efforts of high quality are doable even in fields like psychology where there was no strong replication culture until recently. Hopefully this successful, highly informative paradigm will help improve research practices in this field. Many other scientific fields without strong replication cultures may also be prompted now to embrace replications and reproducible research practices. Thus these seemingly disappointing results offer a great opportunity to strengthen scientific investigation. I look forward to celebrate one day when my claim that most published research findings are false is thoroughly refutedrr across most, if not all, scientific fields.
Peter Klevius: There can never exist a fair "replication culture" in psychology (incl. so called psychodynamic "theory") because it suffers from the same disease as psychoanalysis, feminist theory etc., i.e. more or less openly admitting not being scientific in the first place, yet trying to convince us of being above folk level.
