TSScienceCollaboration can correct expensive errors you are making
Coho salmon decline in late 70s in Oregon
The Challenger shuttle disaster is another example of a catastrophe that could have been avoided
MLB Baseball owners systematically mis-valued contracts worth billions
This thread on how evidence-based medicine is a fraud
In the past three months, we've learned that science was 100% wrong about: 1. Alzheimer's 2. Depression & Serotonin 3. Colonoscopy
Some of the current evidence in case you still aren't convinced getting vaxed was a bad idea
Tssciencecollaboration will succeed
How does TSSciencecollaboration answer questions?
On TSScienceCollaboration your experts and researchers will be on the record point by point answering your questions
If you are paying for research findings, shouldn't you use a technology that makes transparent why they are correct?
You should use Tssciencecollaboration for your or your organization`s plans, projects, documents, decisions
The Majority is Often Wrong, Even When They Are Credentialed and Widely Admired
A TSScienceCollaboration diagram proves coronavirus vax was clearly dangerous and this was clear to the well-informed since 2020
A TSSC diagram propagates logical consequences to the top, so they can't be overlooked
The Majority is Often Wrong, Even When They Are Credentialed and Widely Admired
Peer reviewed surveys agree: A landslide majority of medical practice is not supported by science
Poll results show at least two thirds of Americans now understand that a lot of the news is fake. Dr. Birx (A leading figure in the US governments covid response) admitted to numerous important knowing lies to the public including that social distancing would be effective, lockdowns would be effective and the vaccine would prevents transmission . Dr. Fauci had it both ways on masks, first saying they were useless against viruses and admitting this in his private emails, and then famously becoming their biggest advocate, and on whether those who had been infected became immune, first saying they did, and then without further evidence demanding everybody get vaccinated including the infected, and then further admitting he lied about what fraction of the population vaccinated would be necessary for herd immunity. More generally much of the scientific literature is fraudulent, most medical practice is not based on science, and many experts advising industry are deluded or lying. ( See proofs below.) Wouldn't you benefit from a technology that transparently displays both sides of arguments offered for any proposition, and keeps track in real time of which propositions are actually valid?
The fact is, human cognition is prone to ignoring proofs and evidence against their cherished position, and prone to crowd think , and employees of companies have motivations of their own not necessarily agreeing with the welfare of the company, and numerous powerful organizations have financial and political incentives to feed you propaganda, so that many of the decisions your corporation or organization makes are demonstrably wrong, or even delusional, and much of what many people believe is false, especially the feelings upon which you feel strongest-- strong feelings being characteristic of crowd think, not of understanding on a rational basis. .
TSScienceCollaboration let's people collaborate on and transparently diagram proof refutation trees on any topic; and keeps track of what propositions have been established as the logical consequence of everyone's contribution-- by a proof for which all proposed countering arguments have been successfully rebutted-- the same standard as used in mathematics and science. You also have a record of how all evidence and arguments against have been refuted. Your corporation's and your own personal decision-making and fact-finding can benefit from the scientific revolution like science benefitted under Newton.
And please, contribute to or create new public graphs at https://tssciencecollaboration.com/listtopics They could save others from delusions. If you see any statement that you can give a rational rebuttal to, not already appearing on the graph, please contribute.
The early to mid-1970s provided some of the best Coho Salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) fishing of the last century in Oregon, in large part a function of productive ocean conditions and a booming hatchery system. However, wild Coho popula- tions exhibited dramatic declines toward the end of the decade and harvest rates subsequently dropped by over 75% (Martin 2009). Even after the Oregon Department of Fish and Wild- life (ODFW) implemented what was deemed at the time to be scientifically defensible harvest reductions, fisheries biologists watched as the number of returning Coho fell into severe de- cline over the next several years. How could an environmental catastrophe of this magnitude happen under the guardianship of a group of people who cared deeply for the public trust they managed and who were committed to using the best science available to properly manage these fish?
The answer is that bad news has a tough time rising through hierarchies, so that the people at the top often have no idea what the real problem is.
Truthsift diagrams provide transparency that can be examined about how decisions are being made.
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts”- Richard P Feynman
Feynman was one of the smartest scientists of the 20th century, but is probably best known for debunking NASA experts in front of the Congress by performing the experiment of dunking a piece of space shuttle insulation into his glass of ice water, and showing that it gets brittle, hence the reason why the Challenger space shuttle burned and crashed after taking off on a cold morning.
he wrote the above quote in his essay: "What is science?” because he meant exactly that: science occurs where you verify that there is a proof for every step in your chain of reasoning, and don't rely on any experts who can't on-demand supply that proof and convincingly answer any objections you have to any steps in it.
Morton Thiokol engineers had warned previously that the shuttle should not takeoff in temperatures below 63F. but somewhere in the chain of command their warnings were ignored. This reference makes the case that their warnings were ignored because they didn't use a sufficiently cogent graphic representation. An independent study estimated that the upper level managers perceived the risk to be about one thousand times less than the risk perceived by on-the-ground, working engineers (Feynman 1986 Personal observation on the reliability of the shuttle. Presidential Commission on the Space Shuttle Challenger accident. Appendix F. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.).
Truthsift propagates any contributors objection up to the top of the graph if there is a mission-critical path by which it affects the topic statement. so if they used Truthsift they would have been aware they were cheating, and likely smart enough not to launch.
Truthsift provides a simple user interface to collaboratively diagram proofs of anything you believe, and to challenge those proofs, and to keep track of what has really been established by a proof with all of the proposed objections to every critical step satisfactorily answered. In practice, that's the best you get in mathematics.
It gives you for your important business decisions, the certainty of science, and I don't mean recent woke consensus science as run through the media, I mean physics back when you could rely on it. This could save your projects from crashing and burning as spectacularly as the Challenger.
you get incredible transparency because you have a diagram at the end of why you believe what you believe and how all the arguments against it were refuted, and you can see if you want who posted each argument or counterargument. it let's the smart engineer in the back row make key contributions if he can.
MLB Baseball owners and professional managers systematically miss valued contracts worth billions for decades by valuing the players on irrelevant criteria such as literally, how pretty their girlfriend was, even though Bill James abstract had been publishing cogent arguments of how they should be valued for decades.
This continued until Oakland A's manager Billy Beane rubbed their faces in it and achieved great results with a tiny budget, as described in the book and movie Moneyball.
This thread on how evidence-based medicine is a fraud gets better the further down you scroll. read it all.
In the past three months, we've learned that science was 100% wrong about: 1. Alzheimer's 2. Depression & Serotonin 3. Colonoscopy
Research Fraud: Is Everything We Think We Know About Alzheimer’s Disease Wrong?
No evidence that depression is caused by low serotonin levels, finds comprehensive review
Screening Procedure Fails to Prevent Colon Cancer Deaths in Large Study
Here's a summary of some of the evidence that the vaccines are extremely damaging.
here's proof the Israeli Ministry of health discovered that the vaccines were highly damaging and covered it up.
here's Dr. Birx admitting they were lying when they said the vaccines would protect you from infection....Here is a Pfizer director admitting to the European Parliament that they had never tested the vaccines on preventing transmission before releasing them.
Here's a blog which every week goes through many dozens of noted people who drop dead suddenly around the world. And Here's a list of 1252 ( and being kept up-to-date last I looked) athletes who suffered cardiac arrest since the vax. And in Canada young fit doctors are dropping dead in droves following their booster.
Bhakdi/Burkhardt pathology results show 93% of people who died after being vaccinated were killed by the vaccine. What's even more troubling is the coroner didn't implicate the vaccine in any of those deaths.
here is evidence from around the world that the vaccine is causing cancer. And here is a paper explaining how the vaccine damage of the immune system promotes cancer.
Actuarial data shows that excess death in the US has doubled among ages 35 to 44 since the vaccine.
UK government statistics show nine in 10 covid dead were fully/triple vaccinated.
Here's many embalmers saying that the highly elevated number of dead they see since the vaccine almost all have bizarre clots in their blood. And here's a postmortem analysis showing those come from the vaccine.
Analysis showing vaccine far far more damaging for young adults than covid.
Here's 50 reasons why you should have gotten your kid a covid shot.
NEJM study confirms COVID Vaccination causes new form of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome & takes 5 months to kill.
this is just a small sample. there are literally thousands of scientific papers showing the vaccine was a disaster.
Here's another list of 1000 scientific papers.
Tssciencecollaboration can be expected to succeed as a corporation by supporting more rational and correct decisions.
Please challenge at the link before here if you have a rational objection, as the proofs are provided there.
TSSciencecollaboration Answers Your Questions by rating Statements as Tentatively Established when they have a tentatively established proof for which all proposed refutations have been refuted., and Giving their demonstrations. You can not only see which statements have demonstrations, but trace backward in the Diagram to find the Demonstration, and to see how challenges have been refuted.
As established by the linked graph. please challenge their first before here.
On TSScienceCollaboration your experts and researchers will be on the record point by point answering your questions until you feel everything has been answered satisfactorily.
Why most published research findings are false
John P A Ioannidis
-----
During the whole covid crisis, doctors have been telling untruths to their patients both because they were deceived by CDC, and because they were threatened with loss of their license to practice if they said the truth.
"To the extent that the scientific discourse became an ideology, it lost its virtue of truth-telling. Nothing illustrates this better than the so-called replication crisis that erupted in academia in 2005. This crisis emerged when a number of serious cases of scientific fraud came to light. Scientific scans and other imaging were proven to have been manipulated,6 archaeological artefacts were found to be counterfeit,7 embryo clones had been forged;8 some researchers claimed to have successfully transplanted skin from mice, whilst they had simply dyed the skin of the test animals without performing any surgical procedure.9 Other researchers had manufactured missing links from pieces of skulls of humans and monkeys;10 and yes, it appeared that some even completely made up their research.11 This kind of full-fledged fraud was relatively rare, however, and not actually the biggest problem. The biggest problem was with less dramatic instances of questionable research practices, which were reaching epidemic proportions. Daniele Fanelli conducted a systematic survey in 2009 and found that at least 72 percent of researchers were willing to somehow distort their research results.12 On top of that, research was also replete with unintentional calculation mistakes and other errors. An article in Nature rightly called it “a tragedy of errors.”13 All of this translated into a problem of replicability of scientific findings. To put it simply, this means that the results of scientific experiments were not stable. When several researchers performed the same
experiment, they came to different findings. For example, in economics research, replication failed about 50 percent of the time,14 in cancer research about 60 percent of the time,15 and in biomedical research no less than 85 percent of the time.16 The quality of research was so atrocious that the world-renowned statistician John Ioannidis published an article bluntly entitled “Why Most Published Research Findings Are False.”17 Ironically, the studies that assessed the quality of research also came to diverging conclusions. This is perhaps the best evidence of how fundamental the problem is. In recent decades, academics have attempted to improve the quality of research through a number of initiatives. They questioned the pressure on researchers to publish, urged researchers to make their data publicly available, pushed for more transparency around financial interests, and more. Overall, these measures don’t seem to have had much effect. In 2021, 50 percent of surveyed academics anonymously admitted that they sometimes presented their findings in a biased way. Half is already a problem, but according to Fanelli, it almost certainly represents a substantial underestimation. This is because a significant percentage of the researchers, even if surveyed anonymously, will not admit to engaging in questionable research practices. The measures taken to improve the quality of scientific research, however well-intentioned, failed to address the problem..."
6.Elisabeth Margaretha Bik, Arturo Casadevall, and Ferris Fang, “The Prevalence of Inappropriate Image Duplication in Biomedical Research Publications,” mBio 7, no. 3 (July 2016): e00809-16.
7.Owen Jarus, “Famed Archaeologist ‘Discovered’ His Own Fakes at 9000-Year-Old Settlement,” Live Science, March 12, 2018, https://www.livescience.com/61989-famed-archaeologist-created-fakes.html. ??8.??I. M. D. Souza and A. M. L. Caitite, “The Amazing Story of the Fraudulently Cloned Embryos and What It Tells Us about Science, Technology, and the Media,” Historia, Ciencias, Saude—Manguinhos 17, no. 2 (2009): 471–93. ??9.??Joseph Hixson, The Patchwork Mouse (Garden City, New York: Anchor Press, 1976). 10.??Isabelle De Groote et al., “New Genetic and Morphological Evidence Suggests a Single Hoaxer Created ‘Piltdown Man’,” Royal Society of Open Science 3, no. 8 (August 2016): 160328, https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.160328. 11.??Gretchen Vogel, “Psychologist Accused of Fraud on ‘Astonishing Scale’,” Science 334, no. 6056 (November 4, 2011): 579–79, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.334.6056.579. 12.??Daniele Fanelli, “How Many Scientists Fabricate and Falsify Research? A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Survey Data,” Plos One 4, no. 5 (2009): e5738, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0005738. 13.??Mona Baker and Dan Penny, “Is There a Reproducibility Crisis?” Nature 533 (May 26, 2016): 452–54. 14.??C. Glenn Begley and Lee M. Ellis, “Drug Development: Raise Standards for Preclinical Cancer Research,” Nature 483 (March 2012): 531–33, https://doi.org/10.1038/483531a. 15.Andrew Chang and Phillip Li, “Is Economics Research Replicable? Sixty Published Papers from Thirteen Journals Say ‘Usually Not’,” Finance and Economics Discussion Series 2015-083 (September 2015): http://dx.doi.org/10.17016/FEDS.2015.083, retrieved from https://www.federalreserve.gov/econresdata/feds/2015/files/2015083pap.pdf. 16.C. Glenn Begley and John P. Ioannidis, “Reproducibility in Science: Improving the Standard for Basic and Preclinical Research,” Circulation Research 116, no. 1 (January 2015): 116–26, https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCRESAHA.114.303819. 17.John P. Ioannidis, “Why Most Published Research Findings Are False,” PLoS Medicine 2 (August 2005): e124, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124.
Desmet, Mattias. The Psychology of Totalitarianism . Chelsea Green Publishing. Kindle Edition.
You should use Tssciencecollaboration for your or your organization`s plans, projects, documents, decisions
The Majority is Often Wrong, Even When They Are Credentialed and Widely Admired
The evidence was overwhelming already in 2020 that getting the coronavirus vaccine increased virtually everybody's likelihood of death.
Moreover a TSScienceCollaboration diagram was capable of exposing this. for proof of this fact we exhibit the TSScienceCollaboration diagram:
https://tssciencecollaboration.com/graph/Getting%20a%20coronavirus%20vax%20%20is%20idiotic%20and%20%20this%20was%20%20obvious%20since%202020/986/0/-1/-1/0/0#
If you got a coronavirus vaccine or influenced your company to require them, all you were probably seeing on the subject of safety, was blather from the CDC, and the mainstream media, and the social media, and your personal physician, all of which were heavily censored of the truth. if you had looked at a TSScienceCollaboration diagram in which some of the many experts who understood the real situation contributed, this fact would have been immediately transparent.
People have a strong bias to focus on arguments they like, and ignore evidence and arguments against, which constantly leads them to err. They take advice from experts which is often transparently disproven in the scientific literature-- but to know that without a TSSC diagram, you have to find it and understand it. but if someone adds it to the Truthsift diagram, the expert's opinion will stand as tentatively refuted, and the diagram will disregard it, until he comes up with a cogent answer and defends it against challenge.
For controversial topics, the majority is at least as often wrong as right when confronted with a minority view, even or perhaps especially when the large majority including most highly educated people thinks skeptics are idiots.
The link goes to a 49-statement- graph tentatively establishing the statement above. if you wish to challenge please visit there first and challenge there.
Peer reviewed surveys agree: A landslide majority of medical practice is not supported by science
S. A. Greenberg, "How citation distortions create unfounded authority: analysis of a citation network", BMJ 2009;339:b2680
Office of Technology Assessment, Congress of the United States (1978) “Assessing the Efficacy and Safety of Medical Technologies,”, . http://www.fas.org/ota/reports/7805.pdf Jeannette Ezzo, Barker Bausell, Daniel E. Moerman, Brian Berman and Victoria Hadhazy (2001).
“Reviewing The Reviews” . International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 17, pp 457-466.http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=101041
John S Garrow “What to do about CAM?: How much of orthodox medicine is evidence based?”, BMJ. 2007 Nov 10; 335(7627): 951.doi:10.1136/bmj.39388.393970.1F PMCID: PMC2071976 http://www.dcscience.net/garrow-evidence-bmj.pdf
1
0
9
REPLY
EDIT
DELETE
