Fake Studies

From iGeek
(Redirected from Category:Fake Studies)
Jump to: navigation, search

This is a list of things that people believe, based on "Studies" that have been debunked or discredited:

Examples: 8 items

  • Thomas Piketty and Emmanuel Saez -
    Capital.jpeg
    Thomas Piketty is a French Economist (and woman-beater), who used Emmanuel Saez's discredited research (study) on how things haven't gotten better for the middle class, as the basis for his new socialist manifesto called Capital in the 21st Century (a play on Marx’s Das Kapital). Economically, the study/book was crap: politically, it was gold. It told the left leaning and their media what they wanted to hear. So it made the NYT best seller list in Fan Fiction, and everyone talked about it. It was peer reviewed and debunked in spades, but not before the gullible gobbled it up as a tasty plate of confirmation bias. Nom nom.
  • Stanford Prison Experiment - There was a study done by Professor Philip Zimbardo in 1971, which divided people into two groups: guards and prisoners, and within days the prison guards had become brutal monsters and the prisoners hapless victims, showing that authority corrupts, prisons are bad, and victims are noble. If you're ever read or seen this in News, you are a victim of FakeNews. The truth is it was a faked study that has never been reproduced (despite many efforts), and the real truth is that humans will play along with a sham for money, and the News will left will lie for attention. That was all.
  • Numbers Covered by Obamacare -
    Uninsured.jpg
    Those claiming 20 million more people are insured because of Obamacare (ACA) either don’t know what they’re talking about, or are bald-faced liars. We're around 29 million people short of the campaign promise for universal coverage. And it's well below the 20 million new people covered that the fools and frauds like to claim. The facts: about 2.8M were covered because of Obamacare, and another 4-6M because of medicaid expansion, at a cost of about $20K per new person covered.
  • Minimum Wage Laws -
    Check2Check.png
    The minimum wage and living wage warriors seem reluctant to accept the economic realities: price and wage controls almost never work. There are extremely rare cases where they can work (or do minimal damage) in one small location for short amounts of time, but there's no magic wage that's right for everywhere and everywhen at once. Thus wage controls start out bad and get worse over time. While a few discredited studies (like Card & Krueger) show that raising minimum wage doesn't have large impacts, in a few situations, for short periods of time. But each study like that has dozens of rebuttals and refutations that show the flaws in their methodology, and counter studies that it does impact employment (and wages), in the wrong way. So if you see a Study or News that claims minimum wage doesn't hurt employment, you know it's Fake. A few socratic questions show the problems: (a) What's a fair wage for both NYC and B.F. Idaho? If $15/hr is good, why not $150/hr? If only 9% of minimum wage workers are below the poverty line (and 91% are not), wouldn't giving money directly to that 9% be better? If minimum wage is a starting salary, why should it have an ending value (be a livable wage)?
  • Medicare-for-all popularity - FakeNews, "Medicare-for-all is popular", even in red states. RealNews: Medicare-for-all is popular amongst the uninformed. Support drops below 37 percent (58% opposed) if survey takers are told that the bill would eliminate private insurance companies. Instead of informing viewers/readers of that fact, or what it would mean, FakeNews outlets love to popularize that Medicare-for-all myth. That's not news, it's propaganda.
  • Climate Consensus -
    Sheep1.jpg
    To begin with, consensus isn't Science. Consensus is either the bandwagon fallacy or the appeal to authority fallacy. Consensus/popularity is politics. Science is skepticism. Places that use the 97% Scientific Consensus for AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming) fall into one of two groups: (a) those completely unaware of where that comes from (b) those that are dishonest polemics who know how shoddy the claim is (studies are), but they publish them anyway. There really isn't a lot of middle ground on this one. The actual consensus is surprisingly small, and the studies that say otherwise are embarrassingly bad, and the one thing that most Scientists seem to have a stronger consensus on, is that IPCC and the media are misleading the public (and overhyping things).
  • Beepocalypse - There was this huge scam for many years that bees were dying, and it was going to be the end us of all, because bees were so important to the ecosystem. Colony Collapse Disorder was sensationalized as the greatest threat to humanity since Nuclear weapons. A decade later, nothing had happened and most had forgotten the media's sensationalism. But the informed remembered, and learned from the mistake.
  • 2014.06.06 DGU Disinformation -
    CiviliansWithGuns.jpg
    When Republican Politician (Jim Rubens) used a shoddy study (that used only 10 examples) that claimed armed civilians drastically reduce casualties during mass shootings, PolitiFact slammed it as false.... by using a worse study to refute it: their "expert" could only find 3 cases of a DGU's (Defensive Gun Uses) stopping a mass shooting? I show dozens in my Mass shootings stopped by armed civilians article, without even trying. So while the issue is complex, and no one is going to agree on an exact number reduced, there's zero doubt (to the informed) that civilians with guns have reduced casualties in mass shootings. Claiming that as completely false, is completely dishonest. The only debate is how "drastically" it has helped.



Written: 2018.06.14