There is much bigger conspiracy - why papers that was not replicated by independent researches are allowed to be cited in other papers.
As for your question about Asians - it is very simple. Since in the modern scientific world the level of researcher is measured by number of publications and citations, not by the quality of publication, they just do what will give them best resilts in that metrics. It's like Chineese manufacturer - they could do high-quality things, but if the customer(supply manager of supermarket network f.e.) want as cheap as possible goods, chineese will never refuse to fullfill the order. Same with the science. If they want more publications and citations - no problem, there will be more publications and citations.
So, if Academia is value scientists by number of publications in commercial scientific journals and citations by other publications author, not by the quality, importance, significance, etc of research, then there is absolutely no anything strange that Asians will do exactly what Academina "customer" wants.
Unless Academia drop that insane and corrupt tradition to value scientists by number of publications and citations - nothing will chenge ever.
Shittyness of publications from "best" western universities is exactly the same, it is just much simplier and consequenceless for western scientific peer-rewvewed journal to retract some unknown chineese dudes article, than to do it with similar shitty article from some "famous" western university with (((their))) names in it.
Add the politics and narratives here, and you get the current state of things in Academia.
Academia is rotten to the core. For a long time already.
Yea, this is exactly my point. Not that white people using the scientific method are perfect but something culturally about asians (except the Japanese) is that they try to monkey hack the system and just create a bunch of fake shit to get their citation count up.
If you're an editor at a journal, and 5% of the papers from a Chinese university have to be retracted, I wouldn't waste the time of the peer reviewers in accepting it in the first place. It's like a sort of p hacking p.05 random chance that you're going to get something fake.
Japanese are exactly the same. They just passed the stage "hey, orientals, make me cheapest crap possible" in area of consumer goods.
If you're an editor at a journal, and 5% of the papers from a Chinese university have to be retracted,
Problem is that same amount, if not even more papers from Europe/USA have to be retracted, but that could have consequences for the editor. :) They just could not retract a paper paid by BigPharma or huge government grants that is used as a core reasom for huge profits or gov. spending/actions.
Most scientific journals are businesses under West jurisdiction. Chineese or Indians couldn't harm them financially or legally, but Western elites could.
State of Western Academia (really including Russian one, that is organized same as Western one with minor differences) is nicely described in one of last Sabine Hossenfelder's rant on YT - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=shFUDPqVmTg. (Interesting, does she spread same thing on climatehoax and coronahoax "science", or continue to be a hypocrite ?)
I used to be in academia, you don't have to sell me on the state of academia.
That said, I don't think you're reading the chart quite correctly. Lots of papers get retracted, but of institutions, 5% from this one get retracted. All western colleges probably have more by pure numbers, but this is akin to the per capita problem.
I used to be in academia, you don't have to sell me on the state of academia.
Cheers, so we know how it works. :(
That said, I don't think you're reading the chart quite correctly.
Chart is biased.
My point is that western institutilons have official retraction rate lower than 5%, only because of political/finacial reasons, not because of better papers quality. My second point is that this official retraction rate is a huge underestimation of what have to be retracted in normal system.
Again, not quite correct, because Chinese have been caught in "paper mills"
They also have "electronics mills", "kitchenware mills", even "car mills". That's what they good in. Of course they will have "paper mills". And if they see that only number of publications and citations valued, they will go for it, not for quality. Expecially taking in account that western scientists do exactly the same for decades.
Quality of Soviet scientific publications was order of magnitude higher, until western "rules" arrived on USSR fall. And now we have same stream of useless, never reproduced papers and so publications/citations race for the sole goal of higher number of publications and citations.
I think around 80% of modern scientific papers should be retracted, regardless of country of origin.
I always wondered why even papers that was not confirmed by later experiments never retracted or at least disclaimered that they was found false. F.e. in particle physics. all that papers with new particle predictions that was never confirmed even on LHC, despite all conditions described in paper was met, are still there, like nothing happened and still cited and their authors accounted as valued ones.
Also, this passage from the article:
That proportion is an order of magnitude higher than China’s retraction rate, and 50 times the global average.
does not mean that there are 50 times more fraudlent chineese papers. It means that chineese papers retracted 50 times more often. That could easily mean that same western fraudlent articles just not retracted for political/financial/whatever reasons.
Also, biology and medicine is a very corrupted area. If Chineese publish articles that could potentially harm western BigPharma, then they will be retractded by western journals, because they depend highly on western BigPharma.
Retraction also does not mean that article is inherently fraudlent. It could be just counter-narrative f.e.
Recall that ivermectin papers. Once it become a threat to BigPharma, it nearly disappeared from publications, and many articles was retracted, despite being valid and even replicated.
Well, I was admittedly unaware of the Soviet problem. But there is an issue you're missing, if a paper mill shits out a ton of papers, more papers means more retractions. Further, they will invariably be of lower quality and given the Chinese propensity to lie, more papers means more fraudulent ones.
Invention aka in (within) vestire (to dress; clothe)
Method aka meta (in pursuit or quest of) hodos (way)
Ones consent to a suggested method tempts one to pursue an outcome, while putting the cloth of ignorance over ones eyes about perceivable origin.
To perceive implies scio/science (to know). Therefore...method contradicts science, while establishing in-vest-ment aka a mind dressed in ignorance. Guess who banks trust based investments...
Nothing like putting your overt racism on display for all to see!
On top of that you are wrong, the Scientific Method has it's basis in Greek Philosophy (Aristotle and Epicurus) well as Middle Eastern early scientists and thinkers (such as Ḥasan Ibn al-Haytham and Abu Rayhan Muhammad ibn Ahmad al-Biruni) before getting to Franciscan friars Francis Bacon and Wiliam of Ockham.
Just as I recognize that blacks are better at the 100 meter dash, I also recognize that Europe created the scientific method. If that's racism, so be it.
One - Greece is on the continent of Europe, so of course they are European, but that was not the point now was it. The Greeks were the progenitors Western society, but this was all when the Europe you are referring to was still practicing feudalism. When you say European, you meant a specific thing. Highlighting the Muslim influence in the creation of the scientific method was left out of your supposition altogether, and for a very specific reason.
Additionally, the average percentage of medical studies rejected by legitimate, respected medical journals is around 40%, and they are not all rejected for being fraudulent. Most are rejected for being outside the reporting scope of the specific medical journals the papers are regarding.
And my answer was not in any way helped by AI...It is not hard to be a reasonably intelligent biped when you can think for yourself.
I could write something long and detailed, but you will remain unconvinced.
Earliest evidence of systematic scientific thinking is Aristotle's Analytica Posteriora, (`340 BC) in which is discussed systems of demonstration definition to attain scientific knowledge. His work is (mildly) marred by his belief in empiricism, that only true knowledge could be obtained by direct observation, that deduced (or in his term, induced) knowledge did not pass the test of truth.
Epicurus (`250 BC) laid out some of the first rules for proposing what we would now call a hypothesis, to come up with something that has not yet been observed.
Lucretius (`55 BC I believe) in Rome publishes "On the Nature of Things" a poem laying out Epicurus work and methods, focusing on axioms and comparative and parallel comparative philosophy.
Here, during the middle ages, the focus moves to early Muslim scientists like al-Kindi (801–873) and the writings of an author going by the name of Jābir ibn Hayyān (writings dated to 850–950), who may have been a collective of authors. The writings include a larger emphasis on experimentation, especially repetitive experimentation as a means of obtaining scientific truth.
While not perfect, these writings contain contain the oldest known systematic classification of chemical substances, and the oldest known instructions for deriving an inorganic compounds from organic substances (such as plants, blood, and hair) by chemical means.
Ibn al-Haytham (Alhazen) used these same methods put forth by other Muslim philosophers, using experimentation to obtain the results in his Book of Optics (1021). He combined observations, experiments and rational arguments to support his theory of vision, in which rays of light are emitted from objects rather than from the eyes, proving an argument by Aristotle, that objects emitted particles pertinent to sight, false.
There is a lot of other influence from throughout the world on the development of the scientific method, from the writings of Hindu philosophers in India about the cosmology of the universe and Chinese philosophers who used a similar method of deductive reasoning, but never codified it into a step-by-step process the way that Francis Bacon and Rene Descartes did. But to discount the influence on scientific thinking by other cultures is not being intellectually honest.
(most of this is excerpts from my Masters thesis, just in case you think AI did it, I too work in academia, but I do not have such a negative view of my profession as you seem to.)
Systematic ways of examining a problem and the steps did not come around all at once and certainly without the influence of people other than white people.
Believe whatever you want about my writing. I don't care
One cannot acquire knowledge...only discern self within all knowledge. Nature moves all knowledge (perceivable) through each one (perception).
Few trick many to seek the acquisition of suggested "knowledge" by consent given, which implies understanding aka standing-under aka ones willing submission to another aka ones choice selecting a chosen ones offer.
In short...perceivable inspiration (knowledge) cannot be held onto; suggested information (understanding) tempts one to ignore former by holding onto latter.
That's how many are tricked to enslave themselves to few masters.
There is much bigger conspiracy - why papers that was not replicated by independent researches are allowed to be cited in other papers.
As for your question about Asians - it is very simple. Since in the modern scientific world the level of researcher is measured by number of publications and citations, not by the quality of publication, they just do what will give them best resilts in that metrics. It's like Chineese manufacturer - they could do high-quality things, but if the customer(supply manager of supermarket network f.e.) want as cheap as possible goods, chineese will never refuse to fullfill the order. Same with the science. If they want more publications and citations - no problem, there will be more publications and citations.
So, if Academia is value scientists by number of publications in commercial scientific journals and citations by other publications author, not by the quality, importance, significance, etc of research, then there is absolutely no anything strange that Asians will do exactly what Academina "customer" wants.
Unless Academia drop that insane and corrupt tradition to value scientists by number of publications and citations - nothing will chenge ever.
Shittyness of publications from "best" western universities is exactly the same, it is just much simplier and consequenceless for western scientific peer-rewvewed journal to retract some unknown chineese dudes article, than to do it with similar shitty article from some "famous" western university with (((their))) names in it.
Add the politics and narratives here, and you get the current state of things in Academia.
Academia is rotten to the core. For a long time already.
Yea, this is exactly my point. Not that white people using the scientific method are perfect but something culturally about asians (except the Japanese) is that they try to monkey hack the system and just create a bunch of fake shit to get their citation count up.
If you're an editor at a journal, and 5% of the papers from a Chinese university have to be retracted, I wouldn't waste the time of the peer reviewers in accepting it in the first place. It's like a sort of p hacking p.05 random chance that you're going to get something fake.
Japanese are exactly the same. They just passed the stage "hey, orientals, make me cheapest crap possible" in area of consumer goods.
Problem is that same amount, if not even more papers from Europe/USA have to be retracted, but that could have consequences for the editor. :) They just could not retract a paper paid by BigPharma or huge government grants that is used as a core reasom for huge profits or gov. spending/actions.
Most scientific journals are businesses under West jurisdiction. Chineese or Indians couldn't harm them financially or legally, but Western elites could.
State of Western Academia (really including Russian one, that is organized same as Western one with minor differences) is nicely described in one of last Sabine Hossenfelder's rant on YT - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=shFUDPqVmTg. (Interesting, does she spread same thing on climatehoax and coronahoax "science", or continue to be a hypocrite ?)
I used to be in academia, you don't have to sell me on the state of academia.
That said, I don't think you're reading the chart quite correctly. Lots of papers get retracted, but of institutions, 5% from this one get retracted. All western colleges probably have more by pure numbers, but this is akin to the per capita problem.
Cheers, so we know how it works. :(
Chart is biased.
My point is that western institutilons have official retraction rate lower than 5%, only because of political/finacial reasons, not because of better papers quality. My second point is that this official retraction rate is a huge underestimation of what have to be retracted in normal system.
Again, not quite correct, because Chinese have been caught in "paper mills"
Here's the story from the chart, which makes this clear: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-025-00455-y
They also have "electronics mills", "kitchenware mills", even "car mills". That's what they good in. Of course they will have "paper mills". And if they see that only number of publications and citations valued, they will go for it, not for quality. Expecially taking in account that western scientists do exactly the same for decades.
Quality of Soviet scientific publications was order of magnitude higher, until western "rules" arrived on USSR fall. And now we have same stream of useless, never reproduced papers and so publications/citations race for the sole goal of higher number of publications and citations.
I think around 80% of modern scientific papers should be retracted, regardless of country of origin.
I always wondered why even papers that was not confirmed by later experiments never retracted or at least disclaimered that they was found false. F.e. in particle physics. all that papers with new particle predictions that was never confirmed even on LHC, despite all conditions described in paper was met, are still there, like nothing happened and still cited and their authors accounted as valued ones.
Also, this passage from the article:
does not mean that there are 50 times more fraudlent chineese papers. It means that chineese papers retracted 50 times more often. That could easily mean that same western fraudlent articles just not retracted for political/financial/whatever reasons.
Also, biology and medicine is a very corrupted area. If Chineese publish articles that could potentially harm western BigPharma, then they will be retractded by western journals, because they depend highly on western BigPharma.
Retraction also does not mean that article is inherently fraudlent. It could be just counter-narrative f.e.
Recall that ivermectin papers. Once it become a threat to BigPharma, it nearly disappeared from publications, and many articles was retracted, despite being valid and even replicated.
Well, I was admittedly unaware of the Soviet problem. But there is an issue you're missing, if a paper mill shits out a ton of papers, more papers means more retractions. Further, they will invariably be of lower quality and given the Chinese propensity to lie, more papers means more fraudulent ones.
Ones consent to a suggested method tempts one to pursue an outcome, while putting the cloth of ignorance over ones eyes about perceivable origin.
To perceive implies scio/science (to know). Therefore...method contradicts science, while establishing in-vest-ment aka a mind dressed in ignorance. Guess who banks trust based investments...
Nothing like putting your overt racism on display for all to see!
On top of that you are wrong, the Scientific Method has it's basis in Greek Philosophy (Aristotle and Epicurus) well as Middle Eastern early scientists and thinkers (such as Ḥasan Ibn al-Haytham and Abu Rayhan Muhammad ibn Ahmad al-Biruni) before getting to Franciscan friars Francis Bacon and Wiliam of Ockham.
Just as I recognize that blacks are better at the 100 meter dash, I also recognize that Europe created the scientific method. If that's racism, so be it.
Do you not consider the Greeks European?
And your answer was totally helped by AI.
One - Greece is on the continent of Europe, so of course they are European, but that was not the point now was it. The Greeks were the progenitors Western society, but this was all when the Europe you are referring to was still practicing feudalism. When you say European, you meant a specific thing. Highlighting the Muslim influence in the creation of the scientific method was left out of your supposition altogether, and for a very specific reason.
Additionally, the average percentage of medical studies rejected by legitimate, respected medical journals is around 40%, and they are not all rejected for being fraudulent. Most are rejected for being outside the reporting scope of the specific medical journals the papers are regarding.
And my answer was not in any way helped by AI...It is not hard to be a reasonably intelligent biped when you can think for yourself.
What was, exactly, the Mohammedian influence on...using very specific terms here...the "scientific method"?
And don't lie, you should be better than that.
Why would I lie when it is easily fact checked.
I could write something long and detailed, but you will remain unconvinced.
Earliest evidence of systematic scientific thinking is Aristotle's Analytica Posteriora, (`340 BC) in which is discussed systems of demonstration definition to attain scientific knowledge. His work is (mildly) marred by his belief in empiricism, that only true knowledge could be obtained by direct observation, that deduced (or in his term, induced) knowledge did not pass the test of truth.
Epicurus (`250 BC) laid out some of the first rules for proposing what we would now call a hypothesis, to come up with something that has not yet been observed.
Lucretius (`55 BC I believe) in Rome publishes "On the Nature of Things" a poem laying out Epicurus work and methods, focusing on axioms and comparative and parallel comparative philosophy.
Here, during the middle ages, the focus moves to early Muslim scientists like al-Kindi (801–873) and the writings of an author going by the name of Jābir ibn Hayyān (writings dated to 850–950), who may have been a collective of authors. The writings include a larger emphasis on experimentation, especially repetitive experimentation as a means of obtaining scientific truth.
While not perfect, these writings contain contain the oldest known systematic classification of chemical substances, and the oldest known instructions for deriving an inorganic compounds from organic substances (such as plants, blood, and hair) by chemical means.
Ibn al-Haytham (Alhazen) used these same methods put forth by other Muslim philosophers, using experimentation to obtain the results in his Book of Optics (1021). He combined observations, experiments and rational arguments to support his theory of vision, in which rays of light are emitted from objects rather than from the eyes, proving an argument by Aristotle, that objects emitted particles pertinent to sight, false.
There is a lot of other influence from throughout the world on the development of the scientific method, from the writings of Hindu philosophers in India about the cosmology of the universe and Chinese philosophers who used a similar method of deductive reasoning, but never codified it into a step-by-step process the way that Francis Bacon and Rene Descartes did. But to discount the influence on scientific thinking by other cultures is not being intellectually honest.
(most of this is excerpts from my Masters thesis, just in case you think AI did it, I too work in academia, but I do not have such a negative view of my profession as you seem to.)
No no, not "systematic thinking" which people have been doing since time immemorial, but the "scientific method".
sigh
Great essay you let AI write for you as well.
Systematic ways of examining a problem and the steps did not come around all at once and certainly without the influence of people other than white people.
Believe whatever you want about my writing. I don't care
Conflating "systematic thinking" with the "scientific method" is eliding and muddling the issue. They are two separate things.
And it's not your writing, it's an AI.
You're wasting my time at this point, with your copy/paste replies. You're missing the most important citation anyway. I leave the last word to you.
One cannot acquire knowledge...only discern self within all knowledge. Nature moves all knowledge (perceivable) through each one (perception).
Few trick many to seek the acquisition of suggested "knowledge" by consent given, which implies understanding aka standing-under aka ones willing submission to another aka ones choice selecting a chosen ones offer.
In short...perceivable inspiration (knowledge) cannot be held onto; suggested information (understanding) tempts one to ignore former by holding onto latter.
That's how many are tricked to enslave themselves to few masters.