this post was submitted on 29 Aug 2024
1210 points (98.1% liked)
Technology
60055 readers
2903 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
There is the semi-usually-known research that suggests 3.5% is enough for non-violent protests to reach changes. https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.7312/chen15682
0.5% is 1 in 200 people, essentially everyone knowing personally one person who is against the government. Maybe it isn't enough.
But also, 0.5% homogenously (instead of country-wide being concentrated in Moscow), would be 600k people peacefully marching in Moscow streets
It doesn't work. It's some urban legend that this is sufficient. Even those 600k may or may not be stopped by a threat of real ammo being used. I'm not even talking about coordination.
One can "prove" anything with selectively chosen statistics.
They werent selectively chosen. " An original, aggregate data set of all known major nonviolent and violent resistance campaigns from 1900 to 2006 is used to test these claims." As well as any researcher who isn't a complete buffoon would only look at statistics that has only a 2-3 sigma chance of only being stochastic noise.
The set of indicators, of course, was selectively chosen. The authors, of course, have decided which of these they consider important and which don't, that is, decided upon weights and criteria.
That is complete unfounded fluff words. No paper would be published if it was biased and as selective as you say. Look at the paper at least briefly and we can discuss.
I think you can download it here: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/240678278_Why_Civil_Resistance_Works_The_Strategic_Logic_of_Nonviolent_Conflict
Of interest maybe would be the indicators of a campaigns success:
That is incredibly naive of you and truly points to your lack of credibility.
Bye.
Tell me more about how antivax scientists didn't successfully publish a paper with tons of biases and nonsensical findings.
You'll have to actually reference a published paper for that claim.
lmao
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lancet_MMR_autism_fraud
"[The paper] admitted that the research did not "prove" an association between the MMR vaccine and autism."
"He was reportedly asked to leave the Royal Free Hospital [around 2001] after refusing a request [presumably around 1999] to validate his 1998 Lancet paper with a controlled study."
You could say it took to long to retract the paper, which was essentially full of data-fudged "maybes". But it supposedly was "science" until it was uncovered as just fraud.
Apart from the data fudging, and intense bullshit and hype-train pushing by the now deregistered "professional" [fraudster].
Sorry, this just shows the resillience of publishing, and the scientific community to fraud and [alleged] corruption.
No lmao.
The paper wasn't retracted until 2010 lol. The point is that fraudulent papers can be published.
Still lmao.
Uh... sure it does, buddy.
In just the same way you can get away from taxes by lying vehemently... he lost his job and reputation in less than three years.
Since the paper itself was okay, but the data was falsified, obviously it was hard to prove the data was false until other studies not only showed it, but also his reputation was discredited and (presumably) investigations finished.
Incorrect data can happen even to a good paper in good faith due to instrument error.
The paper in question, again, was lots of "maybes" and no direct conclusions. The earth shattering conclusions were reached in press conferences where the guy lied vehemently, and the journalists ate it up like coke.
REMINDER: THIS IS WHERE WE STARTED
MY POINT = PROVEN CORRECT
PLEASE KEEP MOVING THE GOALPOST
The goal posts were not moved at any point. It was a discussion of the situation, as it is.
Please look at the paper you refer to: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(10)60175-4/abstract It was only retracted because of "In particular, the claims in the original paper that children were “consecutively referred” and that investigations were “approved” by the local ethics committee have been proven to be false. Therefore we fully retract this paper from the published record." It was retracted due to fraud. I don't think it's in any way wise to blame the possibility of fraud on the peer review process. Just as fraud can happen in any field because some people decide to pathologically lie.
However, besides the fraudulent ethics, the paper is fine, and as always previously reiterated multiple times. All it says are a bunch of maybes. It makes no extraordinary claims, it holds no conclusive proof, just a lot of "this maybe hints to something". The paper is publishable.
The actual scandal was caused by the Wakefield lying profusely in media.
These are two different things: what Wakefield said in media, and what Wakefield said in the paper. You should separate them.
lol ok bud