<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
  <channel>
    <title>Trust &amp;mdash; Paul Sutton</title>
    <link>https://paper.wf/paulsutton/tag:Trust</link>
    <description>Paul Sutton - personal blog </description>
    <pubDate>Thu, 07 May 2026 00:40:38 +0000</pubDate>
    <item>
      <title>Bogus science</title>
      <link>https://paper.wf/paulsutton/bogus-science</link>
      <description>&lt;![CDATA[Bogus science&#xA;&#xA;Bad science is now becoming a real concern for the science community,   This Fediverse post gives an idea of the issues involved.  &#xA;&#xA;iframe src=&#34;https://tldr.nettime.org/@remixtures/111920288369009518/embed&#34; class=&#34;mastodon-embed&#34; style=&#34;max-width: 100%; border: 0&#34; width=&#34;600&#34; height =&#34;600&#34; allowfullscreen=&#34;allowfullscreen&#34;/iframe &#xA;&#xA;To make things worse,   we now have AI producing total nonsensical science.&#xA;&#xA;iframe src=&#34;https://assemblag.es/@hugo/111941048883350012/embed&#34; class=&#34;mastodon-embed&#34; style=&#34;max-width: 100%; border: 0&#34; width=&#34;600&#34; height=&#34;600&#34; allowfullscreen=&#34;allowfullscreen&#34;/iframe&#xA;&#xA;Very worrying as science needs to be trusted, and the peer review process needs to be robust to maintain that trust.&#xA;&#xA;Links&#xA;&#xA;Sense About Science&#xA;Spotting Bad Science&#xA;hypothesis vs Theory&#xA;Critical Thinking&#xA;&#xA;Tags&#xA;&#xA;#Science,#Trust,#PeerReview]]&gt;</description>
      <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Bogus science</p>

<p>Bad science is now becoming a real concern for the science community,   This Fediverse post gives an idea of the issues involved.</p>

<iframe src="https://tldr.nettime.org/@remixtures/111920288369009518/embed" class="mastodon-embed" style="max-width: 100%; border: 0" width="600" height="600" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe> 

<p>To make things worse,   we now have AI producing total nonsensical science.</p>

<iframe src="https://assemblag.es/@hugo/111941048883350012/embed" class="mastodon-embed" style="max-width: 100%; border: 0" width="600" height="600" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe>

<p>Very worrying as science needs to be trusted, and the peer review process needs to be robust to maintain that trust.</p>

<p><strong>Links</strong></p>
<ul><li><a href="https://senseaboutscience.org/" rel="nofollow">Sense About Science</a></li>
<li><a href="https://www.compoundchem.com/2014/04/02/a-rough-guide-to-spotting-bad-science/" rel="nofollow">Spotting Bad Science</a></li>
<li><a href="https://personaljournal.ca/paulsutton/hypothesis-vs-theory" rel="nofollow">hypothesis vs Theory</a></li>
<li><a href="https://personaljournal.ca/paulsutton/fossil-fuels-and-alternatives" rel="nofollow">Critical Thinking</a></li></ul>

<p><strong>Tags</strong></p>

<p><a href="/paulsutton/tag:Science" class="hashtag" rel="nofollow"><span>#</span><span class="p-category">Science</span></a>,<a href="/paulsutton/tag:Trust" class="hashtag" rel="nofollow"><span>#</span><span class="p-category">Trust</span></a>,<a href="/paulsutton/tag:PeerReview" class="hashtag" rel="nofollow"><span>#</span><span class="p-category">PeerReview</span></a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
      <guid>https://paper.wf/paulsutton/bogus-science</guid>
      <pubDate>Fri, 16 Feb 2024 13:25:39 +0000</pubDate>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>