Is the Internet Filled with Deceptive Scientific Articles?

[nnope]

So every time I do some research on the internet I run into major problems... like some freaky stuff, and this isn't QM freaky... its just freaky.
Anyway while roaming google as ome does I come across a scientific article that is so well writted it had me convinced, it even had another article by another scientist as a refutation. The article Basicly said that a test was conducted involving a bunch of meditators and that they managed to alter the course of an electron during a double slit experiment. I know its bull but the article looked so bloody legit i just couldn't ignore. So i need someone here to convince me its BS before I lose my mind lol. Can there really be this much lies on the net

 

[ZapperZ]

Can there really be this much lies on the net

Yes.

I've been on the 'net since 1989 (is that before you were born?). You ain't seen nothin' yet!

Zz.

 

[Psinter]

Can there really be this much lies on the net

Yes. There are also lies in real life. And the internet is made by real people.

Like this: Source: If Google was a guy

And this: Source: If Google was a Guy

 

[Sophia]

The most important factor should be the author. is he/she a physicist? What's their background? Do they profit from writing an article like that? I find that answering these questions is more easy and effective than trying to evaluate quality of each and every statement in the article. Mostly I apply this strategy to evaluate articles about social science, philosophy and politics, but I think it can be applied to any field as a form of general estimation if it is worth to pay more attention to the topic.

 

[StevieTNZ]

So i need someone here to convince me its BS before I lose my mind lol.

Why do you need convincing that it is rubbish? Why would you lose your mind over it? I sense something deeper is going on.

 

[nnope]

Why do you need convincing that it is rubbish? Why would you lose your mind over it? I sense something deeper is going on.

Na there is nothing deeper, I was just over exaggerating to present a point. The article I am using as an example was very well written, it had everything you would have in a legitimate journal article, it was published in a journal and had like 400 references. Not to mention the second article that tried to refute the first one.

With all that said how do I know now that any article I find online is the real deal... any article can look real and anyone of them can have a million references that are real. If it wasn't for the fact that the example I gave talked about meditating people using mind control to move an electron and it rather discussed something more valid but a lie none the less I might have believed it.

There is a mad motive to lie when it comes to publishing journal articles... there is the money, pushing a certain idea you want people to believe, perhaps for fame etc...

 

[jtbell]

Which journal was it? There are a lot of online open-access journals that exist mainly to make their publishers some money through fees charged to authors, and that will publish just about anything.

https://scholarlyoa.com/publishers/
https://scholarlyoa.com/individual-journals/

 

[berkeman]

With all that said how do I know now that any article I find online is the real deal...

You could start with the standards that we use here at the PF for qualifying references (see the Rules thread under INFO at the top of the page)...

Acceptable Sources:
Generally, discussion topics should be traceable to standard textbooks or to peer-reviewed scientific literature. Usually, we accept references from journals that are listed here:

http://ip-science.thomsonreuters.com/mjl/

Use the search feature to search for journals by words in their titles. If you have problems with the search feature, you can view the entire list here:

http://ip-science.thomsonreuters.com/cgi-bin/jrnlst/jlresults.cgi?PC=MASTER

In recent years, there has been an increasing number of "fringe" and Internet-only journals that appear to have lax reviewing standards. We do not generally accept references from such journals. Note that some of these fringe journals are listed in Thomson Reuters. Just because a journal is listed in Thomson Reuters does not mean it is acceptable.

References that appear only on http://www.arxiv.org/ (which is not peer-reviewed) are subject to review by the Mentors. We recognize that in some fields this is the accepted means of professional communication, but in other fields we prefer to wait until formal publication elsewhere.

 

[nnope]

@jtbell and @berkeman
I did what you guys said, the journal didn't even come up in the thomsonreuters site... therefore I suspect the article is a load of BS

here is a link to the article if you want to see the bs I was talking about
http://www.deanradin.com/papers/Physics%20Essays%20Radin%20final.pdf< Crackpot link deleted by Mentor >>

Can something like the above even be scientifically possible...

While looking for that very article I found another forum listing more conspiracy articles lol.
http://www.deanradin.com/papers/Physics%20Essays%20Radin%20final.pdf< Crackpot link deleted by Mentor >>

 

[DiracPool]

that is so well writted

 

[berkeman]

@jtbell and @berkeman
I did what you guys said, the journal didn't even come up in the thomsonreuters site... therefore I suspect the article is a load of BS

here is a link to the article if you want to see the bs I was talking about
http://www.deanradin.com/papers/Physics%20Essays%20Radin%20final.pdf< Crackpot link deleted by Mentor >>

Can something like the above even be scientifically possible...

While looking for that very article I found another forum listing more conspiracy articles lol.
http://www.deanradin.com/papers/Physics%20Essays%20Radin%20final.pdf< Crackpot link deleted by Mentor >>

As we just discussed, posting crackpot links is not allowed at the PF. The links have been deleted, and this thread is done.