Watch Live: Second House Hearing on IRS Scandal

Science

11 Hilarious Tweets From Scientists Getting Into #Overlyhonestmethods Hashtag

Jan. 10, 2013 7:13am Liz Klimas

Scientists who are used to producing dozens of pages of jargon-filled research that a typical lay person would have no chance of understanding are distilling their words to 140 characters or less and showing off their sarcastic side on Twitter.

Those engaging in research are using the new #overlyhonestmethods hashtag to, as one blog put it, explain “how experiments really get done” or just purely to make fun of themselves and their kind.

There are hundreds of tweets using #overlyhonestmethods already, but we’ve pulled out just a few:

Scientists Make Fun of Themselves on New Overlyhonestmethods Hashtag on Twitter

Featured image via Shutterstock.com.

(H/T: Popular Science)

In CONTROL, Glenn Beck presents a passionate, fact-based case for guns that reveals why gun control isn’t really about controlling guns at all; it’s about controlling us. Find out more HERE.

Back to The Blaze »

Comments (36)

ICBentley
Posted on January 11, 2013 at 11:28am
This paper doesn’t actually support any conclusion. We just wanted to get our theory published before those guys at Harvard get the credit.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
cee200
Posted on January 11, 2013 at 8:08am
ran 26 labs for at time… our paying customers needs an answer… we at first get the WRONG answer… we keep running the test until we find ONE answer that is RIGHT….hehehehe… this is real life and really happens everyday… I WAS THERE … and this is what we DID

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
biegerd
Posted on January 10, 2013 at 6:25pm
You’d all be surprised at the amount of cherry picking that goes on in data analysis. Generally speaking, a researcher in academia is beholden to his/her funding source. That funding source almost always has an agenda. Therefore, to continue obtaining funding, research is skewed to fit that agenda. It’s very easy to manipulate data to obtain a desired outcome and it’s a very common practice. Science for the sake of science is becoming a memory. I’m now seeing it widespread in the professional organizations I’m active with, too. It saddens me because it debases us as scientists and tarnishes our credibility with the public. The public really does want us to provide them complete and correct answers to their questions, as much as is possible, and in more than a few cases the answers we give are willfully and woefully incomplete or incorrect.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
Brown Trees
Posted on January 10, 2013 at 3:00pm
Your Mom called and said she rented out the basement apartment…you gotta moe out…

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
Postolic
Posted on January 10, 2013 at 1:31pm
I’m still waiting on, “We believe our assumptions to be true because we can’t prove otherwise.”

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- brotherjohn
  Posted on January 10, 2013 at 2:27pm
  How about “We assert that our conclusions are true because you can’t prove otherwise”?
  
  Insert name of agenda driven government (taxpayer) funded studies here: ____________
  
  Report this comment
- @leftfighter
  Posted on January 10, 2013 at 3:03pm
  @BrotherJohn
  
  …sounds more like something coming out of East Anglia…
  
  Report this comment
beggindog
Posted on January 10, 2013 at 1:02pm
Hey kids! How about cutting your tuition in half by demanding that monies for frivolous research grants be applied to salaries and operating costs? LEARN ! :)

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
mdpaul
Posted on January 10, 2013 at 12:29pm
“Our data matched perfectly our hypothesis which overwhelmingly proved our original theory. This is always true because if it didn’t we would lose our funding and all be out of work.” #overlyhonestmethods

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- PubliusPencilman
  Posted on January 10, 2013 at 1:06pm
  No, more like: “We falsified data that was directly contradicted by third party experiments, therefore we lost all credibility within scientific circles.”
  
  That, my friend, is how science works.
  
  Report this comment
PubliusPencilman
Posted on January 10, 2013 at 9:54am
Here’s one you don’t see:

“Ignored the obvious results of our experiment and many others because they contradict what we think the Bible says. #overlyhonestmethods”

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- AJBrad
  Posted on January 10, 2013 at 10:47am
  How about ” Since like every natural law in the universe contradicts what Darwin opined, the must be a tainted sample. Just adjust the findings accordingly.”
  
  Report this comment
- Brainmuffin
  Posted on January 10, 2013 at 11:02am
  Could easily tweet the same of Evolution.
  
  Report this comment
- JabberwockyBandersnatch
  Posted on January 10, 2013 at 11:30am
  “We came to this conclusion because the entity providing the grant money told us that was the conclusion and now we have the ‘facts’ to back it up”
  
  Report this comment
- Displacedsoutherner
  Posted on January 10, 2013 at 11:33am
  “We abandoned our original (accurate) findings because to keep getting the grant money we had to come up with the (bogus) results they were paying us for.”
  
  Report this comment
- SoNick
  Posted on January 10, 2013 at 11:52am
  According to AJBRAD, “every natural law in the universe contradicts what Darwin opined”. I would really like to know which “natural laws” contradict Darwin’s theory. Could you enlighten us?
  
  Report this comment
- PubliusPencilman
  Posted on January 10, 2013 at 1:04pm
  Hahaha. And where exactly are these results that contradict evolution? Obviously the fact that they don’t exist points to a grand conspiracy, because scientist get together and conspire to ensure that none of them ever produce new or cutting edge findings! Hahaha.
  
  What you guys don’t get is that, in science, disproving the dominant theory is the Holy Grail. The first scientist to offer clear and incontrovertible proof that evolution is false and that there is a better “best fit” model will ensure his/her place in the history books. While findings over the last 100 years have altered and modified our views of how evolution works, they all can so far be accounted for within that model.
  
  Report this comment
- brigott
  Posted on January 10, 2013 at 8:56pm
  Natural Laws that Contradict Evolution:
  
  The Zeroth Law of Thermodynamics
  The First Law of Thermodynamics
  The Second Law of Thermodynamics
  The Third Law of thermodynamics
  The Law of Biogenesis (life can only come from life)
  The Law of Entropy
  
  That’s just for starters.
  
  Now, someone tell me how evolution can work around any one – just ONE – of those laws. And the “the universe is here, so evolution has to be true” argument is a cop-out.
  
  Report this comment
- Face...Palm
  Posted on January 11, 2013 at 2:30am
  @PubliusPencilman
  
  All your posts are argumentative and or negative. Life is going to be hard for you.
  
  Report this comment
- PubliusPencilman
  Posted on January 11, 2013 at 9:04am
  Brigott,
  
  The laws of thermodynamics do not apply to evolution because they refer to closed systems–i.e. systems that have no external energy input. Evolution, however, occurs on Earth, which is not a closed system because it constantly receives energy from the sun. You may think this is a minor point, but considering that almost all life on earth receives energy from the sun (directly from photosynthesis, indirectly by eating plants, eating plant-eaters), evolution is almost entirely powered by external energy. Thus, it does not occur in a closed system, and the laws of thermodynamics do not apply.
  
  In terms of the law of biogenesis, evolution is a process by which organisms adapt to their environment through multiple processes, it does not say how life appeared in the first place. There are multiple theories concerning the origin of life, but that’s a different thing from evolution.
  
  And, for the law of entropy, that’s just repeating the second law of thermodynamics, which I addressed above.
  
  Report this comment
- PubliusPencilman
  Posted on January 11, 2013 at 9:10am
  Brigott,
  
  The laws of thermodynamics only apply to CLOSED systems, meaning systems without external energy input. Evolution, however, occurs on Earth, which receives energy from the sun. This may seem a minor point, but almost all life on Earth is dependent on that energy, so evolution obviously does not occur in a closed system, so neither thermodynamics nor entropy apply.
  
  Regarding the law of biogenesis, this is irrelevant to evolution itself, which describes how organisms adapt according to their environment. Evolution doesn’t actually tell us where life came from in the first place. There are theories out there, but again, they have little to do with the mechanisms of evolution itself.
  
  Swing and a miss buddy!
  
  Report this comment
- Face...Palm
  Posted on January 11, 2013 at 10:16am
  entropy does apply to closed systems.
  
  Report this comment
- Face...Palm
  Posted on January 11, 2013 at 10:30am
  and or “open”.
  
  Report this comment
- PubliusPencilman
  Posted on January 11, 2013 at 12:03pm
  Face…Palm,
  
  Entropy CAN happen in an open system, but that doesn’t mean that the second law of thermodynamics applies, since we know for a fact that order CAN be created in an open system when external energy is applied (therefore contradicting the law). The law itself–that substances necessarily move towards increasing entropy and decreasing order–only applies in a closed (or more specifically, an isolated) system.
  
  I hope that clears up your confusion.
  
  Report this comment
theninthplanet
Posted on January 10, 2013 at 9:39am
This doesn’t bother me one bit. Scientists: they’re human. Repeatability in science is key, so that others can verify your experiments. Sometimes variables are “arbitrarily” picked, and this sheds some humor on it.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
CABERNETQHS
Posted on January 10, 2013 at 9:30am
That explains the recent research “proving” that pedophilia is just a sexual preference.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
Melika
Posted on January 10, 2013 at 8:28am
If people knew how badly (faulty) most “research” was conducted, especially those done at Universities, we wouldn’t be having the “man-made global warming/cooling/changing” debate at all. These are funny, but certainly not the most egregious problems with research.

An honest comment would have said, “We made up most of the data, because someone lost 6 months worth of data and wanted to graduate.”

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- founderschild
  Posted on January 10, 2013 at 8:43am
  I pay little or no attention to scientific reporting anymore. There is so little science in it. The saddest thing about this is our people are so poorly educated millions have no idea that they are being told a lot of meaningless crap.
  
  Report this comment
woodyee
Posted on January 10, 2013 at 8:27am
These are funny, Liz!

See if you can find some from the global warming/climate change threads – there’s often truth in humor.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Obama Snake Oil Co
  Posted on January 10, 2013 at 8:56am
  The reason America was cooler last year was due to global warming…..The reason I forgot that manmade conference call, was global warming.
  
  Report this comment
RJJinGadsden
Posted on January 10, 2013 at 7:41am
Anthony Finkelstein 4h
I used students as subjects because rats are expensive and you get
to attached to them #overlyhonestmethods
Expand

Tells how these professors really think of their students. And, how they use them. I guess that THE_JERK will show up eventually to tell us that this guy is just another Jew anyway.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- 4xeverything
  Posted on January 10, 2013 at 8:31am
  Ha ha…You guys should seriously just go out on a date or move on (I’m not saying that your wrong about JERK, though).
  
  Report this comment
- RJJinGadsden
  Posted on January 10, 2013 at 9:42am
  4XEVERYTHING, While we have some serious trolls around here, and yeah we bust each other’s balls a lot. THE_JERK is thoroughly disgusting. What really gets me, are the trolls who just call all the conservatives racist never say anything to JERK when he gets on his bandwagon railing against Jews, and occasionally blacks.
  
  Report this comment
- Fubared
  Posted on January 10, 2013 at 8:53pm
  That is an odd happenstance. They relate on some kindred level. Same can be said for him/her/it and jihadis and islamists. See eye to eye and share a common hate. Sick, but worth pointing out.
  
  Report this comment
biohazard23
Posted on January 10, 2013 at 7:34am
Heh heh heh….

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- RJJinGadsden
  Posted on January 10, 2013 at 7:42am
  Good morning BIOHAZARD. Think that I am going to move on to a real story now.
  
  Report this comment

It appears that you have Javascript Disabled. Please enable Javascript in your browser preferences for a better user experience on TheBlaze. You can not comment without Javascript enabled.