To me, this is the prime example of why the replication crisis is the next big thing and how biased some fields of sciences have already become to culminate in such extremely suspicious examples of: “Go on, everything's great, here, look at the facts and studies I collected and did to proof what I think is true.“



This thing is really dangerous because it uses instrumentalized science towards a certain consensus, nothing more than hiding an agenda behind manipulated facts out of context, it does

To me, this is the prime example of why the replication crisis is the next big thing and how biased some fields of sciences have already become to culminate in such extremely suspicious examples of: “Go on, everything's great, here, look at the facts and studies I collected and did to proof what I think is true.“



This thing is really dangerous because it uses instrumentalized science towards a certain consensus, nothing more than hiding an agenda behind manipulated facts out of context, it does nearly anything criticized in the debate about the replication crisis good science shouldn´t do.

It´s both my first and possibly last 1 star rating and my farewell from reading anything heavily influenced by politics, economics, statistics, faith,… because it destroys the reputation of and trust in science by misusing methods because of egoistic interests.



The conversation about it has become so toxic and useless that I quite kind wanted to draw a final line, after I had to do the same with many political and economic themes to avoid waste of energy in useless debates, and will focus instead on the true, natural sciences, where nobodys´ beliefs to have the ultimate solution and is instead modest, self-reflecting, open to criticism, and grateful to be part of a line of giants that built the modern world. Instead of inventing BS theories to destroy it.



Shall people debate, fight, and finally kill over theories that are not proven if they wish, I see much more sense in exploring the wonders of nature and awakening interest in them instead of continuing the debates of narcissistic, egomaniac old man who believed they invented theories of everything. Each one of them for themselves, without even recognizing that there can´t be so many absolute truths. No physicist, mathematician,… would ever do something like that because they know that the rules of nature are not fully understood and that they could do research about a theory that could turn out wrong. See the difference?



One of the craziest things about it is that so many facts are ignored and that alternative government and economic models never mentioned, his whole work looks like a status quo advertisement with avoiding any kind of criticism and that he was adored in Davos and similar circles should say the most about what his main fans intended with spreading his words. The frightening thing is that onesided propaganda like this has read such a widespread, penetration rate, and overrepresentation in biased mainstream news media and books, that both alternatives and solutions to the real, massive problems are ignored. Remember nature destruction, social inequality, developing countries, incarceration rates, the sixth mass extinction, radicalization, opioid crises, climate change, weakening of democracy all over the world,…



Rosling is driveling about inequality, habitat destruction, climate change,... and how huge these problems are while he is exponentiating them by delaying and preventing change and cementing the bad status quo. The sad thing is that I am sure that he thought about himself as a good person, that he didn´t understand the mechanisms of power that influenced his work, how he was instrumentalized himself. He certainly was no bad human because he did work in healthcare in Africa, quite kind of split personality that didn´t know and understood that his agenda caused the suffering he tried to reduce. The objective worldview he imagined having and spreading is a symptom of that problem. It would interest me how people that haven´t been born in wealthy nations see this.



That poor people in Africa now have 50 to 75 cents more per day or that we gave them some drugs and contraceptives after refusing it for decades, that´s the big deal. Not mentioning why they are poor in the first place included or why more and more people are poor in the rich, industrialized countries impoverished from the point on Keynesian economics was weakened with the rise of neoliberalism in the 70s. Looking at the statistics, the time between WW2 and the beginning of the destruction of welfare state, social justice, functioning democracy,.. in the 70s, those were the best time for many humans who could earn a living, weren´t incarcerated or so indoctrinated that there was even an open debate about those things, not like nowadays where nobody mentions any alternative to the system of self destruction.



Many were shocked by Friedman and Hayek before they became famous and influential, because their ideas were so sick and inhuman, giving predators license and help against the weaker and poorer ones with the help of the same state they want to be crushed. It´s as if one has kids and finds it completely ok when the strongest and the smartest kids of the whole school form a kind of oligarchy, control the teachers and principal by lobbying, and grade themselves, while bullying more and more basic, before normal, rights out of the oppressed majority, killing some of them in the process or making their lives so miserable that they can´t survive without basic human needs. What is still the difference between a dictatorship and neoliberalism except that the goddess/god emperor is not such a dishonest lier and openly says what she/he thinks and that everyone making problems will be exterminated instead of doing as if she/he is a good person? But as so often, the stupidest and most destructive ideas are the most successful.



The character question is especially interesting in this one, because I like to listen to TED talks, etc.during everyday activities and housework and it´s amazing how much arrogance and self-importance, many seem to see as charisma, can float out of one persons voice. This is Ayn Rand always smiling and with friendly fairytale teller style or Officer Barbrady with his trademark „Move along people nothing to see here“ or any government in the history of humanity telling people that they are competent, all is fine, there is nothing to worry, and certainly no problems because all is getting better.



I´m sick of this stuff, it made me quit mass media and news a few years ago, quit friendships with humans who are sadly part of the problem and became ignorant to a level that was unacceptable and dangerous, and meanwhile, it infiltrated so many humanities that I can´t even read a few pages without getting confronted with this BS. He was a regular speaker at Davos, the world economic forum, anything neoliberal and anti-welfare state possible, who do people think benefited the most from his appeasing, condescending drivel and lying with statistics? Anyone except for the already rich and mighty? Come on, this dude did nice, but he is like Milton Friedman, such a gentle, calm, always smiling, never angry guy, so friendly to his students. Humankind, what´s wrong with you…



I would be so interested to see how future history in a few centuries will talk about this era and if they would extrapolate how many people have been killed by this kind of economic policy we are practicing for over half a century now and that is destroying the planet.

Sorry folks, this is one of my last rants, I am sick and tired of this and want to focus on true science and great fiction instead, not this disturbed fairytales for adults who never had the chance to built a free opinion because most of the media they consume to stay informed and get educated avoids any criticism of the current economic system.



Because of much talk and discussion about the replication crisis with friends and in general, I will add these thoughts to all following nonfiction books dealing with humanities in the future, so you might have already seen it.



Sorry folks, this is one of my last rants, I am sick and tired of this and want to focus on true science and great fiction instead, not this disturbed fairytales for adults who never had the chance to built a free opinion because most of the media they consume to stay informed and get educated avoids any criticism of the current economic system.



Without having read or heard ideas by Chomsky, Monbiot, Klein, Ken Robinson, Monbiot, Peter Singer, William McDonough, Ziegler, Colin Crouch, Jeremy Rifkin, David Graeber, John Perkins, and others, humans will always react to people like me, condemning the manipulation Rosling was practicing with terrifying success, with anger and refusal.



These authors don´t hide aspects of the truth and describe the real state of the world that should be read instead of epic facepalms like this. They don´t predict the future and preach the one only, the true way, ignoring anything like black swans, coincidences or the, for each small child logical, fact that nobody knows what will happen, and collect exactly the free available data people such as Rosling wanted to ignore forever.



Some words about the publication crisis that even have some positive points at the end so that this whole thing is not that depressing.



One could call the replication crisis the viral fake news epidemic of many fields of science that was a hidden, chronic disease over decades and centuries and has become extremely widespread during the last years, since the first critics began vaccinating against it, provoking virulent counterarguments. I don´t know how else this could end than with nothing else than paradigm shifts, discovering many anachronisms, and a better, fact- and number based research with many control instances before something of an impact on the social policy gets accepted.



A few points that led to it:



I had an intuitive feeling regarding this for years, but the replication crisis proofed that there are too many interconnections of not strictly scientific fields such as economics and politics with many humanities. Look, already some of the titles are biased towards a more positive or negative attitude, but thinking too optimistic is the same mistake as being too pessimistic, it isn´t objective anymore and one can be instrumentalized without even recognizing it.



In natural sciences, theoretical physicists, astrophysicists, physicians… that were friends of a certain idea will always say that there is the option of change, that a discovery may lead to a new revolution, and that their old work has to be reexamined. So in science regarding the real world the specialists are much more open to change than in some humanities, isn´t that strange?



It would be as if one would say that all humans are representative, similar, that there are no differences. But it´s not, each time a study is made there are different people, opinions, so many coincidences, and unique happenings that it´s impossible to reproduce it.

Scandinavia vs the normal world. The society people live in makes happiness, not theoretical, not definitive concepts.

One can manipulate so many parameters in those studies that the result can be extremely positive or negative, just depending on what who funds the study and does the study wants as results.



One could use the studies she/ he needs to create an optimistic or a pessimistic book and many studies about human nature are redundant, repetitive, or biased towards a certain result, often an optimistic outcome or spectacular, groundbreaking results. Do you know who does that too? Statistics, economics, politics, and faith.



I wish I could be a bit more optimistic than realistic, but not hard evidence based stuff is a bit of a no go if it involves practical applications, especially if there is the danger of not working against big problems by doing as if they weren´t there.



A few points that lead away from it:



1. Tech

2. Nordic model

3. Open data, open government

4. Blockchains, cryptocurrencies, quantum computing, to make each financial transaction transparent and traceable.

5. Points mentioned in the Wiki article

6. It must be horrible for the poor scientists who work in those fields and are now suffering because the founding fathers used theories and concepts that have nothing to do with real science. They worked hard to build a career to just find out that the predecessors integrated methods that couldn´t work in other systems, let's say an evolving computer program or a machine or a human body or anywhere except in ones´ imagination. They are truly courageous to risk criticism because of the humanities bashing wave that won´t end soon. As in so many fields, it are a few black sheep who ruin everything for many others and the more progressive a young scientist is, the more he is in danger of getting smashed between a hyper sensible public awareness and the old anachronism shepherds, avoiding anything progressive with the danger of a paradigm shift or even a relativization of the field they dedicated their career to. There has to be strict segregation between theories and ideas and applications in real life, so that anything can be researched, but not used to do crazy things.



I´ll add some replication crisis points in the comments, because there is no space left here.