[1malumprohibitum]

I am shocked!

[Moonman62]

The article is about a solution to a problem (see the last two paragraphs), but let’s see how many FReepers use this as an opportunity to bash science.

[Rocky]

In addition there is currently a push to give researchers a greater incentive to publish their data by making scientific datasets citable contributions to the scholarly record and with associated journals such as GigaScience and Earth System Science Data.

Do you suppose that they can persuade Michael Mann or the University of Virginia to release the data behind the famous global warming hockey stick?

[LibLieSlayer]

Science is now an art of whoring.

[LearsFool]

Science is to be an honest inquiry, a tool to serve us. When the checks against dishonesty (i.e. reproducibility, disprovability, debatability, etc.) are overthrown, not only is this tool rendered incapable of serving us, but it will be seized and used as a weapon against us.

[norwaypinesavage]

The Scientific Method has been around for millennia, and it is tried and true. It's quite simple: Propose a theory. Test the theory with experiments. Publish all results and data. Successful confirmation results in the theory becoming dogma.

Recent government funding has resulted in much corruption of science. Politicians don't seek truth, they seek sycophants.

[norwaypinesavage]

The Scientific Method has been around for millennia, and it is tried and true. It's quite simple: Propose a theory. Test the theory with experiments. Publish all results and data. Successful confirmation results in the theory becoming dogma.

Recent government funding has resulted in much corruption of science. Politicians don't seek truth, they seek sycophants.

[BenLurkin]

many experimentally established “facts” don’t seem to hold up to repeated investigation.

Huh.

[Marylander]

I stopped believing “studies” 10 years ago .. for the reasons listed in the article.

[Marylander]

Even with honest scientists, the devotion to null-hypothesis testing is a destructive force yielding a lot of pseudo-science. After decades of null-hypothesis testing and thousands of studies, psychology, for example has yielded only pitiful handful of results that have not evaporated over time, as described in the article.

Good science should gather and evaluate evidence for and against a competing theories that are meaningful. That method does exist and is well-developed, but is not in the usual "soft" science curriculum.

[Steve Van Doorn]

It is arguable that the most damaging effect of the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming crowd is the damage they have done and are doing to the reputation and public view of Science.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

:o