Posted on 03/14/2015 7:20:33 PM PDT by Libloather
Science could be in decay as there are simply too many new studies, a new study has found
The research, dubbed 'Attention decay in science,' was recently published online by professors from universities in Finland and California.
They concluded scholars can't keep pace with scientific literature.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
This should lead to a new golden age. The late 1800’s also had so much going on nobody could keep up.
Wow. That can’t be a real Daily Mail headline! It actually fits into the topic field without requiring truncation!
More studies because there are now two branches of science ... real science, where theories are never settled, and government/research grant science, where science is dogma, and anyone not conforming in total to the dogma is a heretic.
This is one paper and it could be outlier, I’ll believe it when there are 50, 100 maybe even a 1,000 coming to this same conclusion. A dozen papers could out next week saying there aren’t enough studies.
One thing scientists have really fallen down on lately is to verify other’s work. One pharmaceutical company found 40% of the medical studies it tried to verify could not be duplicated. We should focus more on that and eliminating the junk. Maybe graduate students can take existing papers in their own fields and work to replicate them.
Yep, their titles are usually a couple of paragraphs long, sometimes they manage to get the entire story, right there in the title.
Science is no longer science. “Scientists” are political retards in search of government grants who will “prove” anything you want them to”prove” for the right price.
There are too many studies because science is in decay.
It is good that there are so many studies. Even in earlier times there were all kinds of studies that turned out to be just wrong if not simply made up. The idea of scientific consensus for consensus sake is idiotic. Science should never be about simply achieving consensus it should be about discovering demonstrable facts not just making up science fiction stories based on little or no hard data or evidence. We have an awful not of story telling substituting for hard science and while I love a good story when they show me a 20 million year old fossilized toe bone and nothing more then go on to claim it represents yet another ancestor of man I think any reasonable person has a responsibility to be skeptical. It sure would be great for scientists if the layman masses would just accept whatever science fiction fantasy put in front them and let politicians authorize spending trillions to fight climate change but it wouldn’t be science it would be a farce.
Today we are surrounded by farce. We have social scientists just totally lying saying that kids don’t do better in complete families with a Mom and Dad even though the consensus of evidence shows the opposite but of course that is a consensus they don’t like and the media doesn’t like. We had for years a clear consensus on sexual deviance but again it was something not liked and as leftists have migrated up the hierarchies of power they have managed to take control of messaging and studies and even though the evidence really hasn’t changed substantially especially when you get beyond the studies conducted by the deviants themselves the propaganda is now sold 24x7 as the truth which it is not.
It’s difficult to trust any science that’s sponsored by govt. these days.
I have two daughters in PhD programs. I know what they do. It's the real thing.
The reason for so many papers is that nature is so complex, with so many variables that are impossible to measure in situ with current technology that they are constrained to studying idealized pieces. When one gets into the biochemistry going on between plants, fungi, and bacteria in soil for example, it will be a century before we come to grips with what is going on.
Really. It's that big.
Science these days is not, in general.
The reason for studies and papers is that they have to produce papers and studies to retain their college/research positions and funding. Actual new research is secondary or tertiary. It is all about funding.
I read Milton Friedman's "Free to Choose" in high school. I really did. And I remember reading that "when you pay for research, you get research; when you pay for results, you get results."
It hit me like a lightning bolt.
Since then, I've learned that the idea strikes other people the same way, once it's explained to them.
I wish a politician would tackle this issue head on. It's really not that difficult to explain.
Anyway, Friedman proposed creating a multi-billion dollar cancer cure fund, rather than funding cancer research. At a federal level, this approach would certainly be preferable. I'm sure he wouldn't have objected to a privately financed award.
But the cure for a disease crosses over into the category of public health, so public funding would be justifiable if the cure technology were to be placed in the public domain.
They can’t do away with all of these studies because there would not be many jobs for college graduates once they graduated, or worse yet....doctorate degrees in “studies” for professional liberal studies.
Worse yet, today’s colleges would be decimated by having to really perform factual studies of things that really matter.
I call those involved in “heavy thinking” studies of contorted liberal or worthless studies professional students for they are permanent leaches on the teats of government that grants funds for their permanent “studies.”
Make them really do something that matters....like real work that matters.
Studies don't make science, verifiable experiments and discovery do.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.