Posted on 11/30/2021 5:48:34 PM PST by nickcarraway
A couple of years ago, Julia Strand was trying and failing to replicate a study she’d published. At the time, she was an assistant professor without tenure, and the original study had presented her most exciting finding to date. But when she and her co-authors tried to replicate it, they got the opposite results. Then one night, Julia discovered why. In her original code, she’d made a tiny but critical error, and now, with her reputation and job on the line, she was going to have to tell the world about it.
Science is often said to be “self-correcting”—through peer review, replication, and community dialogue, scientists collectively find mistakes in their work, and continually revise their understanding of the world. But what does self-correction look like in practice? And how likely are scientists to admit they’re wrong?
Julia eventually submitted her story to the Loss of Confidence Project, which invited psychologists to publicly admit mistakes in their published research. Our guest, Julia Roher, a lecturer in psychology, organized the project, along with two others. In an anonymous survey of 316 researchers, almost half said they had lost confidence in one of their findings, but ultimately, only 13 researchers submitted public testimonials to the project.
Brian Resnick, who co-created Vox’s Unexplainable podcast and has written about intellectual humility, explains why we often think we’re right when we’re wrong, how others perceive us when we fess up to mistakes, and what all this means for our trust in science.
For those who have never seen it, Rupert Sheldrake’s “The Science Delusion”:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HybPD0VsFP0
Quick summary: Science has a lot of assumptions that they call “laws”, but nature is an outlaw....
For those who have never seen it, Rupert Sheldrake’s “The Science Delusion”:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HybPD0VsFP0
Quick summary: Science has a lot of assumptions that they call “laws”, but nature is an outlaw....
Accept a penny of government money and there is no science. Only grant writers.
It's called integrity. Regrettably it appears to be increasingly rare - particularly in the "climate science" and medical fields lately.
I've been there, done that. About 5 years ago I made one of the larger blunders of my nearly 4 decade career. I owned up to it immediately upon discovery, we fixed it, and moved on. We laugh about it now because though mortifying (to me anyway) at the time it is in retrospect a funny-as-h**l story.
Today if someone admits ‘the science’ was wrong it could undermine our trust in science.
In reality Science is not wrong, only our interpretations of what we observe are.
Science cares nothing for money, interpretations however do
100% correct. Follow the money. Always.
Ping
That’ the way it’s supposed to be. No one is perfect. Mistakes will be made. Progress comes through acknowledging the mistakes and moving on.
HMMM. Failure to admit when something is wrong is what undermines my trust in science. Okay, not science, but the current scientific establishment.
Hubris. It's real.
A bunch of idiots agreeing on a wrong conclusion are still wrong.
“ For those who have never seen it, Rupert Sheldrake’s “The Science Delusion”:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HybPD0VsFP0
Quick summary: Science has a lot of assumptions that they call “laws”, but nature is an outlaw....”
~~~~~~~
That was excellent! Thanks for posting!
Some things never change
Let those who have understanding reckon the number of the beast, for it is a human number
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.