Skip to comments.
Most scientific papers are probably wrong
New Scientist ^
| 8/30/05
| Kurt Kleiner
Posted on 08/30/2005 10:29:44 AM PDT by LibWhacker
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 141-158 next last
To: LibWhacker
I don't believe this article.
2
posted on
08/30/2005 10:33:12 AM PDT
by
inquest
(FTAA delenda est)
To: LibWhacker
It has always been important to have reproducible results.
3
posted on
08/30/2005 10:33:58 AM PDT
by
knuthom
To: LibWhacker
Most scientific papers are probably wrong... Well, duh.
When a person, scientist or not, sets out to prove or disprove a theory, they saddle up with the bias of their intent.
Searching for the truth is a completely different thing.
4
posted on
08/30/2005 10:34:25 AM PDT
by
Dark Skies
("The sleeper must awaken!")
To: LibWhacker
Some will be replicated and validated. The replication process is more important than the first discovery," Ioannidis says.The problem in science is, despite all the talk of replication, that replication doesn't get you anything. Replication is considered low. Only "first discovery" is rewarded with more grant money. There is no incentive to try and repeat another's experiment for verification.
5
posted on
08/30/2005 10:34:39 AM PDT
by
Rokurota
(.)
To: LibWhacker
Assuming that the new paper is itself correct, problems with experimental and statistical methods mean that there is less than a 50% chance that the results of any randomly chosen scientific paper are true.
I am left to wonder what statistical method the author used. :-)
6
posted on
08/30/2005 10:37:36 AM PDT
by
ARCADIA
(Abuse of power comes as no surprise)
To: LibWhacker
It was bound to happen-a study about studies. It's really just common sense. If you notice how much of what passes itself off as 'science' just happens to validate some leftist group's political agenda, like global warming, you start to wonder about the validity of the study. Political correctness is torturing history exactly the same way. The earth is flat and don't you dare question it. Especially on a college campus.
7
posted on
08/30/2005 10:39:02 AM PDT
by
Spok
(Est omnis de civilitate.)
To: LibWhacker
Alrigty then, ditch science. We know how well it worked without it in the DARK AGES! </sarc>
8
posted on
08/30/2005 10:39:03 AM PDT
by
CarrotAndStick
(The articles posted by me needn't necessarily reflect my opinion.)
To: DaveLoneRanger
"Science-as-settled-fact" ping
9
posted on
08/30/2005 10:39:35 AM PDT
by
My2Cents
("It takes a nation of candyasses to hold this military back.")
Comment #10 Removed by Moderator
To: LibWhacker
Most income tax returns are "wrong" too. What's the articles point?
11
posted on
08/30/2005 10:42:06 AM PDT
by
narby
(There are Bloggers, and then there are Freepers.)
Comment #12 Removed by Moderator
To: inquest
To: narby
What's the articles point?I believe the point is... don't believe everything you read.
14
posted on
08/30/2005 10:43:43 AM PDT
by
rhombus
To: TaxRelief
But I thought "science" was always right!
15
posted on
08/30/2005 10:44:12 AM PDT
by
Tax-chick
(Oklahoma is the cultural center of the universe ... take me back to Tulsa!)
To: LibWhacker
Traditionally a study is said to be "statistically significant" if the odds are only 1 in 20 that the result could be pure chance.In physics, the standard is 3-sigma (about a chance in 400) to claim evidence for something, and 5-sigma (about a chance in 1.8 million) to claim discovery. I'm constantly appalled at the weak statistical cases that are bandied about in the press as the gospel truth, particularly when it comes to medical studies.
Science can handle a poor signal-to-noise ratio, but public policy cannot.
To: bobbdobbs
Only in philosophy where there never is a check with reality can one bad idea build on another without ever getting corrected.
I would include education also.
17
posted on
08/30/2005 10:44:23 AM PDT
by
PeterPrinciple
(Seeking the truth here folks.)
To: ARCADIA
I think the article refers to less than 50% of the papers providing conclusions stand the test of time, and or rigorous open peer review.
Results that are not reproducible are not to be believed, a classic is global warming where we have one study, the Mann study, that all the libs like to latch onto to prove man caused global warming, while at the same time denying respectability to contrary views.
18
posted on
08/30/2005 10:44:31 AM PDT
by
Tarpon
To: bobbdobbs
Most scientists regard published results with scepticism. And of course any follow on work based on flawed papers will come up with bad results.Ideally this is true, but it is extremely rare to find a paper published that directly and specifically refutes another.
And when you do find this, often the first paper is in a "high class" journal but the refutation will only get published in a "low class" journal. Which means that often the refutation is ignored.
19
posted on
08/30/2005 10:44:34 AM PDT
by
Rokurota
(.)
To: LibWhacker
Most scientific papers are probably wrongAfter a few decades of experience with research in psychology, like the commentator, I don't take any published study on a stand-alone basis, but accept things, if ever, only after they have been replicated by the researcher's opponent.
Even if several studies are reported in the media with a certain finding, they are not trustworthy because one remarkable result generates a bandwagon for uncritical acceptance of further findings of the same sort.
There is no way to sort out the truth, but only to enlarge the context we have for understanding things.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 141-158 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson