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 previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 141-158 next last
To: LibWhacker
If the intent of the article was to "test the audience" or "entertain the audience" I think you've achieved both objectives.
41
posted on
08/30/2005 11:00:27 AM PDT
by
kipita
(Rebel – the proletariat response to Aristocracy and Exploitation.)
To: Tax-chick
Why? Do all scientific articles have something to do with evolution? Surely not everything in physics, chemistry, etc.? Sigh. All in that field of study. But now that you mention it, many papers in those other fields would also have to be systematically wrong.
To: Dark Skies
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.
Couldn't have said it better.
To find the truth requires being truthful to ones self
43
posted on
08/30/2005 11:01:34 AM PDT
by
A message
(Only unity will defeat terrorism - do you hear me Democrats? Do you hear me?)
To: ARCADIA
I don't take any scientific paper or conclusions on face value. Usually the first are rushed to publication, often for the wrong reasons. But once the paper is out it's hard to go against the conclusions in today's world. Science has lost it's way and turned into a political quest for funding.
Skepticism is the best approach.
44
posted on
08/30/2005 11:02:09 AM PDT
by
Tarpon
To: LibWhacker
But Solomon Snyder, senior editor at the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, and a neuroscientist at Johns Hopkins Medical School in Baltimore, US, says most working scientists understand the limitations of published research. "When I read the literature, I'm not reading it to find proof like a textbook. I'm reading to get ideas. So even if something is wrong with the paper, if they have the kernel of a novel idea, that's something to think about," he says. Wow. Just wow. A parallel of "It's the seriousness of the charge that matters!". Liberal leftist socialists are just plain unbelievable. And scary.
To: LibWhacker
80% of all statistics are made up on the spot.
46
posted on
08/30/2005 11:04:30 AM PDT
by
SolidRedState
(E Pluribus Funk --- (Latin taglines are sooooo cool! Don't ya think?))
To: inquest
"Most published scientific research papers are wrong, according to a new analysis. Assuming that the new paper is itself correct" You gotta love it.
To: The SISU kid
dang...does that make you right or wrong???It makes me right with a .05 probability or being wrong (based on a sample size of 1).
48
posted on
08/30/2005 11:05:28 AM PDT
by
rhombus
To: Physicist
...particularly when it comes to medical studies... Oh, doc, you're a man after my own heart, lol! I worked in that field as a statistician helping researchers get published in a "publish or perish" environment. My job? Very often it was just to refute a peer reviewer's criticisms, so that the article could get published. Much to my dismay, my counter-arguments were always accepted and all the articles went on to publication.
That's one reason I'd much rather work with physicists than medical researchers. Not that medical researchers aren't smart, they are very smart, of course. But as a rule, they just don't seem to be as interested in every aspect of their research as you guys are. So the stats get the short shrift from the medicos.
To: BillM
This is statistics, not science! Science deals with absolute experimentally reproducible phenomena. If you drop something, it will accelerate downwards at the same rate everytime. B-mesons will only decay to D+3pi about 1% of the time, and yet somehow, we call it science.
To: Physicist
"For creationism to hold sway, however, they'd essentially all have to be wrong." They are.
To: LibWhacker
Another argument against evolution. Only statistics are used to say we came form scum. All tests to bring life from scum have failed.
To: LibWhacker
This is an interesting idea but a terribly uninformative article. What is the methodology?
In biotech, the process is: test a drug on an animal. Check every metric you can think of, using 95% confidence and not correcting for the fact that you're looking at multiple endpoints. (If you still can't get significance, report a "strong trend.")
Publish the results with your buddy at the journal. Start biotech company to further investigate these astonishing early results. Get to Phase III testing, where you have to specify an endpoint in advance. Fail miserably (but by now all corporate officers are rich from selling stock).
Refinance like crazy, and test another drug, or the same failed drug for a new indication. Repeat for 30 years.
53
posted on
08/30/2005 11:11:33 AM PDT
by
monkey
To: Nathan Zachary
I also get a kick out of the next paragraph:
"John Ioannidis, an epidemiologist at the University of Ioannina School of Medicine in Greece..."
So, given that Ioannis is the Greek version of the name John, he's... John John of the John School.
Alright, I'll stop clowning around now.
54
posted on
08/30/2005 11:12:20 AM PDT
by
inquest
(FTAA delenda est)
To: Nathan Zachary
And you know that how?
To: LibWhacker
Rush Limbaugh discussed this today.
56
posted on
08/30/2005 11:14:19 AM PDT
by
pookie18
(Clinton Happens...as does Dr. Demento Dean, Bela Pelosi & Benedick Durbin!!)
To: LibWhacker
Most published scientific research papers are wrong, according to a new analysis.Except for his paper, of course.
Now how about studying popular news reports on scientific research? They may be approaching 100% wrong.
To: inquest
Weird. In the football game last night, one of the players had to leave with a neck injury. So they took him from Ford Field in Detroit to Henry Ford hospital. And the ambulance? It was a Ford.
To: inquest
To: Physicist
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 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