Posted on 05/10/2018 9:09:20 AM PDT by DeweyCA
Don’t believe the latest study you read in the headlines, chances are, it could be wrong, according to a new report by the National Association of Scholars that delves into what it calls the “use and abuse of statistics in the sciences.”
The report broke down the issue of irreproducibility, or the problem that a lot of scientific research cannot be reproduced. The report took aim at unverifiable climate science, but also critiqued medical studies, behavioral research and other fields.
The 72-page report took the matter a step further in calling the issue a politicization of science.
“Not all irreproducible research is progressive advocacy; not all progressive advocacy is irreproducible; but the intersection between the two is very large. The intersection between the two is a map of much that is wrong with modern science,” the report states.
Co-authored by David Randall and Christopher Wesler, “The Irreproducibility Crisis of Modern Science: Causes, Consequences, and the Road to Reform” focused on the irreproducibility of recent scientific studies.
It references a study performed by researchers at Amgen in 2012. For this study, researchers tried to reproduce the results of “53 landmark studies in oncology and hematology.” Researchers were only able to replicate the results of six studies.
“People have found similar results in psychology and economics. Different fields are affected different amounts,” Randall told The College Fix. “As a rule of thumb, fields that use statistics intensively are more likely to have troubles than fields that don’t.”
The report hypothesized that there are a number of different reasons for irreproducibility that include such things as “flawed statistics, faulty data, deliberate exclusion of data, and political groupthink,” among other reasons. “Actual fraud on the part of researchers appears to be a growing problem,” the report also states.
“‘Stereotype threat’ as an explanation for poor academic performance? Didn’t reproduce. ‘Social priming,’ which argues that unnoticed stimuli can significantly change behavior? Didn’t reproduce that well … Tests of implicit bias as predictors of discriminatory behavior? The methodology turned out to be dubious, and the test of implicit bias may have been biased itself,” the report states.
The report also alludes multiple times to the notion that climate science is on shaky ground.
“Climate science has significant work to do to make its data and its statistical procedures properly reproducible,” Randall said.
Randall cited Judith Curry, a world-renowned climatologist, who has warned that the climate science field is heavily affected by groupthink, a collective way of thinking that has been known to stop individuals from questioning widely accepted theories.
Randall said he believes that climate change data needs to be reproducible because it is “more than usually intrusive into the lives of Americans.”
To provide the public with accurate statistical information, the report endorses the expansion of the Secret Science Reform Act of 2015 to cut down on irreproducible data used to back public policy.
When asked what the average person could do in order to make sure that the information that is backing public policy is credible, Randall recommended: “Always ask ‘has this study been reproduced? Did this study have pre-registered research protocols? Does it support an unpopular belief?’ If the answer to any of these is no, suspend judgment. Don’t disbelieve blindly, but don’t believe blindly either.”
Anyone who hasn’t read this is really at a disadvantage, aren’t they?
Liberals poisoned science decades ago. And if a scientific report is from the government I dismiss it out of hand. I believe NOTHING put out by our government rulers. It’s almost all an attempt at manipulation.
In the 1970s when far Leftist politicians discovered they could trade voters a false sense of “security” for their Liberty.
LMFAO!
I said that in a statistics class and nobody got it-— including the instructor!
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2010/12/13/the-truth-wears-off
Long article on consequences of observational bias, selective reporting, and subconscious inattention to negative data and how it shapes the scientific literature at multiple levels
The angle of the dangle, divided by the secret of life,..equals...
Interesting how they BOTH apply to “global warming” and explain 100% of the results, eh?
My friend got me a copy of that in the 80’s and it is the BEST book on science ever!
Get a hard copy and it will keep you in stitches for hours!
Climate science is junk science. That is why I have such scorn and disrespect for Acolytes of human caused global warming. Your average American has enough brain to scan the IPCC science and see how false it is, but 90% of them are too lazy to do so. They believe it on faith, like a religion.
Take comfort in knowing the basis for regs, like that of the EPA, fall in that category. I’ve always thought that they just pay for the results they want and no testing is actually done.
It can’t be reproduced because it’s phony. It’s very lonely and boring, being a scientist. Very few ever get recognition, fame, or fortune. The temptation is very big to fabricate and inflate. They want to believe that they have discovered something. “Scientific” journals are eager for something to print. Newspapers leap at the opportunity to reveal the astounding discoveries. TV talking bobbleheads are given a script to read to proclaim to the public the new, surprising news!
It’s bull$hit, all of it!
97% of Scientists believe - (fill in the blank).
Thanks DeweyCA.
Their results are directly related to the wishes of the financiers of the study.
“Actual fraud on the part of researchers appears to be a growing problem,” the report also states.”
I was once asked to meet with a scientist who had published some results on a technology that was very interesting to the company I worked for. It turned out that the work had been done by a Turkish grad student who left the country after graduating. He told me that since he left no one had been able to repeat his results and they may have been faked.
There was also a scientist where I worked who suddenly disappeared one day and his office was locked. Turned out he was caught faking his data and fired. A few months later he was hired to do research at a prestigious Boston hospital. These days no one is allowed to provide references for fear of being sued.
Great article.
Imagine that you are a scientist who became a tenured professor based on some theory you had published.
You will teach the theory to others like it was a new religion.
Multiply this by thousands of scientists, billions in government grants, and science quickly mushrooms out of control into a set of inter-locking guilds peddling total nonsense for as long as they can get away with it.
I only use statistics that I have doctored myself. - Winston Churchill
This was actually my course textbook for an MBA-level statistics class when I was in graduate school back in the late 60s.
It made me aware that what we read and hear everyday, can be and is manipulated so one set of facts sound or appear to mean something completely different than their true meaning.
It's great for seeing through the media lies or the politician's nonsense and even discerning the true meaning of what liberal activists mean when they say things that sound...well....just not correct.
The author Huff points up the countless number of spins and dodges which are used to fool people rather than to inform them through the use of statistics.
Different words like average, median, medial, medium, middle, mean, mode, midpoint, center, standard, par and norm can all be used to describe the same facts and yet make it appear that the outcome or interpretation of those facts is completely different.
The use of statistics and their descriptive modifiers can easily be used to confuse and/or completely deceive your target audience.
Or as you point out, it can put you at a real disadvantage if you aren't familiar with the ways you can be gamed through the use of statistics. One can make them mean anything they want even though the basic facts are the same.
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.