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.”
It is easy to spot. Anyone speaking in absolutes about “Science” is a politician pretending to be a Scientist
Real Science does not talk in absolutes. That how you can tell all “climate change” hucksters are frauds.
There’s three kinds of lies-
Lies
Damned lies
and Statistics
http://faculty.neu.edu.cn/cc/zhangyf/papers/How-to-Lie-with-Statistics.pdf
A lot of studies are none for producing more funding then any thing else.
Pseudo-sciences. Too much room for subjective interpretation. The only real sciences are derived from math and physics...which MUST tie.
Medicine is particularly vulnerable to flawed studies, because they rely on statistics when there are wide variations between individual people.
The average “solution” may kill people on the outer edges of the curve.
Good medicine focuses on the individual patient—and makes adjustments when needed, regardless of what the “theory” says—mass studies should always be highly suspect.
Researchers were only able to replicate the results of six studies.
As a rule of thumb, fields that use statistics intensively are more likely to have troubles than fields that don’t.”
This is especially true for any study or discipline which relies on survey data. Completely unreliable.
Just read about the history of autologous bone marrow transplants for breast cancer treatment to make you eternally suspicious of medical research.
measurable results to prove their conclusions. But if this survey is right, then it shows that the stats quite possibly have been manipulated or “fudged” in order to get the desired results.
First day in my statistic class, old school prof said, “Statistics NEVER give you an answer, at best, it gives you another question.”
People may think that but they're wrong.
Statistics are used to make inferences based an a sample. Those statistics have confidence intervals and probabilities associated with them that take into account sampling error and measurement error. Researchers use statistics to deal with these types of errors.
As the previous editor of the New England Journal once said (paraphrased): We print lies but they're the best lies we have at this time.
People may criticize the use of statistics but it is a billion dollar industry. Statistics are used by every sector of our economy. There's a reason. They work.
Publication brings money, status, and security in the academic world.
A huge number of studies are simply “publish or perish” “studies” done by academics looking for tenure.
Another large motivator is political power. Many, many studies are done to move an agenda forward.
When was the discipline of Scientific Method, that was drummed into my head at every high school science fair, rejected?
Follow the [grant] money.
That was rejected as soon as LIBs invaded the realm of science.
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.