| Submit your comments on this article |
| Science & Technology |
| Many scientific "truths" are, in fact, false |
| 2016-03-17 |
| h/t Instapundit In 2005, John Ioannidis, a professor of medicine at Stanford University, published a paper, "Why most published research findings are false," mathematically showing that a huge number of published papers must be incorrect. He also looked at a number of well-regarded medical research findings, and found that, of 34 that had been retested, 41% had been contradicted or found to be significantly exaggerated. Since then, researchers in several scientific areas have consistently struggled to reproduce major results of prominent studies. By some estimates, at least 51%--and as much as 89%--of published papers are based on studies and experiments showing results that cannot be reproduced. Researchers have recreated prominent studies from several scientific fields and come up with wildly different results. When you use students as cheap labor, use affirmative action/collegiality as criteria for tenure track, and reward "significance" and "broad appeal" in papers---what do you expect? |
| Posted by:g(r)omgoru |
| #10 |
| Posted by: Chunky Hupinegum7348 2016-03-17 22:55 |
| #9 Sadly, "When you use students as cheap labor..." origins are sometimes lost. From the anals of current education: Avogadro's number? 602-1023 |
| Posted by: Skidmark 2016-03-17 17:57 |
| #8 2009 I was sitting in my office when the head of collections of the British Museum of Natural History walked in. The man was checking out experts everywhere. That museum has the world's largest collections of everything natural and earns money off of leasing it out. Problem was scientists all over the planet were leasing the use of items that could disprove their conjectures or research. Then they would destroy them! This was because of both publish and die plus grant money. Anything that diminishes either hurts their careers and or empires. He wanted to be able to lease out virtual artifacts and not the real ones! |
| Posted by: 3dc 2016-03-17 15:20 |
| #7 Science has always been driving gen by politics. Galalelo was under house arrest for his scientific findngs. And to agree that science is right is also false. Most of our science is as we see it todAy and very little to do with reality. We are still using calculus to define stuff and that math is so ik exact is crazy. Science is a best guess, and that's about it. |
| Posted by: 49 pan 2016-03-17 11:38 |
| #6 It's not so much politicization of science as "scientists" who became politicians |
| Posted by: g(r)omgoru 2016-03-17 11:22 |
| #5 It's the politicization of science for the gain of power. As a result the credibility of the scientific process suffers. At other times, it's just trying to make a buck through manipulation. |
| Posted by: JohnQC 2016-03-17 10:52 |
| #4 |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2016-03-17 09:56 |
| #3 This is the result of 'tailoring' your data to achieve the desired outcome. Too prevalent in many industries and apparently the norm in our 'Institutes of Higher Learning'. |
| Posted by: Mullah Richard 2016-03-17 09:32 |
| #2 When you use students as cheap labor, use affirmative action/collegiality as criteria for tenure track, and reward "significance" and "broad appeal" in papers---what do you expect? And gobs and gobs federal research money. You get more of what you subsidize. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2016-03-17 09:05 |
| #1 Meanwhile, in cases where researchers have access to large amounts of data, there’s a dangerous tendency to hunt for significant correlations. Researchers can thus convince themselves that they’ve spotted a meaningful connection, when in fact such connections are totally random. Large amounts of data you say? Data so voluminous no one can check it? Like temperature data from hundreds of sources for a hundred years, then millions of sources millions of times in a short period of time? Like that? But you can convince a lot of people who have never looked at the data, and who want to believe. |
| Posted by: Bobby 2016-03-17 07:56 |