It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Is Most Published Research Wrong?

page: 1
14
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 15 2016 @ 05:49 PM
link   
From:

Science alert

12 Aug 2016

by Fiona MacDonald

Subtitle:

"This is why a lot of peer-reviewed research is wrong

Don't believe everything you read."

.
www.sciencealert.com...
.



Science is hard. If you want to make a new discovery, you not only have to observe an effect, test your hypothesis, have it peer-reviewed and published - your idea also has to stand up to rigorous independent testing.
.
That's called the scientific method, and it's how we attempt to eliminate most flukes and false positives from published research.
.
But, as the latest episode of Veritasium explains, despite this lengthy process, a lot of peer-reviewed research out there is actually wrong, and it highlights a serious problem in the way we do science.
.
. . .
The good news is that many scientists now recognise that there's a reproducibility crisis in science, and are actively looking for ways to change the publication process and make it more accurate and transparent.
. . .

.
It's nice that more are owning up to the problem and seeking ways around it.
.
I think this article was a bit of a wimpy article on the seriousness of the problem, however.
.
It stated a significant part of the problem plainly and clearly enough--but not with much umph.
.
It did not get into the Religion of Scientism; biased perspectives; oligarchy censored projects; monied agenda etc. parts of the problem.
.
Still, many hyper-objectivists are toooo . . . something . . . . to even admit this fairly mild part of the problem.
.




posted on Aug, 15 2016 @ 06:05 PM
link   
a reply to: BO XIAN

They call it "published research" and say they are "studies" but fudge the tests and test subjects to their liking for wanted outcomes - and it sells! Had me fooled for years.

Check this thread I made awhile back about "Half of all the Medical Literature is false"

www.abovetopsecret.com...
edit on 15-8-2016 by FamCore because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 15 2016 @ 06:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: FamCore
a reply to: BO XIAN

They call it "published research" and say they are "studies" but fudge the tests and test subjects to their liking for wanted outcomes - and it sells! Had me fooled for years.

Check this thread I made awhile back about "Half of all the Medical Literature is false"

www.abovetopsecret.com...


ABSOLUTELY, INDEED.

Thanks. Will check it out.

It's a serious issue.

And realizing that it is a problem is NOT the same as saying that science has no value.



posted on Aug, 15 2016 @ 06:13 PM
link   
I don't know about wrong. I will say that if you hear about a new study that proves a political point it's probably highly biased. At the very least, you can bet most of those "studies" were conducted at the behest of someone who has an agenda that wouldn't fly without this exact brand of fuel. Which is obviously underhanded. I don't know about you but I don't trust people who feel like they're justified in being underhanded to get their way. I don't care if the information is right or wrong. I care about motive.
edit on 15-8-2016 by BrianFlanders because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 15 2016 @ 06:15 PM
link   
a reply to: BO XIAN

The problem with science these days its exactly the same problem with sports, other than show/circus sports.

A scientist must publish or looses financial support, so they cheat. An athlete must win medals or he will loose financial support so they cheat.

The system it´s wrong, obviously.



posted on Aug, 15 2016 @ 06:25 PM
link   
If someone's profit, Masters Degree or Ph.D. depends on it, be very dubious about whatever results they report.



posted on Aug, 15 2016 @ 06:25 PM
link   
a reply to: CrapAsUsual

this is hardly about science, the example used was people attempting to predict the future.



posted on Aug, 15 2016 @ 06:26 PM
link   
It's not "wrong", it's just that it's incomplete. And there's nothing wrong with that either--it's actually what you should expect by following the scientific method and piecing things together bit by bit.

What's "wrong" is when the scientific/academic communities peddle it as indisputable truth, when they themselves know that isn't the case.

This happens most conspicuously when politicians stick their grubby little hands into the laboratory.

We need a separation of science and state just as badly as we do the other one.
edit on 8/15/16 by NthOther because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 15 2016 @ 06:28 PM
link   
a reply to: BO XIAN

So in your world, "a lot of published research" equals "most published research"? Hey, just for the sake of denying ignorance, you got any actual statistics on percentage of published research is flawed or is "a lot" supposed to be sufficient?



posted on Aug, 15 2016 @ 06:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: CrapAsUsual
a reply to: BO XIAN

The problem with science these days its exactly the same problem with sports, other than show/circus sports.

A scientist must publish or looses financial support, so they cheat. An athlete must win medals or he will loose financial support so they cheat.

The system it´s wrong, obviously.


You do know that a scientist caught "cheating" would have his credentials revoked immediately and he'd never get work as a scientist again, right? You also should know that the peer review process works to out cheaters right? Do you realize that the reason we KNOW about cheaters in the first place is because the peer review process works?



posted on Aug, 15 2016 @ 06:33 PM
link   
As someone who has worked in product development engineering for nearly 30 I am amazed at some things that people do and it's getting worse all the time. Working with Indian Engineers has me scared on a regular basis but my name is on nothing. They will write the test request put themselvs in as the person running the test and then writing the report. All done without any issues on time and with the predicted result. Any issue after the fact is blamed on the person not knowing what they are doing.

Crazy stuff and then they quit




posted on Aug, 15 2016 @ 06:41 PM
link   
a reply to: BO XIAN

If it provides hope and humanity... I'm not gonna interfere.. I believe in my own point of view with my studies, I can wreak complete havoc.. But if something offers hope and humanity, I will let it slip pass and look the other way..



posted on Aug, 15 2016 @ 06:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Sure, I know all that The problem is that I was actually thinking about a real case of a famous and good scientist who falsified observation results to prove a theory and consequently get her grant.

Her paper was reviewed and published and off course no peer spotted anything. I think she admitted the fraud years later because she felt guilty. But never the less she had more published studies that were not faked and she was and is a good scientist.

This is a grey area...

In sports its the same, they use doping because they have to bring good results home. I insist, the system is based on rewards thru results and some areas of human development don´t deliver results only because you put money on them, there is something else...



posted on Aug, 15 2016 @ 06:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: stinkelbaum
a reply to: CrapAsUsual

this is hardly about science, the example used was people attempting to predict the future.


This one in the OP yes, but there are plenty of cases where scientist fake observation results just to prove the initial clause. That was what I was thinking.



posted on Aug, 15 2016 @ 07:50 PM
link   
Depends highly upon the field although i think it is also highly exaggerated how 'bad' the issue is in terms of numbers.

Why? well the scientific community, at least in particle physics as an example, is highly critical of each other, collaborations will write papers to discuss each others claims. The amount of flat out fabrication becomes difficult because people will repeat your work, or attempt to observe the same thing you did in multiple experiments.

Reproducibility is paramount. In Physics, it is basically the law... if you cannot do something and perform an experiment that behaves the same way each time, it means you either don't know your experiment or you don't know the physics.

NOW.... social sciences? medical research... yes i can totally see this being a bigger issue... Kind of funny really that most of the people chiming in are telling the same old stories having a stereotyped anti-science face.



posted on Aug, 15 2016 @ 11:17 PM
link   
a reply to: BO XIAN

Good question for a thread. I'd say of course not. Not most. But a lot...a huge majority is misleading, misguiding the research one way or the other in an opposite direction for reasons of misleading or redirecting the public.

Its either for political, scientific, religious or society in nefarious reasons to intentionally slant that research one way or another.

I'd say at least its 50-50%, perhaps a bit lower or higher either way. Thanks Bo Xian...


MS



posted on Aug, 16 2016 @ 12:29 AM
link   
a reply to: BO XIAN

No, it isn’t.

Some is, but that’s science for you. If you expect definitive answers to your questions, try religion.

By the way, the article you posted to justify the claim is click-bait rubbish. That example about statistical significance is as old as the hills. We use it regularly to show the insignificance of scientific significance.



posted on Aug, 16 2016 @ 01:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: SentientCentenarian
If someone's profit, Masters Degree or Ph.D. depends on it, be very dubious about whatever results they report.
Lol nice one



posted on Aug, 16 2016 @ 01:22 AM
link   
good thread bro. taboo subjects like anti gravity and time machines are impossible to get published in peer reviewed journals.
you may be right about not everything published in those journals is correct per se



posted on Aug, 16 2016 @ 01:49 AM
link   
I know when I published research some of it was fabricated. Who cares, not like anyone is going to check up on you. You want your fertilizer to increase fruiting by 8%? No problem. I stuffed up the solutions for the trials, meh I knew what the results were supposed to be anyway. Mites get into your fungal cultures? Just turn a blind eye, theyre really small a d hard to see anyway.




top topics



 
14
<<   2 >>

log in

join