Is Most Published Research Wrong? p Hacking? (1 Viewer)

mjcouvi

Hi
Joined
Aug 13, 2006
Messages
5,325
Reaction score
4,759
Offline
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/42QuXLucH3Q" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

What do you think?
 

BHM

Can't please 'em all
Gold VIP Contributor
Joined
Mar 16, 2006
Messages
15,217
Reaction score
14,081
Age
55
Location
Lafayette, LA
Offline
On 05/23/2019, this will be proven correct.
 

bclemms

More than 15K posts served!
Joined
Jul 16, 2005
Messages
33,619
Reaction score
44,153
Age
13
Location
Jackson, ms
Online
I think you should summarize
Really don't feel like watching the video
Scientists can and have been playing with statistics to get their desired results.

Been saying this for years. Particularly those "Scientists" being paid by industry for only the result that industry wants.

Science isn't always science, a lot of times it's just whores.
 

sinner mike

All-Pro
Joined
Oct 20, 2004
Messages
1,203
Reaction score
1,381
Offline
Psychology is infamous for shady research but not all of it is garbage. Plus much of it that is considered valid is not. For instance evidence based treatment and research on psych meds is total bunk.
 

bclemms

More than 15K posts served!
Joined
Jul 16, 2005
Messages
33,619
Reaction score
44,153
Age
13
Location
Jackson, ms
Online
Psychology is infamous for shady research but not all of it is garbage. Plus much of it that is considered valid is not. For instance evidence based treatment and research on psych meds is total bunk.
When there are literally hundreds of penis enlargement pills with clinical research backing up claims of effectiveness it should tell you all you need to know.

How about weight loss pills that allow you to watch TV, eat garbage and lose weight? So many studies that are bunk.

Follow the money, I mean funding.

Whores, including the big Ivy league schools.
 

superchuck500

guarding the potatoes
VIP Subscribing Member
VIP Contributor
Diamond VIP Contributor
Joined
Aug 9, 2004
Messages
58,568
Reaction score
90,143
Location
Mt. Pleasant, SC
Online
Scientists can and have been playing with statistics to get their desired results.

Been saying this for years. Particularly those "Scientists" being paid by industry for only the result that industry wants.

Science isn't always science, a lot of times it's just whores.

That's why legitimate, independent peer review is so important - and those conducting the review must conduct it with true science in mind. And for the rest of the community, we must demand peer review before something it accepted as scientifically valid.

There are institutions and publications out there doing legitimate science and applying legitimate critique. I think that presuming that none of it is legitimate is a dangerous and unfortunate place for mankind. If we mistrust everything, we won't be able to fully understand where we are and where we need to go.
 

guidomerkinsrules

W H A T E V I R
VIP Contributor
Joined
Apr 30, 2007
Messages
62,870
Reaction score
104,407
Location
by the cemeteries
Online
Scientists can and have been playing with statistics to get their desired results.

Been saying this for years. Particularly those "Scientists" being paid by industry for only the result that industry wants.

Science isn't always science, a lot of times it's just whores.
ah, thanks - that's why the most important step in the research process is 'can another scientist/team replicate your findings'

and i would like for us to draw a bold a line as possible between science (the research) and industry (the application of that research)

eta - what Chuck said
 

Zardnok

Zardnokalicious!
VIP Subscribing Member
Gold VIP Contributor
Joined
May 30, 2004
Messages
7,008
Reaction score
4,798
Location
Bossier City
Offline
That's why legitimate, independent peer review is so important - and those conducting the review must conduct it with true science in mind. And for the rest of the community, we must demand peer review before something it accepted as scientifically valid.

There are institutions and publications out there doing legitimate science and applying legitimate critique. I think that presuming that none of it is legitimate is a dangerous and unfortunate place for mankind. If we mistrust everything, we won't be able to fully understand where we are and where we need to go.
Totally agree, the problem is who pays for the independent review. Funding for the Sciences is already scarce enough.

I watched a scientific presentation recently that was amusing on some levels and sad on others. The scientist gave his hypothesis and described the testing and then gave out the results of his tests stating that they proved his hypothesis when there was no significant difference in the data (2% total difference with a 5% margin of error). The other scientists ripped him a new one and I genuinely felt bad for the guy. I don't think he ever truly understood what he had done wrong, but he was certainly peer reviewed!
 

guidomerkinsrules

W H A T E V I R
VIP Contributor
Joined
Apr 30, 2007
Messages
62,870
Reaction score
104,407
Location
by the cemeteries
Online

Sun Wukong

Kicker's, Inc. Superfan
Joined
Oct 6, 2009
Messages
12,155
Reaction score
28,070
Location
Around
Offline
Scientists can and have been playing with statistics to get their desired results.

Been saying this for years. Particularly those "Scientists" being paid by industry for only the result that industry wants.

Science isn't always science, a lot of times it's just whores.
The amount of stuff that has made it past peer review, into journals, and then had to be retracted due to flawed research or inability to replicate results has been pretty notable in the last few years. Some people say that's proof that the system works, but that's simply nonsensical goal post moving. If the system was working it would never make it past peer review, let alone to publication.

The bottom line is the notion that science is this pure quest for truth is naive and silly. Scientists are people, and they're in just as much of a hurry to chase fame or money as any other profession. Sometimes more so when you're talking about the university level where things like tenure, grant money, etc. are on the line and everyone is trying to be the next big name.
 
Joined
Jul 19, 2001
Messages
26,847
Reaction score
71,532
Location
Earth
Offline
Pretty good listen that delves into the current state of the process.

<iframe src="https://www.npr.org/player/embed/479201596/479202167" width="100%" height="290" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" title="NPR embedded audio player"></iframe>
 
OP
mjcouvi

mjcouvi

Hi
Joined
Aug 13, 2006
Messages
5,325
Reaction score
4,759
Offline
ah, thanks - that's why the most important step in the research process is 'can another scientist/team replicate your findings'

and i would like for us to draw a bold a line as possible between science (the research) and industry (the application of that research)

eta - what Chuck said
I'm really not smart enough to summarize the video for you. It's a pretty short video that puts a lot of info into a short span. I couldn't do it any better than the video itself.

But I will say that one of the points that was made is that scientific studies that attempt to, but fail, to replicate the results of past scientific studies, using identical methods, are often poo pooed by the journals because the replication is just not interesting enough, not "new" enough. In other words, there's not much incentive to try to replicate, even if there's seemingly outrageous claims.

For example, I say X is true and it is really interesting and it get lots of attention. You come along and say, well no, I couldn't replicate X via the same methods, can I publish it in your journal to refute that previous study that your journal published? Well, no, that's not as cool and you just don't matter -- we're not interested in science, we're interested in attention and more money.

I'm simplifying obviously, but watch the video. You'll like it and it's short.
 

sinner mike

All-Pro
Joined
Oct 20, 2004
Messages
1,203
Reaction score
1,381
Offline
That's why legitimate, independent peer review is so important - and those conducting the review must conduct it with true science in mind. And for the rest of the community, we must demand peer review before something it accepted as scientifically valid.

There are institutions and publications out there doing legitimate science and applying legitimate critique. I think that presuming that none of it is legitimate is a dangerous and unfortunate place for mankind. If we mistrust everything, we won't be able to fully understand where we are and where we need to go.
Peer review isn't what it used to be. There was an article in a psychology journal that was decrying the lack of unaffiliated peers to review studies. It seems that most peers are beholden to pharma (in psychology) making it difficult to get unbiased information as a consumer.
 

Galbreath34

Very Banned
Gold VIP Contributor
Joined
May 8, 2008
Messages
32,273
Reaction score
30,812
Offline
I'd say the setup of the video and/or thread title is akin to: "Are all Christian gay pedophiles? Priest scandals".

Are there problems with corporate financed research? Sure. Are these studies widely accepted and used? No. Does peer review really debunk and handle the vast majority of problem science? Yes. Does it miss some? Sure, but not enough to say something ludicrous like "most published research is wrong". Are some soft sciences more suspect to problems? Absolutely. Still, to be honest the "most" claim is even more tilted and biased a claim than that all Christians molest same sex children.
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

 

New Orleans Saints Twitter Feed

 

Headlines

Top Bottom