"A key feature of science is researchers’ ability to reproduce experiments – to conduct a reality check on another group’s work by using its materials and following its methods, then comparing the results.
“During the past several years, however, worries have grown that many nonreproducible results are working their way into the scientific literature, lingering undetected and, importantly, unchallenged. Such results can feed into others’ work as they design their own experiments or pose their own research questions.”
… and then I just blew 30 minutes taking the “how science savvy are you” and “could you pass the U.S. Citizenship test” quizzes. My results on the first one were not as good as I would have liked
[quote=“JAGMAN, post:3, topic:4943”]
it isn’t BS - Dr. Robert Wallace went over this case with us in detail when I was taking one of his classes at UTD. [/quote]
Although science (the discipline) has seen several scandals (polywater, N-rays, etc.), these were isolated events. Recent studies have shown a growing systemic problem in the scientific community. One study a few years ago determined that half of all published research has some flaw that invalidates their conclusions.
I just happened to grab that source from out of my news stream. CSM does a pretty good job of making an attractive, accurate report most of the time.
I actually am highly religious, and have an significant background in religious studies. For example, I know that Christian Science is fairly new, having originated from Mary Baker Eddy in the 19th Century.
Concerns may grow further with the publication Thursday of what purports to be the most systematic effort to date to replicate others’ experiments. More than 270 scientists around the world banded together to replicate 100 social- and cognitive-psychology experiments whose results appeared in three prestigious psychology journals.oncerns may grow further with the publication Thursday of what purports to be the most systematic effort to date to replicate others’ experiments. More than 270 scientists around the world banded together to replicate 100 social- and cognitive-psychology experiments whose results appeared in three prestigious psychology journals.
Gees-luise! Scared me for a tick there, Richard, til i realized this is based on concerns over meh…pseudo-science anyway. Silly psychologists.
I am active in debunking bad science and Single studies are often touted by news services when the results are eye catching, like "Eating chocolate reduces heart attacks’ or "Turmeric kills cancer’. Almost always a single study and some like the later are in vitro studies. Then they get repeated for years, even after the initial study was shown to be faulty or to not be reproducible.
The average person and the average reporter don’t understand why more studies are needed.
If you are relying on the credibility of the speaker/authority then the proclamation is no different from edicts handed down by the church in the dark ages.
Reliance on credibility ==> science = religion
However, science doesn’t care about the credibility of the speaker/author. If there information is repeatable, and their theory is supported by the data there article is valid. If is neither repeatable or the conclusion supported by the data then it isn’t valid. In the end it doesn’t matter if the data/theory is presented by Doc Brown or Isaac Newton only the math and data matter.
This is the primary reason my stomach churns every time I hear somebody start a sentence with “Science says…”
I will tend to say ‘Evidence shows’ and then support that with a link to that evidence. Mine is when someone says ‘Dr Oz’ or some other person says. If they are are not an expert in that area then it is like asking you plumber for advice on brain surgery or your brain surgeon for advice on how to fix your toilet !
