Suprising new study
A new study (http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7915) out finds that as many as half if not more of all published scientific studies are likely wrong.
I think I'd need to see a study confirming the results of this one before I could completely believe it.;)
Jwp-serbu
31-10-2006, 05:35
kinda like all the "global" warming stuff - just an excuse to raise taxes
Daistallia 2104
31-10-2006, 05:36
A new study (http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7915) out finds that as many as half if not more of all published scientific studies are likely wrong.
I think I'd need to see a study confirming the results of this one before I could completely believe it.;)
Excellent, excellent. You know, that touches on several issues I had with a recent study that was big news, but I dread to mention which one, as doing so would lead to people hijacking this thread to rehash politics. (You can probably guess anyhow.)
UpwardThrust
31-10-2006, 05:42
I would like to see how this "Study" was conducted ... as is it has no information about ITS accuracy
Go figure another study condemning sciences that do not show their methods nor findings.
Edit found the link I still dont see important metrics but I will give it a go when not drunk lol
Of course half of publishing’s are wrong that the point of new studies it's about debate and arguments over interpretation of data there are only a few theories excepted as 'law' (e.g. Einstein’s relativity) and even less titled as laws (eg law of gravity) if scientific studies had to be correct we'd never get any new ideas,
And all the intelligent design studies would never have surfaced.
...so...no one else noticed the "opinion" part of the page title in the Firefox tab/IE window/whatever else you use?
I wouldn't be too surprised if this turned out to be true anyway, but it does look like it's more of an editorial than an actual study.
UpwardThrust,
Journal reference: Public Library of Science Medicine (DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124)
It does not condem science, just individuals who allow personal interests to cloud judgement and skew results and that some methods of statistical analysis can be incorrectly applied.
Poitter,
Why did you bring up intelligent design? This is about scientific studies. How is intelligent design scientific?
As I said, I'd like to see confirmation of the findings of this study before I believe it.
You know what? I just thought that this was a funny article. "A new study says that studies only have a 50/50 shot of being right" I thought some people on NSG would find that funny too but I must have been mistaken.
Iztatepopotla
31-10-2006, 06:48
Of course. That's science. You make a study, publish it for peer review, and others will try to prove it wrong. Some will stand, at least until a new method or technical development allows better observation; many will fail.
Not really surprising at all.
Poitter,
Why did you bring up intelligent design? This is about scientific studies. How is intelligent design scientific?
The ID camps only agruement for ID is that evolution doesn't work.
Similization
31-10-2006, 07:07
A new study (http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7915) out finds that as many as half if not more of all published scientific studies are likely wrong.
I think I'd need to see a study confirming the results of this one before I could completely believe it.;)Why is this surprising? I thought the point of science was to be as wrong as possible so we'll know how things don't work & perhaps figure out how they do work.
JiangGuo
31-10-2006, 07:26
kinda like all the "global" warming stuff - just an excuse to raise taxes
How exactly do you link the global warming phenomonon with taxtation policy?
No hijacking of the thread! Stay on target...I mean topic.
No hijacking of the thread! Stay on target...I mean topic.
Hijacking are the onry thang people round here is capable of.
Hijacking are the onry thang people round here is capable of.
That and poor grammar/spelling.