"Is there something wrong with the scientific method?"

[CrystalViolet]

Actually, the way I see it, the intial article proves that the scientific method does work. Through reptition, and vigourous scritiny by peers, the conclusions of these studies did not hold up. Valid theories do stand up to vigourous repition, and close analysis.
Of course the scientific method is flawed, it's a human creation, but what it seeks do to illimate (or keep to the bare minium) bais, and skewing of data to favour the intial out come.
Reading the artical, I felt the author missed the point somehow. You cannot base your entire premise on one study (or even two).
The author forgets that by it's very nature the scientific method breaks things to smaller parts before it can fitted back together to create the bigger picture, and that the picture changes with addition of new data obtained from a slightly different angle.

 

[Lateralus]

I wonder how many climate change studies have not been published due to them not producing statistically significant results.

 

[Octarine]

I wonder how many climate change studies have not been published due to them not producing statistically significant results.

Many thousands. It's a real shame.

Speaking of shame, does anyone get annoyed when scientists or journalists, after reviewing a study which they do not agree with, which happens to be published in a prestigious journal (Science, Nature, NEJM, PNAS etc), they then go on to state that it 'should not have been published' in such a journal. Are these people not aware of their own biases?

Reading the artical, I felt the author missed the point somehow. You cannot base your entire premise on one study (or even two).

I kind of thought that was the implicit point of the article, but I agree with your sentiment.

 

[wildcat]

Interesting article here:

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/12/13/101213fa_fact_lehrer?currentPage=all

"The decline effect is troubling because it reminds us how difficult it is to prove anything. We like to pretend that our experiments define the truth for us. But that’s often not the case. Just because an idea is true doesn’t mean it can be proved. And just because an idea can be proved doesn’t mean it’s true. When the experiments are done, we still have to choose what to believe."

Our experiments may define the truth for us.
Truth returns to the subject.
It is not truth, then.
Only applicable.