User Tag List

123 Last

Results 1 to 10 of 63

  1. #1

    Default Reproducibility crisis in Science

    Most scientists 'can't replicate studies by their peers' - BBC News

    "Science is facing a "reproducibility crisis" where more than two-thirds of researchers have tried and failed to reproduce another scientist's experiments, research suggests."

    This is what happens when you don't review, and too readily share information, that hasn't been reproduced more than once, or basing your entire premise on one old possibly faulty study.

    And people thought I was crazy for doubting "science" a lot of the time (especially with popular fad topics). More like I don't trust some 40 year old study that has never been done again, and had vague results at best.

  2. #2
    A Bittersweet Symphony... The Cat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    MBTI
    ESFP
    Enneagram
    478 so/sx
    Posts
    14,893

    Default

    Ive never thought you crazy for doubting science, I think you're crazy for entirely different reasons.
    I am the Cat who walks by himself; and all places are alike to me...
    Likes Sung Jin-Woo liked this post

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    27,276

    Default

    Some research findings should invite skepticism but they shouldnt invite cynicism, or wholesale distrust, and I am of the view that even when overturned most studies and research findings are learning opportunities, even if its how to better design a study, how not to design a study even.

    If findings are fabricated or influenced some how that can be significant all by itself because it could tell you something about the researchers, the times they were performing the research in, the participants etc. etc.

    Even the Stanford Prison Experiment, the Obedience to Authority tests, the separated Twins and Triplets studies all are excellent cases for studying in terms of ethics, harm principles and consequentialism. They were all bad studies with (at least in the first two instances) poor findings.

    Although, that said, I'd say its safe to find a few cautionary tales about science since it is one of those body's of knowledge which has almost religious propensity for abuse and control etc. What I consider important to remember personally are the histories of things like Phrenology, Palmistry, Physiology and Criminal offending etc. Although caution about science, particularly "mad science" which there was at a time more concern about, shouldnt be about wholesale dumping on it. I'm grateful particularly for medicine and medical science.
    Likes Cellmold, SurrealisticSlumbers liked this post

  4. #4

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Mysterious Stranger View Post
    Ive never thought you crazy for doubting science, I think you're crazy for entirely different reasons.
    Am I at least the good or bad kind of crazy, my fellow madman.

  5. #5
    Lord Grumpus Tellenbach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    MBTI
    ISTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5
    Posts
    4,963

    Default

    The entire "cholesterol and saturated foods are bad for you" theory is based on a faulty study (a really bad case of cherrypicking data); many tens of millions of people have died because the government discouraged the consumption of meat and encouraged the consumption of processed carbohydrates. It would be a great idea to review all current policies that are based on "scientific" studies.
    According to Orkin, the top 3 most rat-infested cities are 1) Chicago, 2) Los Angeles, and 3) NYC. I'm not sure if Orkin is referring to the rodent or the Dem politicians.
    Likes Sung Jin-Woo liked this post

  6. #6
    Senior Member Vendrah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    MBTI
    xNFP
    Enneagram
    9
    Posts
    109

    Default

    It depends in which science you are talking about. The article points one specific study in medicine related to cancer studies. You cant say that every other part of the science is in reproducibility cryisis because of one specific area of medicine. Of course that the title suggests that, but that just BBC working out (its a mild manipulation) to get more clicks. Actually, there is a quote inside that article: "It's about a culture that promotes impact over substance, flashy findings over the dull, confirmatory work that most of science is about."; BBC actually did exactly this in the article, they guided the reader to a fake conclusion that the whole science is in a reproducibility crisis by considering five studies in an specific science area (we know that there are thousands or milions studies, depending on the time frame you consider). And, of course, they did it in a reticent way (even mild manipulation is supposed to go unnoticed). This doesnt mean that there is not a reproducibility crisis, but it doesnt mean that there is one either.

    Physics and chemistry are more rigorous and precise than psychology (these are the two extremes I think). I dont think reproducibility in physics or chemistry is "in crisis", although a few of their experiments are incredibly expensive these days (and might require a billionarie budget to be done). Psychology experiments are expected to have more variation and some of them does not have a list of participants that is truly random. Some of them have a list of participants that are inside the same culture or country, one specific psychology experiment in one country can lead to conclusions that appears to be related to psychology but could be culture-related. And sometimes these two things can even mix.
    Likes Deprecator, Methylene liked this post

  7. #7
    Macabre Reputation Thestralis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/sx
    Posts
    24,251

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sung Jin-Woo View Post
    Most scientists 'can't replicate studies by their peers' - BBC News

    "Science is facing a "reproducibility crisis" where more than two-thirds of researchers have tried and failed to reproduce another scientist's experiments, research suggests."

    This is what happens when you don't review, and too readily share information, that hasn't been reproduced more than once, or basing your entire premise on one old possibly faulty study.

    And people thought I was crazy for doubting "science" a lot of the time (especially with popular fad topics). More like I don't trust some 40 year old study that has never been done again, and had vague results at best.
    Why is this in the politics subforum instead of science/technology?
    They are quite gentle, really, but people avoid them because they are a bit . . . different.
    Likes SurrealisticSlumbers liked this post

  8. #8

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Coriolis View Post
    Why is this in the politics subforum instead of science/technology?
    Because its been a talking point in politics quite a bit.

  9. #9
    Macabre Reputation Thestralis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/sx
    Posts
    24,251

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sung Jin-Woo View Post
    Because its been a talking point in politics quite a bit.
    How so? The concerns raised in the article seem to be within the scientific profession, and point to the need for better self-policing. Could you elaborate on the political aspects of that, if you want that to be the focus of the thread? I find that politics and science mixes poorly in any case. Once scientists start considering the political angles of what they are doing, it just goes downhill from there.
    They are quite gentle, really, but people avoid them because they are a bit . . . different.
    Likes SurrealisticSlumbers liked this post

  10. #10

    Default

    Ummm...that's what peer reviewing is all about and why it's important to ensure that whatever study you cite, is housed in a peer reviewed journal.
    Likes SurrealisticSlumbers liked this post

Similar Threads

  1. Study proves gender bias exists in science
    By Randomnity in forum Academics and Careers
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 09-26-2012, 11:59 PM
  2. [NF] NFs interested in science
    By CuriousFeeling in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 84
    Last Post: 05-17-2012, 07:45 AM
  3. Killer type duos in science
    By BlueScreen in forum Science, Technology, and Future Tech
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 02-07-2010, 02:11 AM
  4. Replies: 7
    Last Post: 11-11-2009, 09:50 PM
  5. Famous Lies In Science
    By Heero in forum Science, Technology, and Future Tech
    Replies: 32
    Last Post: 10-08-2007, 06:37 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO