Reproducibility crisis in Science

[rav3n]

Grrr....this is the most frustrating aspect. Studies require peer reviewing and most importantly, the results need to be replicated, especially in a more robust manner.

This is the beauty of science. It's the opposite of overly simplistic conventional wisdumbs.

 

[Lark]

Grrr....this is the most frustrating aspect. Studies require peer reviewing and most importantly, the results need to be replicated, especially in a more robust manner.

This is the beauty of science. It's the opposite of overly simplistic conventional wisdumbs.

Although the studies in neurology, biology and pharmacology are reproducible and its probably why this is main paradigm in applied psychology and treatment/therapy.

Although, I tend to think that the French guy Saint-Simon, no need to take all his ideas seriously (including the authoritarian "socialist" church), was on to something about various sciences not being positive as yet. The social sciences lagging aways behind in the natural sciences, today we'd probably call them the hard sciences.

All sciences will eventually reach the positive though, I'm fairly sure of that and I think some of them could be more positive than is widely known.

 

[rav3n]

Although the studies in neurology, biology and pharmacology are reproducible and its probably why this is main paradigm in applied psychology and treatment/therapy.

Although, I tend to think that the French guy Saint-Simon, no need to take all his ideas seriously (including the authoritarian "socialist" church), was on to something about various sciences not being positive as yet. The social sciences lagging aways behind in the natural sciences, today we'd probably call them the hard sciences.

All sciences will eventually reach the positive though, I'm fairly sure of that and I think some of them could be more positive than is widely known.

Meh, the article is relative to the lack of reproducibility of a natural science.

 

[Coriolis]

What I mean is that the topics of research are often "cherry picked", to get the most funding and what it says in journals reflect the desires of that funding. And it's not as though the results can't be reproduced at all. From the OP article...

The bolded is the point I am making. This is NOT about "doubting science" or some other bullshit. This is a problem due to lack of funding minus strings and researchers being able to research and reproduce no matter what the actual topic is.

Most research requires funding, sometimes significant amounts. This puts those with money in the driver's seat when it comes to what topics are researched, as with most other things that go on in society. If they are motivated by political considerations, then that will drive at least the topics of research, though integrity of actual results can be largely ensured through a robust peer review process.

It seems like the right and left both like to claim they're the rational ones devoted to science, but both tend to cherry pick or ignore scientific findings when they don't align with their worldviews.

Right wingers tend to ignore or downplay climate change, or will argue it's not really man-made, so why bother worrying about it? Left wingers tend to ignore the biology behind sex, and in some circles the dangers of obesity (i.e. the fat acceptance movement).

Do you mean fat acceptance, or fat people acceptance? Also, I have never seen anyone ignore what you call the biology behind sex. I assume by this you mean the stastical differences between males and females. What I do see is dismissal of the many unsupportable conclusions which claim that as justification. You cannot demonstrate that A leads to B simply by proving the existence of A.

 

[anticlimatic]

Also, I have never seen anyone ignore what you call the biology behind sex.

This is likely a product of willful igorance generating a blind spot- as I've seen you ignore the biology behind sex ad nauseum.

 

[rav3n]

One problem they've identified is that lab mice lack the healthy microbiome of wild mice, hence results can't be reproduced in human clinical trials.

Laboratory mice born to wild mice have natural microbiota and model human immune responses | Science

Abstract

Laboratory mouse studies are paramount for understanding basic biological phenomena but also have limitations. These include conflicting results caused by divergent microbiota and limited translational research value. To address both shortcomings, we transferred C57BL/6 embryos into wild mice, creating “wildlings.” These mice have a natural microbiota and pathogens at all body sites and the tractable genetics of C57BL/6 mice. The bacterial microbiome, mycobiome, and virome of wildlings affect the immune landscape of multiple organs. Their gut microbiota outcompete laboratory microbiota and demonstrate resilience to environmental challenges. Wildlings, but not conventional laboratory mice, phenocopied human immune responses in two preclinical studies. A combined natural microbiota- and pathogen-based model may enhance the reproducibility of biomedical studies and increase the bench-to-bedside safety and success of immunological studies.

 

[The Cat]

This is likely a product of willful igorance generating a blind spot- as I've seen you ignore the biology behind sex ad nauseum.

Do we have a clip? To show the audience at home?

 

[anticlimatic]

Do we have a clip? To show the audience at home?

I could go digging, or you could ask her if she thinks there's any difference between men and women and cut right to the chase.

 

[The Cat]

I could go digging, or you could ask her if she thinks there's any difference between men and women.

So no? How... anticlimactic.

 

[Coriolis]

This is likely a product of willful igorance generating a blind spot- as I've seen you ignore the biology behind sex ad nauseum.

You are completely ignoring the distiction I explained in my last post, without any support whatsoever. Not surprising as that is your usual MO, and far easier than actually making a case for your own position.

 

[anticlimatic]

You are directly contradicting what I explained in my last post, without any support whatsoever. Not surprising as that is your usual MO, but then it is hard to present evidence that doesn't exist.

Like I said, it's more easily just conjured on the spot.

Do you think men and women are the same? (this can be rhetorical)

 

[Coriolis]

Like I said, it's more easily just conjured on the spot.

Do you think men and women are the same?

I edited my post above to be more clear about what you are glossing over, but it doesn't change my response here. I wrote previously:

I have never seen anyone ignore what you call the biology behind sex. I assume by this you mean the stastical differences between males and females. What I do see is dismissal of the many unsupportable conclusions which claim that as justification. You cannot demonstrate that A leads to B simply by proving the existence of A.

Do you fail to understand the distinction between the statistically observable physiological differences between men and women, and the many conclusions that claim those differences as support? If not, you will also fail to understand that your question is off the mark.

 

[anticlimatic]

I edited my post above to be more clear about what you are glossing over, but it doesn't change my response here. I wrote previously: Do you fail to understand the distinction between the statistically observable physiological differences between men and women, and the many conclusions that claim those differences as support? If not, you will also fail to understand that your question is off the mark.

I fail to see a yes or no response to a yes or no question, though I do see why you wouldn't provide one.

 

[Jonny]

I fail to see a yes or no response to a yes or no question, though I do see why you wouldn't provide one.

I can answer for [MENTION=9811]Coriolis[/MENTION]: No, she does not think men and women are the same. Does that help you?

As for your assertion that "...Left wingers tend to ignore the biology behind sex, and in some circles the dangers of obesity (i.e. the fat acceptance movement)." I'd have to agree with Coriolis when she says: "Also, I have never seen anyone ignore what you call the biology behind sex. I assume by this you mean the statistical differences between males and females. What I do see is dismissal of the many unsupportable conclusions which claim that as justification. You cannot demonstrate that A leads to B simply by proving the existence of A."

 

[Coriolis]

I fail to see a yes or no response to a yes or no question, though I do see why you wouldn't provide one.

I did, which you apparently chose to ignore. The question is off the mark. As I said before, you cannot demonstrate that A leads to B simply by proving the existence of A. You are asking whether I accept the existence of A.

 

[anticlimatic]

I did, which you apparently chose to ignore. The question is off the mark. As I said before, you cannot demonstrate that A leads to B simply by proving the existence of A. You are asking whether I accept the existence of A.

Must have gotten lost in your word salad somewhere. Care to dig it out for me? Do you think men and women are the same? Because if you can't answer that simply, congratulations- you've found the fundamental place that people on the left ignore biology, and now you can cease in speculating just where in the wild blue yonder people not on the left have come up with that observation.

 

[Coriolis]

Must have gotten lost in your word salad somewhere. Care to dig it out for me? Do you think men and women are the same? Because if you can't answer that simply, congratulations- you've found the fundamental place that people on the left ignore biology, and now you can cease in speculating just where in the wild blue yonder people not on the left have come up with that observation.

No need to insult my posts by calling them "word salad". If anything, they are quite the opposite, quite clear to anyone actually trying to understand the meaning of other posting members. [MENTION=9251]Jonny[/MENTION]'s post above confirms that I have made my point here, the same point I have made on this issue in multiple threads over the months/years.

 

[anticlimatic]

No need to insult my posts by calling them "word salad". If anything, they are quite the opposite, quite clear to anyone actually trying to understand the meaning of other posting members. [MENTION=9251]Jonny[/MENTION]'s post above confirms that I have made my point here, the same point I have made on this issue in multiple threads over the months/years.

I apologize. I didn't mean that to be objectively insulting- only I ordered just a single crouton, not the whole bowl.

 

[Justin of Flavia Neapolis]

*Asks Jordan Peterson a yes or no question*

"Well, it depends on what you mean by yes and what you mean by no. In many cultures yes could mean no and no could mean yes, for instance the Japaneeeese. Another culture such as the *insert obscure Amazon tribal name* people don't even have a concept of no because they answer Yes to everything. It's really bizarre.."

It's more fun if you read that in JP's voice.

 

[Jonny]

[MENTION=20035]anticlimatic[/MENTION]

Research Suggests Male and Female Kid's Brains Respond to Technology Differently - InsideHook

While, as Jargon noted, some of this research has received criticism for reinforcing binary gender roles and biological essentialism, experts maintain there are biological distinctions tied to sex that can’t be dismissed altogether. “It’s not a debate that there are sex influences throughout the mammalian brain,” said Dr. Cahill. “How they all play out is what we should responsibly explore.”