40% of peered reviewed scientific articles can't be reproduced

[Augustus]

No, you misunderstand me. It may be published but it is the peer review that will then find it out, so they do NOT pass peer review.
You can smell a dodgy paper when it is funded by an oil company, a tobacco company or the like of Proctor & Gamble.

Peer-review usually refers to the pre-publication process. Saying something 'failed' peer-review because it was refuted 30 years later is somewhat misleading.

Most false findings are not the result of deliberate trickery, but randomness (throw enough darts..), poor methodology, poor statistical inferences, wishful thinking, etc.

Rather than being outliers, they are actually facilitated and even necessitated by a flawed system.

 

[whirlingmerc]

No, you misunderstand me. It may be published but it is the peer review that will then find it out, so they do NOT pass peer review.
You can smell a dodgy paper when it is funded by an oil company, a tobacco company or the like of Proctor & Gamble.

All these papers were peer reviewed

 

[Polymath257]

Should we take the results on faith?

Most scientists 'can't replicate studies'

No, you should not take them on faith. And you should suspect any claims to being a 'science' by a field that cannot reproduce its results. Unfortunately, that includes vast stretches of medicine and psychology.

 

[Revoltingest]

And zero percent of creoscience holds up.
So creos need a lot of blind faith.

Much of creation 'science' has the advantage that it cannot possibly fail.
For example, no experiment can disprove God's thinking the universe
into existence, or his telling the lions to not eat the sheep on the Ark.

 

[Altfish]

Peer-review usually refers to the pre-publication process. Saying something 'failed' peer-review because it was refuted 30 years later is somewhat misleading.

Most false findings are not the result of deliberate trickery, but randomness (throw enough darts..), poor methodology, poor statistical inferences, wishful thinking, etc.

Rather than being outliers, they are actually facilitated and even necessitated by a flawed system.

In the case of drug tests, they tend to ignore the 'bad' results and only publish the good ones. But when peer reviewed this is easily spotted.

 

[Altfish]

All these papers were peer reviewed

But the fact that scientists cannot replicate the results proves that they are still being reviewed and being found wanting.

 

[shunyadragon]

If there weren't any that couldn't be reproduced, or even a pretty good number, there would be some serious problems.

Unclear, and needs clarification.

 

[shunyadragon]

More than 70% of researchers have tried and failed to reproduce another scientist's experiments, and more than half have failed to reproduce their own experiments.
1,500 scientists lift the lid on reproducibility

perhaps there should be more caution and less rush to publish?

applicable in the sciences and also in the media making rush stories

You may not understand that a great deal of the failure to reproduces predictable results of research is in the applied sciences, like medicine driven by commercial issues and the behavioral sciences that have a great deal of subjective issues in interpreting the results.

The knowledge of science grows fundamentally on the successful research that is predictable and reproducible.

 

[shunyadragon]

All these papers were peer reviewed

True, but the major test of research based on long term scientific methods is the repeatability and predictability of the research. Also research that may pass the research criteria for publishing, but fail the long term test because of issues like sample size and variables that skew the research. Nonetheless the long term success of science learns off bothe the success and failures of research.

 

[Samantha Rinne]

Should we take the results on faith?

Most scientists 'can't replicate studies'

"Peer Review" is all political.

Repeated experiments is how they used to make sure something was legit, you test it several times, then I test it, in different conditions so we're sure it doesn't only work on the moon or underwater.

Nah, let's have a board of "experts" tell us that because you're unsure being gay is genetic (it cannot possibly be, as you would have to engage in non-gay sex to pass it on), or because you're Christian, you cannot be taken seriously as a scientist.

Peer review ruins scientists and has little real results, sometimes proving what everyone already knows. Hey, a new study proves that most depressed people tend to be sad.

 

[Quintessence]

I suspect the perspectives of those who have worked as scientists versus those who have not are going to differ quite a lot on this issue. And it will also vary among scientific disciplines. As I think about the issue of reproducibility within the discipline I have done research in, the top issue that comes to mind is perhaps not the same as it would be for other fields.

That top issue is that sometimes, we are observing phenomena that are by their very nature transitory and subject to change. That is, the inability to reproduce findings - presuming the methods are sound - indicates actual changes happening to our world. Our world is not static, after all. It is full of moving parts and always on the move. When trying to reproduce results for a target that is moving? You do not expect to see perfect consistency. Rather, when doing your research, you are inherently mindful of how attributes of an ecosystem can (and will) change over time. Thirty years ago, species X may have been found in area Y, but today? It might just be extirpated. Being unable to reproduce things can be informative. Imagine a researcher trying to reproduce a study on passenger pigeons? It can't be done. We killed them all.

 

[Audie]

"Peer Review" is all political.

Repeated experiments is how they used to make sure something was legit, you test it several times, then I test it, in different conditions so we're sure it doesn't only work on the moon or underwater.

Nah, let's have a board of "experts" tell us that because you're unsure being gay is genetic (it cannot possibly be, as you would have to engage in non-gay sex to pass it on), or because you're Christian, you cannot be taken seriously as a scientist.

Peer review ruins scientists and has little real results, sometimes proving what everyone already knows. Hey, a new study proves that most depressed people tend to be sad.

Speaking of political, that is all your opinion is.

because you're Christian, you cannot be taken seriously as a scientist.

I wonder how you, presumably as a Christian,
feel comfortable with such a falsehood

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Nah, let's have a board of "experts" tell us that because you're unsure being gay is genetic (it cannot possibly be, as you would have to engage in non-gay sex to pass it on),

Okay, so much wrong with this statement.

1) A trait being genetic doesn't mean it is exclusively genetically inherited, it simply means it is a trait developed at the genetic level, i.e: something you are born with.
2) A trait that is genetic also isn't necessarily genetically inheritable either.
3) Gay people can and do have straight sex, and many have biological children. Being gay doesn't make this impossible.
4) There is plenty of evidence to suggest that there is, at least, a genetic component that determines sexuality (SOURCE: Cross-Cultural Evidence for the Genetics of Homosexuality)

or because you're Christian, you cannot be taken seriously as a scientist.

There are many, many highly-respected scientists who are Christians. Nobody has ever alleged that being a Christian makes you a poor scientist.

Peer review ruins scientists and has little real results, sometimes proving what everyone already knows. Hey, a new study proves that most depressed people tend to be sad.

I'm curious. Just how many peer-reviewed papers have you read?

 

[Augustus]

The OP that presented this is very anti-evolution. He appears to be looking for any excuse to denigrate peer review. But then the ideas he believes in cannot pass peer review since they have been refuted a thousand times. It is likely that he sees an attack on peer review as a way to elevate creationism. But even if all peer review is right only forty percent of the time it still beats a topic that never passes peer review.

Personally, I'd find it reassuring if people weren't content simply that it was more accurate than creationist literature. If the system wasn't so flawed (in some disciplines) then it would be much harder for people to denigrate scientific research in the first place.

This is one problem of discussions that frame a dichotomy between "science" and "religion", it encourages a tribal attachment that must be defended at all costs like defending your football team against local rivals. As such, people feel the need to defend everything about their 'team', lest any admission of weakness be used by the opposition to score points (as we commonly see with Republicans v Democrats)

Once you frame something as an ideological differentiator it significantly impairs critical thinking and ability to change beliefs, well at least if we can trust the science anyway

"Coalition-mindedness makes everyone, including scientists, far stupider in coalitional collectivities than as individuals. Paradoxically, a political party united by supernatural beliefs can revise its beliefs about economics or climate without revisers being bad coalition members. But people whose coalitional membership is constituted by their shared adherence to “rational,” scientific propositions have a problem when—as is generally the case—new information arises which requires belief revision. To question or disagree with coalitional precepts, even for rational reasons, makes one a bad and immoral coalition member—at risk of losing job offers, one's friends, and one's cherished group identity. This freezes belief revision.

Forming coalitions around scientific or factual questions is disastrous, because it pits our urge for scientific truth-seeking against the nearly insuperable human appetite to be a good coalition member. Once scientific propositions are moralized, the scientific process is wounded, often fatally."

 

[Audie]

Okay, so much wrong with this statement.

1) A trait being genetic doesn't mean it is exclusively genetically inherited, it simply means it is a trait developed at the genetic level, i.e: something you are born with.
2) A trait that is genetic also isn't necessarily genetically inheritable either.
3) Gay people can and do have straight sex, and many have biological children. Being gay doesn't make this impossible.
4) There is plenty of evidence to suggest that there is, at least, a genetic component that determines sexuality (SOURCE: Cross-Cultural Evidence for the Genetics of Homosexuality)


I'm curious. Just how many peer-reviewed papers have you read?

The anti-science posting in this thread seems to hold
to an underlying theme, that the posters with their
down to earth common sense know better than all
them high-falutin' scientists up there in their ivory tower
where they are rolling in public funds.

Same sort of thing that gives appeal to t he scandal
sheets-us workin' people may not have the money
but we are good decent folks, honest and moral,
so we are bettern them are.

It is clearly an appealing idea, on all sorts of levels.

With a bible and a holy attitude, any one of them
can, and does, know more than any scientist on
earth -and they dont even have to study!

Nope, a bit of that common sense, let alone
with a bible backing you up, and you know
your grandma wasnt no monkey.

I suppose I am sometimes a bit hard on them,
and should be more into feeling sorry for them.

But it is a bit much when someone who has
no clue just makes things up about people they
do not know, all the while posing as good
honourable Christians.

 

[viole]

Should we take the results on faith?

Most scientists 'can't replicate studies'

I think you have a pretty narrow idea of what science is. For instance, experiment and observation are not equivalent to reproducibily and visibility. Ever seen an electron?

Take cosmology. Should we exclude it from science because it might be impossible, even in principle, to reproduce universes?

You will realize immediately that many branches of science deal with things that are not reproducible. Many even deal with things that we cannot possibly see, but we only infer their existence via indirect means.

Should we exclude all of the above from science? Why? Because creationists are embarassed by its findings?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Audie]

I think you have a pretty narrow idea of what science is. For instance, experiment and observation are not equivalent to reproducibily and visibility. Ever seen an electron?

Take cosmology. Should we exclude it from science because it might be impossible, even in principle, to reproduce universes?

You will realize immediately that many branches of science deal with things that are not reproducible. Many even deal with things that we cannot possibly see, but we only infer their existence via indirect means.

Should we exclude all of the above from science? Why? Because creationists are embarassed by its findings?

Ciao

- viole

The way that our creo friends so consistently try to
discredit any research that in some ways casts
doubt on their flood story kinda tells you something.

 

[viole]

The way that our creo friends so consistently try to
discredit any research that in some ways casts
doubt on their flood story kinda tells you something.

I was not aware we need special research to discredit that.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Twilight Hue]

News flash : science ain't perfect because humans.
Science gets things wrong all the time. But give me a continual improvement model over a static one any time.

I like to think anytime new information comes in, I would say science rather than wrong adjusts with the new information. Like Pluto being reclassified.

Theoretical modeling being the exception of course.

 

[Audie]

I was not aware we need special research to discredit that.

Ciao

- viole

I am sure there is not. It would be kind of silly.

What I mean is, a very wide range of studies include
data that is entirely inconsistent with a world wide flood,
or for that matter, any other massive geological
event such as asteroid impact, etc, within the past
many millions of years.

The creationists have an enormous amount
of research to discredit in order to keep the flood
story or any of their other notions intact.