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

[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.

Of course. I was kidding, To use science to dismiss those myths would be like using a thermonuclear device to kill a fly.

And it is also obvious why they insist on unealistic requirements science should be subjected too.

Not sure why they insist on that, though. That would just reduce science to basically nothing. But then why not simply dismiss science altogether? It looks like they are enamored with the word and want to have it on their side.

Not very rational. Although, expected to be so.

Ciao

- viole

 

[tas8831]

No not on faith, read the article completely and cite accurately. This article describes a successful process where scientific research that cannot be reproduced is rejected. The 60% that can be reproduced is successful in the peer review process.

From: Most scientists 'can't replicate studies'

For its part, the journal Nature is taking steps to address the problem.

It's introduced a reproducibility checklist for submitting authors, designed to improve reliability and rigour.

"Replication is something scientists should be thinking about before they write the paper," says Ritu Dhand, the editorial director at Nature.

"It is a big problem, but it's something the journals can't tackle on their own. It's going to take a multi-pronged approach involving funders, the institutes, the journals and the researchers."

But we need to be bolder, according to the Edinburgh neuroscientist Prof Malcolm Macleod.

"The issue of replication goes to the heart of the scientific process."

Writing in the latest edition of Nature, he outlines a new approach to animal studies that calls for independent, statistically rigorous confirmation of a paper's central hypothesis before publication.

"Without efforts to reproduce the findings of others, we don't know if the facts out there actually represent what's happening in biology or not."

Without knowing whether the published scientific literature is built on solid foundations or sand, he argues, we're wasting both time and money.

"It could be that we would be much further forward in terms of developing new cures and treatments. It's a regrettable situation, but I'm afraid that's the situation we find ourselves in."

The other 60% is obviously reproducible and stands the test of time and the scientific methods, and airplanes fly and computers work, . . . most of the time.

It is interesting that the fundamentalist Christian Creationist view has 0% reproducibility in science.

It should also be noted that this particular article was primarily about cancer research. Similar studies in the past by Iaonnidis (spelling is probably wrong) also focused on certain types of research, but it was widely reported as indicting all science.
Medical research seems to have the most problems - I believe because of the profit motive/incentive. Contrary to the nonsense of the anti-vaccine, anti 'Big Medicine' crowd, there would be a LOT of money to be made in finding cures to diseases like cancer.

 

[ManSinha]

Medical research seems to have the most problems - I believe because of the profit motive/incentive

You are partially correct eg. Vioxx

BUT there is also the fact that patients for a trial are chosen by strict criteria and that may not be applicable to a different or general population

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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

I would also caution those with little or no background in science or understanding of science, from rushing to extrapolate conclusions from stories like this.

 

[sealchan]

Should we take the results on faith?

Most scientists 'can't replicate studies'

Also where human subjects are involved I suspect the signal to noise ratio is really low as far as controlling the results. This makes the temptation to show clear results greater I suspect.

I wonder how prayer for personal needs to be solved does under similar standards of rigor.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

You are partially correct eg. Vioxx

BUT there is also the fact that patients for a trial are chosen by strict criteria and that may not be applicable to a different or general population

This goes beyond the scope of reproducible research, but I see it as connected. Not everything that should be researched can be determined a priori when designing experiments or establishing protocols. I doubt that the inventors of the automobile or the later mass producers of them had any thoughts to the idea they could be weaponized. Retrospect would tell us differently, but that is why we have a method for conducting science, so that we can learn from errors, refine and increase the quality of the conclusions.

I cannot help but see the OP as leading to a preconceived conclusion that the existence of work that cannot be reproduced in one area of science means that any science can be dismissed if you do not like what it says. That it is not a reproducible experiment is probably lost on those with that view.

 

[shunyadragon]

It should also be noted that this particular article was primarily about cancer research. Similar studies in the past by Iaonnidis (spelling is probably wrong) also focused on certain types of research, but it was widely reported as indicting all science.
Medical research seems to have the most problems - I believe because of the profit motive/incentive. Contrary to the nonsense of the anti-vaccine, anti 'Big Medicine' crowd, there would be a LOT of money to be made in finding cures to diseases like cancer.

I agree and I believe I addressed this:

"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."

 

[Curious George]

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.

Are any results reproducible if we assume determinism?

 

[shunyadragon]

Are any results reproducible if we assume determinism?

60% of the research was reproducible and predictable in this study confirming natural determinism supported by the predictable and reproducible scientific knowledge and research in history.

 

[Audie]

Of course. I was kidding, To use science to dismiss those myths would be like using a thermonuclear device to kill a fly.

And it is also obvious why they insist on unealistic requirements science should be subjected too.

Not sure why they insist on that, though. That would just reduce science to basically nothing. But then why not simply dismiss science altogether? It looks like they are enamored with the word and want to have it on their side.

Not very rational. Although, expected to be so.

Ciao

- viole

Kinda talking past you, I'd have no thought that
you needed the info!

Re reducing science to nothing, it seems to me
that IF somehow ToE were disproved, just wrong
top to bottom, and the flood shown to have really
happened, there would be so much of all the
hard sciences proved so massively wrong, there'd
be a smoking crater left where they'd been.

 

[Audie]

I would also caution those with little or no background in science or understanding of science, from rushing to extrapolate conclusions from stories like this.

It is a bit late for that,our creationists had come to the
conclusion that science is trash long before now.


I cannot help but see the OP as leading to a preconceived conclusion

Exactly. The purpose of the thread was simply to illustrate, once
again, that science is plagued with (list all the negatives
you've seen: "all political""satan-inspired", "same evidence,
different conclusion", "biased""atheist", "assumed",
"paradigm" etc and blah)

 

[Dan From Smithville]

It is a bit late for that,our creationists had come to the
conclusion that science is trash long before now.


I cannot help but see the OP as leading to a preconceived conclusion

Exactly. The purpose of the thread was simply to illustrate, once
again, that science is plagued with (list all the negatives
you've seen: "all political""satan-inspired", "same evidence,
different conclusion", "biased""atheist", "assumed",
"paradigm" etc and blah)

Of course. That is why I made the post. To justify the rejection of science is what I see as the reason for this thread. Those I am looking to reach are not the zealots for whom no quantity of logic, reason, and evidence will matter, but those that have interest and intelligence to look deeper. To see the details behind the curtain and beyond the smokescreen.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

when if can't be reproduced is 2 to 1 against what can... it suggests problems

That's not problematic at all because the scientific method assumes, from the start, not all research will be replicable, which is why the scientific method mandates peer-review and results that can be repeated.

 

[shunyadragon]

I agree and I believe I addressed this:

"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."

This article exemplifies the problem in medical research that I previously stated, which is commercial and government grant driven.

From:
Duke to pay $112.5 million to settle allegation of falsifying research for federal grants

Washington (CNN)Duke University will pay the US government $112.5 million to settle allegations of falsifying research in order to obtain millions of dollars in federal grants, the Department of Justice announced Monday.

Duke is accused of "submitting applications and progress reports that contained falsified research on federal grants to the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)," violating the False Claims Act, according to a Justice Department news release.

The settlement revolves around allegations that between 2006 and 2018 Duke "knowingly submitted and caused to be submitted claims to the NIH and to the EPA that contained falsified or fabricated data or statements in 30 grants," according to the department.

"This settlement sends a strong message that fraud and dishonesty will not be tolerated in the research funding process," EPA Acting Region 4 Administrator Mary S. Walker said in a statement.


A former Duke employee, Joseph Thomas, originally brought the allegations in a lawsuit under the whistleblower provision of the False Claims Act, according to the Justice Department, and will receive $33,750,000 from the settlement.

The university receives millions of dollars every year in funding for grants from the EPA and NIH, according to the Justice Department.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Unclear, and needs clarification.

If all research were replicated and repeated and found similar results, that would be a huge problem because it would inherently mean the process is failing to eliminate lesser variables and explanations, and science just won't work like that. Because falsifiability is very important, there should be a good number of studies that can't be repeated.
Or, even scientists are human, and no one is perfect.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

That's a problem??? No, it's a solution and the reason why science is so powerful.
That is the whole point of peer review; new science has to be repeatable, if not it is modified or rejected.
It is why Theories are so powerful, they have been reviewed modified, re reviewed and found to be solid and repeatable.

Their is no faith about it. Science doesn't fear change

Excellent points...I just might add to "Science doesn't fear change," the phrase "or challenge."

 

[Curious George]

60% of the research was reproducible and predictable in this study confirming natural determinism supported by the predictable and reproducible scientific knowledge and research in history.

That is simply untrue.

 

[shunyadragon]

That is simply untrue.

Assertion without reasonable sources based on a religious agenda.

Natural determinism is based on the hypothesis of the predictability and falsifiability of theories and hypothesis concerning the nature of our physical existence. There are several views of what is determinism. Some define it mechanistically fixed to determine the outcome of cause and effect events, but that is not likely the case.

I go with Karl Popper the father of Methodological Naturalism:

From: Causal Determinism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

In this century, Karl Popper (1982) defined determinism in terms of predictability also, in his book The Open Universe.

The out comes of cause and effect events are not fixed, but have a range of possible outcomes constrained by the Laws of Nature, therefore the outcomes are predictable by the falsification of theories and hypothesis through scientific methods.

Some assert that if determinism is true than there is no Free Will, but compatibilism is a deterministic philosophy that allows for a degree of Free Will.

 

[Polymath257]

Are any results reproducible if we assume determinism?

Close enough that we can test general principles. Determinism just means we don't decide the tests in some ultimate sense. But the tests are still done and the results still test the ideas.

 

[Curious George]

Close enough that we can test general principles. Determinism just means we don't decide the tests in some ultimate sense. But the tests are still done and the results still test the ideas.

Not really.