• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

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

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Yes... very much imperfect... interesting how various fields are quite different in repeatability. Economics seemed one of the better ones. Biology one of the worse.


Not really. And no, the worst tend to be medical papers. This does not help you with your mythical beliefs. Being right only 40% of the time beats being wrong 100% of the time.
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
Yes... very much imperfect... interesting how various fields are quite different in repeatability. Economics seemed one of the better ones. Biology one of the worse.
Economics is mostly speculation as it's very difficult to actually experiment and research such things and it's often based on trends (such as Milton's claim that minimum wage hurts teen employment). Biology has TONS of often repeated tests.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
Yes... very much imperfect... interesting how various fields are quite different in repeatability. Economics seemed one of the better ones. Biology one of the worse.

Applied science in Biology like medicine, diet studies and behavioral sciences are problems in Biology are possibly some of the worst, and not Biology in general. Disciplines, my specialties, such as anthropology, paleoanthropology, paleontology and geology do not have significant problems in repeatability

Can you cite references that provide specifics on which fields are worse instead of vague general statements?

You still have failed to respond to the following fact of science.

Simply the research paper results that are reproducible reinforce the growing knowledge of science over the past hundred years and more, those that are not reproducible are the lessons that contribute to the progress of science.

It may be worth noting that some of the earlier research supporting Einstein's Theory of Relativity were found to be not repeatable. It took later more sophisticated research to confirm Einstein's theory.

The reproducible and predictable research results in usable technology in all fields. A good example reproducibility and predictability in research in Biology is in genetics. This very sound predictability has extended into the real world of identifying and curing inherited diseases and defects, tracing family trees and convicting criminals based on genetics,
 
Last edited:

Justatruthseeker

Active Member
Applied science in Biology like medicine, diet studies and behavioral sciences are problems in Biology are possibly some of the worst, and not Biology in general. Disciplines, my specialties, such as anthropology, paleoanthropology, paleontology and geology do not have significant problems in repeatability

Can you cite references that provide specifics on which fields are worse instead of vague general statements?

You still have failed to respond to the following fact of science.

Simply the research paper results that are reproducible reinforce the growing knowledge of science over the past hundred years and more, those that are not reproducible are the lessons that contribute to the progress of science.

It may be worth noting that some of the earlier research supporting Einstein's Theory of Relativity were found to be not repeatable. It took later more sophisticated research to confirm Einstein's theory.

The reproducible and predictable research results in usable technology in all fields. A good example reproducibility and predictability in research in Biology is in genetics. This very sound predictability has extended into the real world of identifying and curing inherited diseases and defects, tracing family trees and convicting criminals based on genetics,
Convicting criminals based upon genetic tests that have nothing to do with comparing segments of one genome and matching it to random segments from another genome. Correct?

One to one matches. Randomly matching segments would not provide the adequate reliability needed.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
Convicting criminals based upon genetic tests that have nothing to do with comparing segments of one genome and matching it to random segments from another genome. Correct?

Incomplete. First they do not compare random segments.

One to one matches. Randomly matching segments would not provide the adequate reliability needed.

Incomplete and lacks references to explain your intent in terms of peer reviewed science.

Genetics does much better today than you describe.
 

Justatruthseeker

Active Member
Well, by seeing what else happens at other times during those millions of years, we can know that also.
Ahhh, you mean like finding a tooth, then imagining an entire lifestyle behind the creature that it belonged to?

This kind of knowing? Sounds more like wishful daydreaming...
 

Darkstorn

This shows how unique i am.
Ahhh, you mean like finding a tooth, then imagining an entire lifestyle behind the creature that it belonged to?

This kind of knowing? Sounds more like wishful daydreaming...

You know what's wishful daydreaming? This scenario you just concocted.

I find it weird that you cannot distinguish between putting words into another person's mouth, vs what they're actually saying.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
No, just your fundamentalist religious agenda of evolutionary religious PR rearing it’s ugly head. We all understand evolution is your religion, but hey, I support freedom of religion....

To make such boisterous claims, you need scientific peer reviewed research, which is totally lacking,

Your misusing basic English language. Science is science and not religion.
 

Justatruthseeker

Active Member
You know what's wishful daydreaming? This scenario you just concocted.

I find it weird that you cannot distinguish between putting words into another person's mouth, vs what they're actually saying.
He said about as much as you do. Nothing.

I notice you also continually avoid saying anything to support your faith....
 

Darkstorn

This shows how unique i am.
To make such boisterous claims, you need scientific peer reviewed research, which is totally lacking,

All those posts, and all the posts he has done on other forums he inhabits, and never once has this stopped him. So telling him to become a peer reviewed researcher is basically giving him a free pass at making fun of you, because in HIS mind he's entirely 100% certain that the whole thing is just a massive conspiracy.
 
Top