In Science We Trust

[Revoltingest]

...cientists are mistaken who think that it is the only tool we have to learn about existence though.

Which scientists say that?

 

[F1fan]

And you can show with science, that that is bad? BTW the correct version is reproduction of the fittest gene.

So you would prefer we humans not have technology, or appliances, or medicine?

If you prefer to live in the wilderness without modern conveniences I have to wonder how you get internet access.

 

[rational experiences]

If a human asks in the way too late moment oh you everyday natural human would prefer no science?

Truly a snide comment in sciences man history.

Historic advice lived experience life versus science man's choice says yes.

You never gave us a choice. Your science tactic support me or I'll murder you. Still the exact same human behaviours today.

Egotism. I'm not wrong he says not embarrassed at all. Is so self status possessed.

Was in fact baby child indoctrinated to be the egotist rather than an equal human life family member. Nurtured.

Invention is not frowned upon if it does no harm. Most of those inventions ignored. Historic advice is as we lived we were spiritually told supported yet ignored by rich men.

Who loved? Humans who support a loved life. Supported natural balances. Reverenced age and wisdom correctly. Kept natures supported health. Knew accurate acute healer medical advice.

Was in fact family revered. Looked after in every way so they could tend the families needs.

The best sort of life. A natural life.

You cannot with conscience claim you aren't waiting for some type of human annihilation science community....you discuss it daily.

 

[Sheldon]

Your "zinger" belies a failure to grasp basic grammar:

Yes, yours, but I accept your contradiction was down to your poor use of grammar. Now about this method you claim exists outside of all the method(s) of science, that has consistently been used to falsify peer reviewed claims.

Can we have any specifics yet, or is it a secret? Maybe you should patent it? I mean with a success rate of falsifying (what was it) 60% of peer reviewed work, shouldn't scientists in the related fields be begging you to peer review their work with this new method?

 

[F1fan]

The is a problems that many sciences have terrible replication rates if that's what you mean.

Do you agree?

I don't agree with your claim because you offer no evidence that you are telling the truth. You make these outlandish, damaging claims but then don't back it up with any evidence.

Restate this claim of yours, and present evidence that "many sciences have terrible replication rates". You seem to be saying that many sciences have studies that have results within the minimum statistical standard, but upon replication they fail. Let us know.

 

[rational experiences]

What I learnt by human observation about science.

Men invented it's purpose and lie.

Pretty basic human behaviour group.coercion control. Not natural.

Family human life is established natural first. You own no argument it is coercion to practice only.

You used maths to add a formula to product change the body mass of any earth product.

Man's owned only science status.

Natural man argues science against science seems to be the overlooked status.

Man says I am right by coercion.

Earths mass

So you ask how is earth the same advice anywhere else?

He then theories as earth owns all the star gas groups inside it's own body. As thesis time shift by how much space is between earth to the star.

Lied.

As machine owned stone product focus shows the earth is fed back vision hologram image in the same one of state recorded image its owned mass in the space model.

Coercion to be allowed to blow up earth mass by change of known O space pressures that own the holding of mass itself.

Some men theory total destruction is the Bible's warning destroyer.

Now he will argue. He will claim my wisdom.is a heavens gas state first.

Stars he says.

Earths heavens is nothing like a star mass.

No he says once it was.

So his brother natural advisor says evolution is the law of space present term only.

No looking back thesis allowed.

Life is instantly supported living only in presence the present.

Was a natural life teaching against life's destroyer the scientist.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

So you would prefer we humans not have technology, or appliances, or medicine?

If you prefer to live in the wilderness without modern conveniences I have to wonder how you get internet access.

So you used feelings in your last 3 posts. Got any evidence to mention? Or any rational points to make?
I do like science, but that is not the only thing I like. And that I like science, is not science.

 

[Augustus]

Yes, yours, but I accept your contradiction was down to your poor use of grammar. Now about this method you claim exists outside of all the method(s) of science, that has consistently been used to falsify peer reviewed claims.

Rather than admit you made a mistake, you would prefer to publicly argue it is grammatically incorrect to differentiate between one and multiple methods by using plurals and indefinite articles?

Can't say that suggests intellectual honesty or a good faith approach.

You didn't answer for the 12th time btw, do you accept there is no singular scientific method that differentiates science from "not science" (or good science from bad science)?

Can we have any specifics yet, or is it a secret?

Given I've posted 2 peer-reviewed scholarly journals on the topic, you could simply read them. It's not difficult

 

[rational experiences]

Earth science.

Man's choice. Men agreed.

Says I invent by replication. My data proves me correct.

So conscious human identity in consciousness is first.

Not theism.

I human man replicate myself as man's baby.

Just in that type of theory is wrong.

An ovary inside a woman body not yours grows a foetus nothing like a man adult. It grows into a baby nothing like an adult.

Baby Child teenager. Nothing like an adult until an adult.

Grows by around twenty years.

Not instant not replicated.

Men of science are not allowed a fake machine. To say replicate.

What is real in what you say?

Now you build a machine as design by man. Changed states artificial men purpose. Does not own a natural comparison.

Intention to take what I know minerals...gods owned change it.

So you knew you wanted an artificial change.

What do you design own?

Caused space known plus cooled new mass.

Consciousness. I replicated metal. Not it's natural earth pressures. Not where it exists in nature.

Mind says.....three times historic I life attacked destroyed my own life by not listening to scientific first natural man adults observations.

Three times he said I don't listen.

Said it was when the cock crowed.

A rooster is just a Bird......you used symbolism.

The cock I named my penis as an erection. In nature natural. Man's life continuance is sex. The only erection to continue life.

So I used a euphemism in terms read myself then ask questions.

In my man DNA by sex regained I reproduce my science self. Named.

Galileo...lie gaol an example I knew.

I coded a code my man self.

Crowing as a man. My egotism...cocky demeanour.

My penis ended up imaged in atomic cloud burning cooling systems. Proof man owning penis invented a reaction.

I the mage magic. Inventor image projection.

To replicate a machine reaction did not create stone. It removed it. A contradiction.

Science theist. Replication first. I want science. I want buildings. Designs from gods stones the buildings. Science first erected civilization out of gods stone.

Lies all day long self possessed. Memories of his first adult man scientist theist possessed him.

 

[Augustus]

I don't agree with your claim because you offer no evidence that you are telling the truth. You make these outlandish, damaging claims but then don't back it up with any evidence.

Not sure you don't read posts or are just pretending. I've posted multiple peer-reviewed journals in support including Nature.

If you read them you could see these "outlandish, damaging claims" are, in fact, an important part of modern scientific discourse. Scientists are far less credulous than you are on the accuracy of many sciences.

Anyway here they are again.

Data on how much of the scientific literature is reproducible are rare and generally bleak. The best-known analyses, from psychology1 and cancer biology2, found rates of around 40% and 10%, respectively.

1,500 scientists lift the lid on reproducibility - Nature

And on confidence from those within the field:

The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) programme ‘Systematizing Confidence in Open Research and Evidence’ (SCORE) aims to generate confidence scores for a large number of research claims from empirical studies in the social and behavioural sciences. The confidence scores will provide a quantitative assessment of how likely a claim will hold up in an independent replication...

Moreover, they expect replication rates to differ between fields, with the highest replication rate in economics (average survey response 58%), and the lowest in psychology and in education (average survey response of 42% for both fields).

https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsos.200566

It was also discussed in the article below that, in contrast to you insistence it's impossible, shows non-experts are quite good at identifying errors made by experts.

Quite the pattern of avoiding evidence that shows you are wrong

Laypeople Can Predict Which Social-Science Studies Will Be Replicated Successfully

Laypeople may be able to reliably evaluate the plausibility of research hypotheses (and hence reliably predict replication outcomes), even without access to relevant statistical information or in-depth knowledge of the literature. After all, social science concerns itself with constructs that are often accessible and interesting to a lay audience (Milkman & Berger, 2014). Consequently, when presented with a nontechnical description of a study’s topic, operationalization, and result, laypeople may well be able to produce accurate replicability forecasts.

SAGE Journals: Your gateway to world-class research journals

Recent work has suggested that the replicability of social-science research may be disturbingly low (Baker, 2016). For instance, several systematic high-powered replication projects have demonstrated successful replication rates ranging from 36% (Open Science Collaboration, 2015) to 50% (Klein et al., 2018), 62% (Camerer et al., 2018), and 85% (Klein et al., 2014). These low replication rates have been explained by several factors that operate at different levels. At the level of the scientific field as a whole, problems include publication bias (Francis, 2013) and perverse incentive structures (Giner-Sorolla, 2012). At the level of individual studies, problems concern low statistical power (Button et al., 2013; Ioannidis, 2005) and questionable research practices, such as data-driven flexibility in statistical analysis (i.e., significance seeking; John, Loewenstein, & Prelec, 2012; Simmons, Nelson, & Simonsohn, 2011; Wagenmakers, Wetzels, Borsboom, & van der Maas, 2011). Here we focus on yet another problem that has recently been associated with poor replicability: the a priori implausibility of the research hypothesis (Benjamin et al., 2018; Ioannidis, 2005


If you don't want to read the journals, then just read the Wiki

Replication crisis - Wikipedia


Do you still insist that mistakes would never make it past peer-review btw?

 

[F1fan]

The idea that until an expert tells us what to think in a scientific study we are unable to make a probabilistic judgement based on masses of evidence is something we disagree on.

Experts in science do scientific studies, and then report their findings. You are making it sound as if it's like a preacher giving his interpretation of the Bible.

Another thing we disagree on.

You think credentials make the expert. I'd back real world experience and demonstrated sucess as being the hallmark or exertise.

Yes, getting advanced degrees prepares a person for doing highly complicated work. If a government agency is taking applications for a person to run their assessment of a pandemic they are going to want a person who understands viruses and bacteria, how they are spread, solutions to slowing the spread, etc. They aren't going to hire a guy who has had 35 years experiences getting colds and the flu and knows what best over the counter medicines help him.

See, a non-expert made a probabilistic judgement that EPO would benefit athletic performance before having any 'proof and data' from an expert to tell him he should do it.

But you miss the point again, once people started taking it, they gathered masses of data on its impact on performance.

This is the evidence you ignore.

They gathered anecdotal data without any sort of controls for what they observed. Controls are crucial in science. And for doping the last thing you want is recorded data about doping.

Doctors are experts, and they used whatever data they had about EPO helping boost hematocrit levels to help athletes cheat. What these doctors did not have was experience and data about safe and effective doses, and how well it works, both short term and long term. It was all a risk, and the athletes took the chances. Like any other drug not all people had the same benefits and effects. So do we know if athletes experienced broad success with EPO? No. Do we have evidence whether there was a placebo effect going on in those athletes who doped and performed well? No.

You are overlooking that people with far better data than you who know far more about pro-cycling than you believed it very much was more than a placebo.

No I'm not. As I just noted the doctors only had cancer patients as a baselines for the effects of EPO, and it wasn't until they started giving it to athletes until they could see if it improved performance.

People don't ride bikes in athletics which also saw massive performance gains and tumbling world records at exactly the time EPO started to be used.

You are not considering that both could be happening at the same time.

Do note that when urine samples are taken the sample is split into the A and B sample. The A is tested and the B is secured for the future. This is how WADA found out how bad the doping was in the 90's before there was EPO tests. They retested old samples once the new test was designed, and racers were busted. This served as a warning for athletes who want to dope with substances that can't be tested today because they might be tested in the future, and that could mean lawsuits for fraud.

Most of these athletes were doping prior to EPO anyway, so why does EPO provide a "super-placebo" effect and why did this decline when EPO testing appeared?[/quotes]
As I have noted numerous times already is it very important to feel "good" on the bike. There are all sorts of things that can help a cyclist feel better. I'll note that a fatigued athlete won't benefit from a boost. You have to be fit and healthy already to get performance gains from some drug or substance. This includes mental attitudes.

Drugs are not magic bullets. The athlete still needs to work their *** off to reach their peak performance level.

It's not like you can ride 175 miles a week for 6 months, and then take EPO and will win the World Professional Championship. You will get your *** kicked. So would I.

Until that point though, we can still be pretty confident EPO works very well on elite endurance athletes.

The study showed some benefit in the lab tests, so yes there is some incremental benefit. How it worked in competition is in question. The study only showed that the results in completion were inconclusive. My thoughts on this is that were the test subjects highly skilled, or just local racers who may not have an ability to push beyond comfortable levels.

You are again missing the point.

Magical transformations mid-career are not 'a return to form', they are performance that has no connection with what happened before and are thus highly likely to be the result of doping rather than anything else.

Armstrong, Froome, Wiggins, etc.

A broad brush claim that I don't see you having any data for. You aren't accounting for a bad team management, poor coaching, mental exhaustion, or injuries, etc. You seem to be accusing all come backs on drugs and doing so without evidence. Cavendish is an example I used and you didn't accept his performance as legitimate for some reason.

Not every athlete doping wins, but most athletes who win are doping.

There is a reason for this. PEDs enhance performance in all kinds of sports.

This is a massive accusation. Do you have evidence of this, or just guessing?

If WADA is testing and not banning these winners how is it YOU know they are doping? Clairvoyance?

You seriously believe that peer-review catches almost all errors?

Peer review repeats experiment to see if the results can be duplicated.

Do you think there are errors that experts miss that you somehow have special extra sensory perception to detect?
Man, you should hire yourself to scientists so you can point out all their errors and mistakes since you are so damned confident (naive).

 

[F1fan]

Not sure you don't read posts or are just pretending. I've posted multiple peer-reviewed journals in support including Nature.

If you read them you could see these "outlandish, damaging claims" are, in fact, an important part of modern scientific discourse. Scientists are far less credulous than you are on the accuracy of many sciences.

Anyway here they are again.



It was also discussed in the article below that, in contrast to you insistence it's impossible, shows non-experts are quite good at identifying errors made by experts.

Quite the pattern of avoiding evidence that shows you are wrong



Recent work has suggested that the replicability of social-science research may be disturbingly low (Baker, 2016). For instance, several systematic high-powered replication projects have demonstrated successful replication rates ranging from 36% (Open Science Collaboration, 2015) to 50% (Klein et al., 2018), 62% (Camerer et al., 2018), and 85% (Klein et al., 2014). These low replication rates have been explained by several factors that operate at different levels. At the level of the scientific field as a whole, problems include publication bias (Francis, 2013) and perverse incentive structures (Giner-Sorolla, 2012). At the level of individual studies, problems concern low statistical power (Button et al., 2013; Ioannidis, 2005) and questionable research practices, such as data-driven flexibility in statistical analysis (i.e., significance seeking; John, Loewenstein, & Prelec, 2012; Simmons, Nelson, & Simonsohn, 2011; Wagenmakers, Wetzels, Borsboom, & van der Maas, 2011). Here we focus on yet another problem that has recently been associated with poor replicability: the a priori implausibility of the research hypothesis (Benjamin et al., 2018; Ioannidis, 2005


If you don't want to read the journals, then just read the Wiki

Replication crisis - Wikipedia


Do you still insist that mistakes would never make it past peer-review btw?

Mistakes do happen in any human endeavor. That mistakes happen in science doesn't tell us that science is faulty, it tells us that humans have a means to improve the mechanisms and instruments of testing.

This crisis is not new news. It's been well known in science for decades that funding is limited, we are learning more about how nature works, instruments are more complicated and expensive, there is a demand for results, and scientists are pressured to give results. Science is expected to perform. Funding often is tied to results. Science gets funded because we all know it is the best way we can learn about what is true about how the universe works. If we as a global society wants better science then we need to fund it, and allow it to work without excessive political and social pressure.

Your posting this data doesn't tell us that science is faulty. It tells us that how society has pressured science for results has forced errors. The system should allow for errors and correct. It shouldn't press for results and then complain about the error.

 

[F1fan]

Not sure you don't read posts or are just pretending. I've posted multiple peer-reviewed journals in support including Nature.

Here is a quote from a report you posted:

Recent work has suggested that the replicability of social-science research may be disturbingly low (Baker, 2016). For instance, several systematic high-powered replication projects have demonstrated successful replication rates ranging from 36% (Open Science Collaboration, 2015) to 50% (Klein et al., 2018), 62% (Camerer et al., 2018), and 85% (Klein et al., 2014). These low replication rates have been explained by several factors that operate at different levels. At the level of the scientific field as a whole, problems include publication bias (Francis, 2013) and perverse incentive structures (Giner-Sorolla, 2012). At the level of individual studies, problems concern low statistical power (Button et al., 2013; Ioannidis, 2005) and questionable research practices, such as data-driven flexibility in statistical analysis (i.e., significance seeking; John, Loewenstein, & Prelec, 2012; Simmons, Nelson, & Simonsohn, 2011; Wagenmakers, Wetzels, Borsboom, & van der Maas, 2011). Here we focus on yet another problem that has recently been associated with poor replicability: the a priori implausibility of the research hypothesis (Benjamin et al., 2018; Ioannidis, 2005).

From my time in the social sciences, and the funding problems, and the demand for results and data, I'm not surprised there is poor quality results. As I just posted science needs to do its work. That means it needs the resources to do competent work. One major problem noted in the report was inadequate sample sizes. This is a classic issue in the social science. The more subjects in a test the better the accuracy. With limited funding for results there won't be the accuracy that is needed.

There has been less money given for research and this can only result in bad results. Of course those people who do the work want to keep their jobs, and they will do their jobs to the degree the money covers. If the result is poor and inaccurate work then who is to blame? If the system does not fund research to the degree that is required for accurate results then it shouldn't be funded at all. But government agencies, insurance companies, businesses, schools, etc. want more data about society and research is demanded. So I suggest more funding, and more precise priorities.

That report said lay people could detect problems in the studies. Well the problems were pretty elementary. A high school graduate could put those pieces together. Could this same person put together a better test without errors? Doubtful. That's where experts come into play and DO achieve excellent results.

 

[Augustus]

Experts in science do scientific studies, and then report their findings. You are making it sound as if it's like a preacher giving his interpretation of the Bible.

You are saying they are beyond reproach from all but their peers....

Yes, getting advanced degrees prepares a person for doing highly complicated work. If a government agency is taking applications for a person to run their assessment of a pandemic they are going to want a person who understands viruses and bacteria, how they are spread, solutions to slowing the spread, etc. They aren't going to hire a guy who has had 35 years experiences getting colds and the flu and knows what best over the counter medicines help him.

That is a ridiculous misrepresentation.

Who would you trust with your investments, a fund manager with a 30 record of success including surviving multiple market crashes but no degree or a professor with 30 years of experience teaching students in university and writing academic papers?

See for example: Long-Term Capital Management - Wikipedia where 2 Nobel Prize winning academics found out that their theories and credentials didn't really have a great connection with reality.

No I'm not. As I just noted the doctors only had cancer patients as a baselines for the effects of EPO, and it wasn't until they started giving it to athletes until they could see if it improved performance.

Simple question:

Based on the evidence available to you, do you believe it is more likely that EPO does indeed provide a significant benefit to elite athletes (beyond placebo) or that Jules Heuberger, who led the research at the Centre for Human Drug Research was correct to say “It’s just tragic to lose your career for something that doesn’t work, to lose seven yellow jerseys for a drug that has no effect,”

This is a massive accusation. Do you have evidence of this, or just guessing?

If WADA is testing and not banning these winners how is it YOU know they are doping? Clairvoyance?

Evidence and reason of course.

Men's 100m

How many on that list failed drug tests or are known to have doped? (almost all)

So we know 100m is a dirty sport, and we know that PEDs definitely help sprinters. We also know that PEDs give a greater advantage than naturally exists between elite sprinters.

In a race full of elite dopers, why would you expect the clean guy to win? He would have to be insanely more naturally talented to even have a chance

Peer review repeats experiment to see if the results can be duplicated.

No it doesn't. Other experts look at the research and look for problems but they don't usually try to replicate it

Do you think there are errors that experts miss that you somehow have special extra sensory perception to detect?

Man, you should hire yourself to scientists so you can point out all their errors and mistakes since you are so damned confident (naive).

We know there are errors that other experts miss, it's a simple fact.

Non-experts can sometimes notice these errors. I presented a peer-reviewed scientific journal that confirmed this.

Now, are you telling me the experts are wrong in that paper? If not, will you acknowledge that non-experts can, on occasions, identify the errors of experts?

 

[Augustus]

From my time in the social sciences, and the funding problems, and the demand for results and data, I'm not surprised there is poor quality results. As I just posted science needs to do its work.

Why have you been arguing against me saying the social sciences are full of errors then?

Your posting this data doesn't tell us that science is faulty. It tells us that how society has pressured science for results has forced errors. The system should allow for errors and correct. It shouldn't press for results and then complain about the error.

The replication crisis certainly tells us that some sciences are 'faulty'.

There is no normative 'science' that exists in some pure form free of human failings, there is simply a collection of real world human activities that make up the sciences.

Society and humans will always be flawed, and the only way we can mitigate this is by acknowledging our flaws and their effects.

It is also likely the social sciences will always have problems due to their complex nature being unsuitable for reductionist methodologies.

We can't pretend all areas of existence are equally suited to precise study by scientific methodologies.

That report said lay people could detect problems in the studies. Well the problems were pretty elementary. A high school graduate could put those pieces together.

So elementary errors do get past peer-review and non-experts can notice them.

I'm happy you agree I am right

 

[Sheldon]

Rather than admit you made a mistake, you would prefer to publicly argue it is grammatically incorrect to differentiate between one and multiple methods by using plurals and indefinite articles?

Can't say that suggests intellectual honesty or a good faith approach.

You didn't answer for the 12th time btw, do you accept there is no singular scientific method that differentiates science from "not science" (or good science from bad science)?



Given I've posted 2 peer-reviewed scholarly journals on the topic, you could simply read them. It's not difficult

Not sure you don't read posts or are just pretending. I've posted multiple peer-reviewed journals in support including Nature.

If you read them you could see these "outlandish, damaging claims" are, in fact, an important part of modern scientific discourse. Scientists are far less credulous than you are on the accuracy of many sciences.

Anyway here they are again.



It was also discussed in the article below that, in contrast to you insistence it's impossible, shows non-experts are quite good at identifying errors made by experts.

Quite the pattern of avoiding evidence that shows you are wrong



Recent work has suggested that the replicability of social-science research may be disturbingly low (Baker, 2016). For instance, several systematic high-powered replication projects have demonstrated successful replication rates ranging from 36% (Open Science Collaboration, 2015) to 50% (Klein et al., 2018), 62% (Camerer et al., 2018), and 85% (Klein et al., 2014). These low replication rates have been explained by several factors that operate at different levels. At the level of the scientific field as a whole, problems include publication bias (Francis, 2013) and perverse incentive structures (Giner-Sorolla, 2012). At the level of individual studies, problems concern low statistical power (Button et al., 2013; Ioannidis, 2005) and questionable research practices, such as data-driven flexibility in statistical analysis (i.e., significance seeking; John, Loewenstein, & Prelec, 2012; Simmons, Nelson, & Simonsohn, 2011; Wagenmakers, Wetzels, Borsboom, & van der Maas, 2011). Here we focus on yet another problem that has recently been associated with poor replicability: the a priori implausibility of the research hypothesis (Benjamin et al., 2018; Ioannidis, 2005


If you don't want to read the journals, then just read the Wiki

Replication crisis - Wikipedia


Do you still insist that mistakes would never make it past peer-review btw?

From your Wikipedia link:

The replication crisis most severely affects the social and medical sciences,[3] where considerable efforts have been undertaken to re-investigate classic results, to determine both their reliability and, if found unreliable, the reasons for the failure.[4][5] Survey data strongly indicates that all natural sciences are affected as well.

Which to me again, suggests a fallible process, a fact no one I believe has denied, and one that continually strives to improve it's methodology and correct errors?

Also that article seems to think there is a scientific method, perhaps like me they imagine it varies depending on the application, but still contains a core of basic requirements, like peer review and falsifiability as two examples.

"Because the reproducibility of empirical results is an essential part of the scientific method,"

I had read some time ago that there was a peer review crisis in some fields, because getting work properly peer reviewed was problematic, and the author of that article outlines 5 potential reasons for this failure to adhere to scientific method.

1. "Independent, direct replications of others' findings can be time-consuming for the replicating researcher"
2. "[Replications] are likely to take energy and resources directly away from other projects that reflect one's own original thinking"
3. "[Replications] are generally harder to publish (in large part because they are viewed as being unoriginal)"
4. "Even if [replications] are published, they are likely to be seen as 'bricklaying' exercises, rather than as major contributions to the field"
5. "[Replications] bring less recognition and reward, and even basic career security, to their authors"[55]

For these reasons the authors advocated that psychology is facing a disciplinary social dilemma, where the interests of the discipline are at odds with the interests of the individual researcher."

Again this seems like a failure to strictly apply an important part of the methodology, rather than any flaw in the methodology, and I'm pretty sure I questioned whether this might be the case some time ago, and it met with had waving and semantics.

 

[Sheldon]

The replication crisis certainly tells us that some sciences are 'faulty'.

No it doesn't, it tells us that there is a crisis in getting work properly peer in some fields, again this is not a flaw in the methodology, it is a flaw in properly applying them.

This was suggested to you some time ago, maybe you couldn't see it from on top of that high horse?

 

[Augustus]

Also that article seems to think there is a scientific method, perhaps like me they imagine it varies depending on the application, but still contains a core of basic requirements, like peer review and falsifiability as two examples.

You still haven't answered why you believe you are right on this issue, and Einstein, Heisenberg and Weinberg are wrong. 13th time lucky....

Another one for you, this time from the rabidly anti-science periodical "The Scientific American" :

The Idea That a Scientific Theory Can Be ‘Falsified’ Is a Myth

falsification cannot work even in principle. This is because an experimental result is not a simple fact obtained directly from nature. Identifying and dating Haldane's bone involves using many other theories from diverse fields, including physics, chemistry and geology. Similarly, a theoretical prediction is never the product of a single theory but also requires using many other theories. When a “theoretical” prediction disagrees with “experimental” data, what this tells us is that that there is a disagreement between two sets of theories, so we cannot say that any particular theory is falsified...

if you propagate a “myth-story” enough times and it gets passed on from generation to generation, it can congeal into a fact, and falsification is one such myth-story.

It is time we abandoned it.

The Idea That a Scientific Theory Can Be ‘Falsified’ Is a Myth

I had read some time ago that there was a peer review crisis in some fields, because getting work properly peer reviewed was problematic, and the author of that article outlines 5 potential reasons for this failure to adhere to scientific method.

You are confusing 2 things: peer-review and replication.

In an academic context, peer-review generally means an expert review of an article prior to publication. They offer their opinions on whether or not the study is novel, methodologically sound, logically consistent etc. They generally do not try to replicate the study.

Your example is about why people lack incentives to try to replicate studies.

All of the published finding in the fields with low replication rates were peer-reviewed (at least the ones published in journals).

No it doesn't, it tells us that there is a crisis in getting work properly peer in some fields, again this is not a flaw in the methodology, it is a flaw in properly applying them.

See above for your mistake.

You are starting to sound like a religious fanatic who insists all the problems with their faith come from people not applying it properly.

While processes and institutions in these fields could certainly do better, the problems are not caused by people not following "the scientific method" properly, but that currently accepted scientific methods are guaranteed produce such outcomes.

 

[F1fan]

You are saying they are beyond reproach from all but their peers....

What I am saying is that if non-experts can identify errors in some science reports then it's not as problem of expertise, but of more basic issues. And when I was in university the problem of funding and ethics was discussed. Like anything else, when science becomes a business then there will be fraud. It's not deliberate fraud, it is scientists trying to do ethical work that is underfunded.

The solution: offer more funding. Don't conduct work that can't offer reliable results.

I notice you offer no solutions.

 

[F1fan]

You still haven't answered why you believe you are right on this issue, and Einstein, Heisenberg and Weinberg are wrong. 13th time lucky....

Another one for you, this time from the rabidly anti-science periodical "The Scientific American" :

The Idea That a Scientific Theory Can Be ‘Falsified’ Is a Myth

falsification cannot work even in principle. This is because an experimental result is not a simple fact obtained directly from nature. Identifying and dating Haldane's bone involves using many other theories from diverse fields, including physics, chemistry and geology. Similarly, a theoretical prediction is never the product of a single theory but also requires using many other theories. When a “theoretical” prediction disagrees with “experimental” data, what this tells us is that that there is a disagreement between two sets of theories, so we cannot say that any particular theory is falsified...

if you propagate a “myth-story” enough times and it gets passed on from generation to generation, it can congeal into a fact, and falsification is one such myth-story.

It is time we abandoned it.

The Idea That a Scientific Theory Can Be ‘Falsified’ Is a Myth



You are confusing 2 things: peer-review and replication.

In an academic context, peer-review generally means an expert review of an article prior to publication. They offer their opinions on whether or not the study is novel, methodologically sound, logically consistent etc. They generally do not try to replicate the study.

Your example is about why people lack incentives to try to replicate studies.

All of the published finding in the fields with low replication rates were peer-reviewed (at least the ones published in journals).



See above for your mistake.

You are starting to sound like a religious fanatic who insists all the problems with their faith come from people not applying it properly.

While processes and institutions in these fields could certainly do better, the problems are not caused by people not following "the scientific method" properly, but that currently accepted scientific methods are guaranteed produce such outcomes.

So essentially what you are trying to say is that results in science are only as good as the ethics that manage science. As we all can see, science works. We look out over a modern city and see a plane flying above and can understand that we are not living in a world similar to the 18th century. We have a high standard of living today because of science. I hope you aren't arguing that science doesn't work, because if you are, what accounts for all we see of the human world today and how it differs greatly from 200 years ago?