Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 59 (9164 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,929 Year: 4,186/9,624 Month: 1,057/974 Week: 16/368 Day: 16/11 Hour: 0/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   most scientific papers are wrong?
nwr
Member
Posts: 6412
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 15 of 113 (240021)
09-02-2005 3:21 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by randman
09-02-2005 2:23 PM


Re: wow!
randman writes:
One particular relevance of the study, imo, as far as relating to evolutionists, is that we often see with the result of even one finding and study by evos a major rush to publicize the finding as accurate.
All scientists want to have their results published as soon as possible. This is not restricted to evolutionists.
I'm not sure why you are making a fuss about this. Most scientists are well aware that the conclusions of many reports will not stand up to further studies. One of the reasons that research is reported, is so that other scientists can attempt to replicate the results, or perhaps challenge them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by randman, posted 09-02-2005 2:23 PM randman has not replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6412
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 70 of 113 (284831)
02-08-2006 12:50 AM
Reply to: Message 69 by randman
02-08-2006 12:32 AM


Re: replication?
Imo, this jumping to conclusions is endemic of evolutionism, and thus the claim of most papers being incorrect, when evos tend to tout unsubstantiated claims (like widely publicizing Pakicetus as aquatic or semi-aquatic before enough data was in), is an important consideration.
Have you ever heard of cold fusion? Or poly water? Or have you heard that coffee is good for your? Or that coffee is bad for you? Or that coffee is good for you?
All scientists speculate. They put out their bold hypotheses, with some supporting evidence. Then other scientists try to knock them down. The hypotheses that can't be knocked down might lead to important progress.
Often this all takes place between colleagues, and doesn't get into the research journals. But in some cases it does get published.
Your mistake is to assume that something devious is happening.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by randman, posted 02-08-2006 12:32 AM randman has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by lfen, posted 02-08-2006 2:31 AM nwr has not replied
 Message 73 by lfen, posted 02-08-2006 2:46 AM nwr has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024