most scientific papers are wrong?

this does have the potential for a reasonable discussion.The study could be important because it points to one of the great strengths of the scientific method.Studies are published. Information is freely distributed.That change is enormous. Before the advent of the scientific method ideas were held back, hoarded as secrets. Today we see just the opposite, the ideas are placed out before the community.The article says that many or even most may turn out to be wrong. That's probably true. But that is also one of the strengths of the system and method. By placing the ideas out in the public discussion area, others can test them and try to replicate the studies. It is that step, the replication, not opinion, not beliefs, not authority, not dogma, that determines which are valid and which are wrong.It is those two features,

• early distribution and discussion of ideas
• that must then be independantly confirmed and replicated

that makes the scientific method so robust and successful.Far from being a condemnation of the process, the article is infact a celebration of the scientific method.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Entirely true. While the article claims that most initial publications are wrong, the fact that the scientific community readily abandons disproven hypotheses gives additional credence to actual tested Theories like Evolution.

---

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.

Several points of contention --First off, this article is not about "evolutionary" science papers, but about papers in general.I'd like to point out that the majority of such papers are being produced by students, grad-students, or people working within industry. (ie when you see a commercial that says "A Yale study of Sleep-Number Technology indicates...") These people have a reason to fudge their data, and don't expect much of an effort to double check it.Further, the study talks about false hypothesis, or too small a sample group, and even refers to studies about genes linked to diseases. Sounds like a lot of the work reviewed was in the medical field where we've seen a great deal of fraud / guided study lately.Second, your argument about "a major rush to publicize" is followed by examples of conclusions discovered and exposed. I don't think you fully understand the argument you are making. You seem to be trying to say that science doesn't self correct, then you give examples of science self correcting.Third, That was me, and I notice you didn't reply in that thread but instead took your argument here. So, I'll bring the response here.Cro-Magnon is a transitional. Yes, it's features are virtually the same as modern humans, that's why I chose it for my list. (which, by the way, you truncated for your argument as is par for the course.)You've been asking for transitionals, but if we offer you one that's between the two you ask for, you say it's too different. We offer you one that's very close to one end of the spectrum, it's too similiar. It's the 1-10 argument all over again. And, as always, you've proven yourself unable to respond to the evidence.If Lucy is a 1, Homo Habalis is a 5, Homo Erectus a 7, early Cro-Magnon a 9, late Cro-magnon a 9.5.But, I'm sure you'll skip any sort of reply, since this confronts your argument with evidence.If you want to disparage me, try doing it in the forum you raise the question on? Oh, wait, since you've shown a complete unwillingness to debate science with science, you've been banned from those forums.Also, couldn't help but notice that you are still bringing up Pakicetus as if those questions hadn't been addressed by several other posters in several other threads.Better clip your nails, cuz, you're gonna start scratching your brain given how deep your fingers are shoved in your ears.By the way, STILL waiting for you to present ANY POSSITIVE evidence that your "It's all Magic" theory is correct.

"Cro-Magnon is a transitional. Yes, it's features are virtually the same as modern humans, that's why I chose it for my list. "Your statement above is one of the best examples of Orwellian thought I have heard in a long time.Cro-Magnon is the same species as us. He's not transitional.

Alright then, let's get down and dirty. What do you consider "transitional"?

One point not covered in discussion of that article is the role modern media plays in dramatising studies for best effect (from the media POV). A sample:GREEN ONIONS PREVENT HEART ATTACKA survey today of seven people shows a diet of basil, alfalfa, rocket, green onions and sassafras juice may go some distance towards blocking the pre-conditions of heart disease.One, participant, Fred Nurk explained 'I feel so much better now'.Blah, blah, blah.The average person, deluged with a flood of information from a range of sources, skims the article, but retains the summary contained in the headline. Word-meisters know how to push the buttons for response, and they get it. No matter that careful examination of both the article and any similar statements might give the man on the street a different picture. He hasn`t the time before the rest of the media avalanche The damage is done. Any refutation of claims for the initial study will probably never make it to mainline sources and only appear in a professional journal at best. It was a study, it appeared with a scientific aroma (or the makings of one), and it never got denied by news at 11.Scientists themselves contribute to this mindset. When we have a major study thrown at us as authoritative, and fellow-travellers insist it is correct,the populace falls in line to conform. Then we have a contra-study a few years on that contradicts the former and we are told once again that the new conclusions are correct.E.G. the butter-->margarine-->butter-->? Or Vitamin C mega-doses. Essential, or no?While those in the know might say initial studies are hypotheses, or semi-theories, I wish those chasing funding grants, or whatever drives their boat, would stress the findings are tentative so that Joe Public knows where he stands.Maybe this is happening now as most explosive new developments seem to carry the rider 'This will not be available to the public until we do extensive testing taking up to ten years to complete'.Edited for spacing.This message has been edited by Nighttrain, 10-18-2005 05:30 AM

quote:

---

With a family member in the medical profession it is not a surprise to me that there are many poorly done studies with utterly nonsensical statistics. It is no big news at all. (Of course, a significant part in this problem is played by the drug companies).

---

I also think that the "publish or perish" atmosphere that most research universities perpetuate has contributed to the glut of published papers.Universities want to see their researchers cranking out lots of papers and bringing in lots of grant money because that's how they have decided to measure success.This pressure is not conducive to great quality.This message has been edited by schrafinator, 10-18-2005 08:17 AM

quoteAny refutation of claims for the initial study will probably never make it to mainline sources and only appear in a professional journal at best. It was a study, it appeared with a scientific aroma (or the makings of one), and it never got denied by news at 11.[/quote]This is really true.This is why we still have people asking for nitrate-free cured meats.It was reported that "nitrates in bacon cause cancer" some decades ago. However, this referred to the huge amounts of nitrates a German company figured out one could inject into a side of bacon and cure it in a matter of hours. Traditionally (as opposed to industrial mass production), very small amounts of mitrates are used at the start and over the several weeks of a natural cure, are converted into nitrous oxide (a gas) and exit the product.Therefore, traditionally-made cured meats have very small or nil levels of nitrates in them, not the mega-amounts which were implicated in cancer back then.But all the consumer ever remembers is "nitrates cause cancer!"

It isn't just the universities decision, it is the grant funding bodies criteria which determine who gets the money and without money there isn't going to be any research going on. If universities declined to bring in grant money then their only recourse would be to charge astronomically high tuition fees or to have everything done on a basis of corporate sponsorship, in which case we might never found out the results of any research unless it tells us what to buy or what the latest wonder drug is going to be.I think you'd be hard put measuring the success of a research department with no money for new equipment or consumables.TTFN,WK

Many years ago, I did a simple experiment. Result was exciting. I was asked to perform another experiment based on these results. I knew that the result would be a failure. Still I was asked to do. I did. All my animals died. Then we had to do the experiment in another way. I did. By the time, I got all the results, deadline for submitting the papers was over. During this time, I was asked to "EXTRAPOLATE" the results of one experiment and send the paper. I refused. i inssted on performing atleast 10 experiments. What would happen if the first experiment was flawed? Well, I lost my grants. Three is a mad rush on the part of researchers to PUBLISH. Today, we have very sophisticated software for anything. With the software, it is possible to create experiments, original data, statistics, pie graphs etc to demonstrate whatever. Today's Scientific quest lacks integrity. Example is the Korean molecular biologist who claimed to have cloned ahuman being. If only all the Scientists will examine everything with integrity, most of them will not support Evolution. Belief in evolution is very convenient for the modern researcher. He will get grants, he will keep his tenures, he will get graduate students etc. This will perpetuate. One graduate student did an excellent piece of work for his Ph.D thesis. It went to the defence. In spite of the quality of the work, the work was rejected because, he happened to be a Creationist. Even a faculty member who is in a board for a Creation Society disapproved the thesis. Here it is consensus that matters. It is no longer facts to substantiate one's own beliefs.There is academic tyranny controlling publications, student evaluation, faculty tenures and much more. 80 % of the papers published are merely done for professional gains. Quality of work is only assessed by the Number of papers published, but not on the quality of work. How sad it is today!!!

A lot of what you wrote is anecdotal so doesn't really allow for debate. Do you have any recorded examples of this happening in regards to evolution? What would be great is if you have a copy of the paper that was refused because its author was a creationist (I assume the contents were not)?I really would like to go into detail with you on the subject, but can't without some actual examples we can both access. Do you have any?

Inkorrekt,I would very much like to know your education level. You claim to be a biologist and seem to imply (I apologize if I am wrong) that you have risen through some academic ranks. So what degrees? In what? This is not off-topic because you are using your academic background to lend credence to the idea that there is a bias (and outright fradulence) within the scientific community. So I feel it is fair that you let us know.Also, who was this PhD student? I would love to talk to their committee members (especially the chair) and post an update about this. I do suspect, however, that this is not someone you actually know, nor know anyone who knows them. Probably a bit a of trivia from a creo website.Now to the heart of it. You claim that software can make up experiments, results, and pie charts and that because of this real scientists now lack integrity? Forum guidelines prevent me from venting my gut reaction to that statement and to you. But I will try to address it. I am a scientist, a REAL biologist. I went through years and years of education. I am still writing my dissertation for my PhD. I performed experiments, did research, wrote papers, submitted ms' etc. During that time we sacrificed a great deal (my wife and I) in time money, etc. And for you to make a flippant claim that we are a bunch of frauds is downright insulting. From your post it is pretty clear that you have absolutely no knowledge of how science and academia works. Your opening description of your "experiment" is outright ridiculous. Who asked you to repeat the experiment even though the animals died? Deadline for the paper? Was this a high school project? Because you are not talking about journal submission. Are you saying the journal reviwers asked you to repeat the experiment? There is absolutely no such thing EVER EVER in any real scientific endeavour.You claim if the first experiment was flawed you would lose your grants? What grants and from where? I am going out on a limb and suggest that you are trying to imply that the grantors were looking for a particular result and you had to come up with that result. I am sorry but that it absolute BS. It don't work that way. Even corporate scientists who are paid to do biased research aren't made to repeat experiments like this (although some results may be favored over others). As has been said over and over again, ANYONE who could publish results which demonstrate that the ToE is flawed or wrong would be immediately the most famous scientist in the world, be an overnight millionaire, and would undoubtedly win the Nobel.Edited to change "with the Nobel" to "win the Nobel"This message has been edited by Lithodid-Man, 02-05-2006 06:03 AM

---

Doctor Bashir: "Of all the stories you told me, which were true and which weren't?"
Elim Garak: "My dear Doctor, they're all true"
Doctor Bashir: "Even the lies?"
Elim Garak: "Especially the lies"

Who was immediately discovered as a fraud as soon as the scientific community was able to examine his data. The only ones who had lauded him as a great scientist was the media.Sounds to me like the scientific community are the only ones with integrity.

most people who do studies are well aware of the limitations of small surveys. they tend to list them in the papers themselves. you would know this if you ever read any. small, non-random samples are not generalizable. that's basic statistical method.

I can believe it. When it comes to evolution, there is no objectivity, nor integrity, in the evo community as far as I can tell.