most scientific papers are wrong?

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.

Unless I'm misunderstanding what I've learned in lab science classes, scientific experiments largely proceed under at least a 5% confidence interval.I mean, I'm working for the research arm of the USDA now, and there's no a single experiment we're working on that has almost 2000 samples. About the most I've ever seen has been something like 10 or 20 independant samples of each variable.

Samples of populations, analyzed for certain traits. So long as we're able to conclude that the distribution of the sample has a 5% chance or better of being a random deviation from the "expected" distribution of the population, we conclude that it is.Like, if we have a sample of people and we're looking at their height, and we find that there's a 5% chance or greater that the difference between the distribution in our sample and the distribution in the whole is due to nothing more than chance, then we conclude that the sample we have is truly random, and not the result of some kind of selection for heights.Again, unless I'm way off base, here, we take anything over 5% confidence. Yeah, I was surprised, too.