most scientific papers are wrong?

Page has gone | New ScientistTrue or not?

Highly likely it is true but...so what? What is there here to discuss?Did you even read the paragraph following the two you quoted?Do you even have a clue what the scientific method entails?I'm sorry randman but you have never been able to show that you have the basic knowledge to even discuss something like this intellegently. I will allow you to try a revision of your OP to show an understanding of the basics but before this is considered for promotion you will have to demonstrate the ability to deal with scientific issues. This is something that would need to be discussed on the science side and at the current time you have not shown either a willingness to learn or the basic understanding of methodology needed.

---

I think I'm inclinded to promote it in a few dasy when I get back. I don't expect that Randman will be able to actually participate since he will have to be suspended pretty quickly for the reasons you've given. However, I would like to see the topic discussed.

No problem. I think it could be worthy of discussion in the science area but it simply highlights the need for replication and that has been a foundation of science for some time.Cold Fusion.

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

The news article is very short on details but it seems this "conclusion" is based on a rather odd sort of analysis. I suggest that before jumping onto this topic one should read the article carefully and attempt to describe what they believe it is saying.That aside and as has been noted: one main message is the replication of results is required. If one actually follows leading edge scienctitic developments one phrase that often prelogues many scientists comments is "If this is replicated...". That is one answer to the analysis discussed here.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).The ability to read with comprehension, understanding and a critical mind is required whatever the source of information. The advantage of using scientific materials is that there is usually enough information to allow for a critical analysis (sample sizes for example).However, I think the conclusions draw here may be off the mark and/or not applicable to ALL published papers (they are not all of a single type).

Of course it's not really that surprising that many published papers have errors. All the more reason to be conservative and not race after new ideas, sticking isntead with ideas that have stood the test of time. Like evolution.

Why is the following allowed on this forum, from a mod no less? Obviously I hit a nerve, but that rant is totally off-topic, unsubstiated BS.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.We saw this recently with the study linking a gene expressed in gills and the parathyroid, and we saw that with the initial discovery of the skull of pakecitus.Off that one skull, we had a full-page spread in national geographic, countless references in educational material, etc,...and frequently with the wrong information attributed by showing webbed feet and stuff like that.Within evolutionism, this rush to judgment can result in false ideas stubbornly clung to, since they initially were accepted in such a widespread manner. It may be that the situation is better today, especially considering the public pressure put on evolutionists through their critics, but nonetheless, the saga of Haeckel's ideas and drawings are a good historical example of how something incorrect, and in Haeckel's case, fraudulent, are passed off as true and not easily dismissed with once embedded within ToE proponents.I think we saw a similar pattern with the peppered moth experiments and their use as evidence of evolution. We now know that the moths don't typically rest on trees and that the moths shown were glued to the trees, but it takes awhile for some data so embedded in the consciousness of evos to be dismissed.Same thing with Neanderthals. The initial claims were based on an old man with arthritis, and since the 50s, we knew the initial claims of Neanderthals being subhuman was incorrect, but it's only been in the past few years that Neanderthals have been presented as people instead of subhumans.Recently, someone posited here very assuredly in an arrogant tone on transitionals and listed Cro-Magnon man as a transitional. This, imo, is borne out of the same faulty approach of evos of rushing to judgment. Cro-magnon man is not a separate or transitional species at all to modern man, but because he was presented at one time as transitional, the myth has stuck in the minds of evolutionists.It would be funny if it was not so sad, but the evo making that claim was disparaging me, as if I was ignorant, as if don't you know Cro-Magnon man is one of the "missing links", a transitional. In fact, I am not even sure if I posted a mountain of data that I could convince the guy that Cro-Magnon man is nothing more than an ancient tribe of modern humans, that he had the same anatomical features and is identical to people today, except the Cro-Magnons were taller on average, just as by the way some ethnic groups are taller than others today.So imo, this rush to judgment is a systemic problem and erroneous use of data within the evo community, and it creates problems not easily solved where false concepts are stubbornly clung to by evo proponents.So I would argue this idea of most scientific papers being wrong is an important principle to consider before making claims within evos of how things are. I have argued consistently that many claims of evos need much more detailed and comprehensive studies before giving the merit they are generally within evolutionist.Some of those areas are to properly understand the mechanisms involved in mutations before declaring the mutations are random. In fact, it is hard to tell sometimes what evos mean by random mutations, and to what degree mutations are random and non-random. I think understanding this has somewhat extreme ramifications for specific analysis.For example, if it can be seen that certain genetic combinations tend to produce similar mutations, then we might see in a creature like Pakicetus, a feature emerging that is whale-like but which did not lead to whales evolving from them. This also gets into the nature and limits of convergent evolution.As I stated on another thread, another example is that I think more studies and research need to be done on fossil rarity before we can safely state the fossil record is not strong evidence against ToE.This message has been edited by randman, 09-02-2005 02:32 PMThis message has been edited by randman, 09-02-2005 02:35 PM

Most of your claims are pretty dubious but this paragraph is very bad

quote:

---

I think we saw a similar pattern with the peppered moth experiments and their use as evidence of evolution. We now know that the moths don't typically rest on trees and that the moths shown were glued to the trees, but it takes awhile for some data so embedded in the consciousness of evos to be dismissed.

---

There was never a claim that the moths typically rested on trunks. Nor was there any claim that the photograph in question was anything other than what it was - a staged photograph taken for illustrative purposes, placing the two morphs together on the same surface for comparison.Wells, of course, in his attempt to smear his opponents tried to spin this into claims of dishonesty. But the real dishonesty was his.

It's not dishonest. That's the distinct impression I remember when taught of the peppered moths as evidence for evolution.Can you prove what I stated is false?Before you mouth off claims of dishonesty, I suggest you take the time to be willing to prove it.

What rant?There is no rant there. It's questions that you should have considered before even posting the thread as a PNT.All of the questions are still valid and YOU need to answer them.It appears that you are simply going to use this thread to return to your assertions of old pet predudices of yours that you have never been able to support.Sorry, but so far all you're doing is whining. Try answering the questions.Highly likely it is true but...
so what? What is there here to discuss?Did you even read the paragraph following the two you quoted?Do you even have a clue what the scientific method entails?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This topic should be restricted to the contents of the new article and the study that it reports. DO NOT CONTINUE ON SPECIFIC ISSUES THAT HAVE BEEN DEALT WITH ELSEWHERE. I didn't accuse you of dishonesty, I accused Wells. Why do you think he picked on the peppered moth in the first place ? Only the most fanatic creationists would object to the idea of a simple colour change spreading through natural selection.The basic peppered moth story is that industrial pollution turned tree bark darker (through soot and through killing lichens), and thus the darker moths were favoured and spread. What is wrong with that ? THe first part is known to be true and the second is strognly supported by the evidence (for isntance the spread of the dark-coloured moths).This message has been edited by AdminNosy, 09-02-2005 03:06 PM

I have removed your permissions for "Is it Science". This is indefinite and will be applied to each forum in which you demonstrate such an inability to stay on topic and focus your posts.

Did you even read the contents of this article?!

quote:

---

John Ioannidis, an epidemiologist at the University of Ioannina School of Medicine in Greece, says that small sample sizes, poor study design, researcher bias, and selective reporting and other problems combine to make most research findings false. But even large, well-designed studies are not always right, meaning that scientists and the public have to be wary of reported findings.

---

quote:

---

Odds get even worse for studies that are too small, studies that find small effects (for example, a drug that works for only 10% of patients), or studies where the protocol and endpoints are poorly defined, allowing researchers to massage their conclusions after the fact

---

Emphasis mine.This article is primarily about the pharmaceutical industry. We are talking about studies involving efects on human beings, and more importantly, studies that have a direct financial impact on the companies who pay for them. This is the actual paper published, rather than the acrticle about it.Please note that this is from the Public Library of Science Medicine journal.Here's a bit of their "Example:"

quote:

---

Let us assume that a team of investigators performs a whole genome association study to test whether any of 100,000 gene polymorphisms are associated with susceptibility to schizophrenia.

---

Studies based on pharmaceuticals, or psychology, or other studies that involve interaction with humans as test subjects, can easily reach inaccurate conclusions. Human beings are incredibly complex, and drugs can cause side effects only in a tiny poulation and thereby pass through regulations testing. The bias of the company who pays for a study (in the case where there is a direct financial benefit for a certain outcome) can also cause inaccurate results.However, the paper's point is valid - scientific papers begin as simply hypotheses - they have been put foprward with supporting evidence but have not yet been fully tested by other research groups. Of course most of them are falisfied - that's the entire point of the scientific method!Those hypotheses that are held to be true by the majority of scientists, however, like, say, Evolution for example, have been rigorously tested by many reasearch groups and have still not been falsified. That fact that most initial research papers are wrong simply provides additional credibility to Theories, like Evolution, which have not been falsified despite the rigorous testing imposed by the peer review process.

---

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

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.