Posted on 11/01/2005 7:58:38 AM PST by ZGuy
There is increasing concern that most current published research findings are false. The probability that a research claim is true may depend on study power and bias, the number of other studies on the same question, and, importantly, the ratio of true to no relationships among the relationships probed in each scientific field. In this framework, a research finding is less likely to be true when :
Corollary 1: The smaller the studies conducted in a scientific field, the less likely the research findings are to be true.
Corollary 2: The smaller the effect sizes in a scientific field, the less likely the research findings are to be true.
Corollary 3: The greater the number and the lesser the selection of tested relationships in a scientific field, the less likely the research findings are to be true.
Corollary 4: The greater the flexibility in designs, definitions, outcomes, and analytical modes in a scientific field, the less likely the research findings are to be true.
Corollary 5: The greater the financial and other interests and prejudices in a scientific field, the less likely the research findings are to be true.
Corollary 6: The hotter a scientific field (with more scientific teams involved), the less likely the research findings are to be true.
Most Research Findings Are False for Most Research Designs and for Most Fields
Claimed Research Findings May Often Be Simply Accurate Measures of the Prevailing Bias
(Excerpt) Read more at medicine.plosjournals.org ...
#1 should have been validity.
There is also the issue that most studies published in non-journals are not peer reviewed.
"You can make up statistics to prove anything. Forfty-five percent of all people know that." - Homer J. Simpson
It's idiotic. It imposes a single model - the medical research model - on to all of science, makes some unlikely assumptions about that model, and then draws false conclusions. Based on my experience in checking results of research rivals, where I'd dearly love to find errors, I'd say that better than 90% of research findings in my field are true.
Just state conclusions that are already accepted as self-evident by your target audience, and wrap it in a noble (HA!) mantle of academic "respectability!
This is a communist/liberal technique, 70 years old and humming right along, and a variant of the following:
"Reminds me of a fascinating quote from a Chinese Com government during the "International Woman's Conference" held in China during the Clinton administration. The government official said that they studied Hillary's speechmaking method to understand her power and success. They concluded: her trick was never actually to make any arguments -- just state conclusions that were all already accepted as self-evident by her audience. (They found that interesting and perhaps admirable, and to be emulated)."
Yes, Dorothy, ignorance and dishonesty is common even in the academic world.
Most scientif research today is done to secure more funding. Now if someone will pony up some bucks, I'll do more research
Why is the MSM biased?
Why is even the Weather being politicized these days?
Why is coffee good for you today yet bad for you tomorrow?
Answer: Because almost everybody is bought and paid for...
Especially where grant monies are concerned.
That is the first thing I noticed as well. Being a research ecologist, I don't know if I'd say 90% of research findings in my field are correct (too many factors involved in a non-lab setting) but I would definetly say greater than 50%. That's why its important that any ecology research stay within their particular spatial and temporal scales when devising assumptions.
Imagine double-blind studies in, say, quantum thermodynamics...heh heh heh...
This is a very important topic. Got it bookmarked. Junk science led to the Nazi movement.
Junk science led to draconian population control concepts. Junk science has probably led to more spoilers on prosperity than taxes.
Junk science was used to molest children and babies [with tax money] in a study on sexuality, which heralded the 'gay' activist movement.
Junk science led to the Katrina flood [the law suit against the flood gates].
Junk science led to high gas prices this year. It's amazing how much damage has been done by innacurate science stats.
[This is just a rant, and well, I'm not feeling at my best right now. I apologize for any accuracies.]
Couldn't agree more. The climates among different research fields are night and day.
This article looks like it needs some clarification. It should be most medical/sociology/pyschology studies are false. Based on the wording in the article, is does not sound like this applies to the hard, experimental sciences like chemistry and physics. What clued me in was the term "study" and not "experiment." Studies are very subjective.
Being that you are involved in medical research I am very relieved to hear this. In the food industry however, what passes for research these days is appalling. Far too many studies are agenda driven by researchers who are more than happy to give the food police and toxic terrorists what they want as long as there is funding involved.
Anyone with an Associate degree in nutrition can make conclusions, no matter how outrageous, post them on the Internet and find willing followers. I regularly attempt to debunk the junk science but people who want to believe always will.
Unfortunately, the end result is often mass hysteria resulting in businesses reacting out of fear, and giving in to public pressure by killing off what were once good products.
Well, the general paradigm should be the pursuit of truth.
Each field has specialized procedures, which can be justified by the subject matter, to find that truth.
At some point, all scientific pursuits should be reducible to a general theory of epistemology.
Philosophers, you have your mission! Get to it!
Certainly explains the complete failure of "science" to increase understanding of the natural world over the last hundred years!
Peer-review as a means of ensuring the quality of research is vastly overated. Increasingly, dogma is replacing objectivity in the decision to accept or reject journal submissions. My experience is that it's a complete waste of time to submit anything that runs counter to the "prevailing wisdom" (i.e., party line).
Ive replicated many published findings without any trouble, indicating that the results were correct for them, and correct for me.
But its hard to "fake" molecular interaction. It either does or it doesn't; and If you are faking it, your research will all lead into the black hole of incorrect assumptions.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.