Replies

Assuming that the new paper is itself correct, problems with experimental and statistical methods mean that there is less than a 50% chance that the results of any randomly chosen scientific paper are true.

Perfect example of a post by someone who does not understand science.

Science is the business of putting forth a statement (theory) and inviting everyone else to shoot it down. Therefore, its not surprising there are a lot of disproved theories around.

But the odd part of this post, (and one the poster does not even seem to recognize) is that the only way a scientific paper can be proven wrong is by ... you guessed it, more scientific papers. So the denigration of scientific papers requires the very thing being denigrated.

Science is the business of putting forth a statement (theory) and inviting everyone else to shoot it down.

Try telling that to the environmentalist left, which constantly uses "scientific papers" as some sort of fact that global warming- apparently caused by us- is going to destroy us all. These people have no concept of "theory."

But the odd part of this post, (and one the poster does not even seem to recognize) is that the only way a scientific paper can be proven wrong is by ... you guessed it, more scientific papers. So the denigration of scientific papers requires the very thing being denigrated.

May the circle, go unbroken......

This article = bizarre maunder

Science is the business of putting forth a statement (theory) and inviting everyone else to shoot it down. Therefore, its not surprising there are a lot of disproved theories around.

Minor point since you were fine with "statement". Not a "theory" but experimental findings and what is surmised from those findings. A theory goes the opposite way. It is proposed, often from mathematics (string theory, relativity), then everyone trys to find facts that either prove or disprove it. Sometimes observed facts are the start (evolution, big bang) but it is difficult or impossible to conduct an experiment that could prove the theory (evolution).

However, the issue here is not with science but with reporting of scientific studies as fact, usually by agenda driven press and advocates. The underlying cause of "global warming" is not settled but, because the temperature has gone up over the past 10 or so years, the cause (us) is presented as fact while the sun is ignored. That is agenda driven science.

You obviously don't have a clue, no science background.

To say that there is a less than 50% chance these are true tells you that there is something going on.

Why would postulate a theory that can't be supported by numbers and facts?

If there was a greater than 75% (considered the lowest acceptable confidence level) that these are true, I would be happy. less than 50% is a joke.