SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Richard Horton writes that a recent symposium on the reproducibility and reliability of biomedical research discussed one of the most sensitive issues in science today: the idea that something has gone fundamentally wrong with science (PDF), one of our greatest human creations. The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness. According to Horton, editor-in-chief of The Lancet, a United Kingdom-based medical journal, the apparent endemicity of bad research behaviour is alarming. In their quest for telling a compelling story, scientists too often sculpt data to fit their preferred theory of the world or retrofit hypotheses to fit their data.
Can bad scientific practices be fixed? Part of the problem is that no-one is incentivized to be right. Instead, scientists are incentivized to be productive and innovative. Tony Weidberg says that the particle physics community now invests great effort into intensive checking and rechecking of data prior to publication following several high-profile errors,. By filtering results through independent working groups, physicists are encouraged to criticize. Good criticism is rewarded. The goal is a reliable result, and the incentives for scientists are aligned around this goal. "The good news is that science is beginning to take some of its worst failings very seriously," says Horton. "The bad news is that nobody is ready to take the first step to clean up the system."
[Editor's Comment: Original Submission]
(Score: 4, Insightful) by takyon on Tuesday May 26 2015, @06:36PM
Most of the summary talks about medical science, which is complicated and focused on safety. There are incentives to mislead on safety and efficacy, and possible steps [soylentnews.org] to remedy the problems.
With physics, the skepticism may be too high. Almost nobody (in physics) believed the faster-than-light neutrino result, and it was checked out and debunked in due course. Almost nobody believed that emdrive can work (for good reason, too much secrecy), but the NASA employees apparently finding positive results [soylentnews.org] are using their lunch money to test it. Insert your cold fusion speculation here.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 26 2015, @07:18PM
Yep, and some "science" aren't even science - usually ones with adjectives.
And such usage of the term "science" to lump all the varied disciplines is a BIG part of the problem.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 26 2015, @07:43PM
awesome points.
i wish it WERE all a good old big conspiracy.
i have a good perfect way to color it: the peoples in power are aware of the problems (and then some) and can't seem to reconcile the "prettiness" or "handsomeness" of the mating of the powerhouses (think king of spain offspring marries london girl island to end the war something) thus leading to our situation.
one would think that a test tube baby with a surrogate mother would solve all the problems (who gets to control which technology creation industry) but this would not guarantee a stable tachyon emitter-stream from the future -aka- love.
thus on paper (or testtube) the mating of the two powerhouses would solve the problem temporarily (like now) but leave the future state ... un-loved.
wat?
nobody with future power should grow up unloved!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 26 2015, @08:07PM
i don't understand wat u mean with tachyon? there's no detector for it!
replying to my own post then i would suggest the example of fukushima!
growing up (consuming matter and influencing the environment) and living in a stream emitted by hollywood which conquered japan and gave them "wrong" tachyon emitters () one could argue that the atoms being released now influence other atoms but when in the future the influenced atoms need to confirm their path they are meet by a shameful nothingness.
that is to say that the observer (made up of non fukushima matter) regards other observers as historyless because they cannot trace their source because their dead have turn into a void.
?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 26 2015, @08:52PM
Did somebody forget to take his meds today?
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Wednesday May 27 2015, @12:52AM
Why can't I mod this +1 Incomprehensible?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 27 2015, @03:18PM
This line reminded me of Gilgamesh:
"But Mother! If you will not suckle me, how can I thrive!"
(Score: 0) by Placenta on Wednesday May 27 2015, @12:41AM
Is computer science considered a science?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 26 2015, @11:46PM
The social 'sciences' are perhaps the worst when it comes to pseudoscience and bad science. Subjectivity, bias, lack of scientific rigor, and no consideration of alternative possibilities than the ones the researchers raised all seem to be common issues.