Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by cmn32480 on Friday June 19 2015, @06:47AM   Printer-friendly
from the big-data-little-analysis dept.

Dramatic increases in data science education coupled with robust evidence-based data analysis practices could stop the scientific research reproducibility and replication crisis before the issue permanently damages science's credibility, asserts Roger D. Peng in an article in the newly released issue of Significance magazine.

"Much the same way that epidemiologist John Snow helped end a London cholera epidemic by convincing officials to remove the handle of an infected water pump, we have an opportunity to attack the crisis of scientific reproducibility at its source," wrote Peng, who is associate professor of biostatistics at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.

In his article titled "The Reproducibility Crisis in Science"—published in the June issue of Significance, a statistics-focused, public-oriented magazine published jointly by the American Statistical Association (ASA) and Royal Statistical Society—Peng attributes the crisis to the explosion in the amount of data available to researchers and their comparative lack of analytical skills necessary to find meaning in the data.

"Data follow us everywhere, and analyzing them has become essential for all kinds of decision-making. Yet, while our ability to generate data has grown dramatically, our ability to understand them has not developed at the same rate," he wrote.

This analytics shortcoming has led to some significant "public failings of reproducibility," as Peng describes them, across a range of scientific disciplines, including cancer genomics, clinical medicine and economics.

The original article came from phys.org.

[Related]: Big Data - Overload


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by kaszz on Friday June 19 2015, @03:04PM

    by kaszz (4211) on Friday June 19 2015, @03:04PM (#198265) Journal

    I have a better name for the null hypothesis. We-have-no-idea-hypothesis ;-)

    Perhaps part of the problem is to be taught methods and apply them without first really think, think, think, think about the problem? The known methods may not even be relevant. The data is perhaps good but irrelevant. One may have to design new methods to generate data and new methods to analyze them.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 19 2015, @03:38PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 19 2015, @03:38PM (#198283)

    I have a better name for the null hypothesis. We-have-no-idea-hypothesis ;-)

    The name for that is "strawman". So if you have no idea what your theory predicts (or don't have one) it is valid science to to test a strawman hypothesis? What is the point of plugging numbers into those equations?