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
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 19 2015, @06:18PM
I should also note that this issue of correlations was noted by Meehl many decades ago with regards to psychology (his area of expertise):
Meehl, Paul E. (1967). "Theory-Testing in Psychology and Physics: A Methodological Paradox". Philosophy of Science 34 (2): 103–115. doi:10.1086/288135 http://mres.gmu.edu/pmwiki/uploads/Main/Meehl1967.pdf [gmu.edu] [gmu.edu]
Thinking about it more. The idea that correlations are rare is in conflict with the universal law of gravitation:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_law_of_universal_gravitation [wikipedia.org]
So basing your reasoning off a method that assumes useful information can be gathered from the mere existence of a correlation is in conflict with both the evidence, and our most cherished and successful physical theories. It is pseudoscience.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 19 2015, @09:47PM
What the fuck does gravity have to do with correlations? You're seeing all kinds of correlations that don't exist and working with lots of assumptions that don't match with reality, that must be why you're so confused about this.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 19 2015, @10:06PM
The gravity example shows that it is commonly believed that everything in the universe affects everything else, however minutely. This idea has been put forth in other ways as well:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tobler%27s_first_law_of_geography [wikipedia.org]
I assure you, I am not the confused one.