Reposted: "Why Most Published Research Findings Are False"

Quicksearch

Blog Administration

RSS Readers

Tuesday, July 24. 2012

Reposted: "Why Most Published Research Findings Are False"

Apropos of (is it necessary to use "of" after "apropos"?) our post a while ago about scientific research, here is Dr. Ionnadis's famous essay: Why Most Published Research Findings Are False.

It's a classic, and a good antidote to "the experts say..." and "studies show." Thanks for the reminder, reader.

Interesting to note that, the hotter the topic, the less reliable the findings. In the social sciences, it's far worse. Mostly garbage, I think.

I am science-trained, and it made me a skeptic about everything I read.

Posted by Bird Dog in Medical, Psychology, and Dr. Bliss, The Culture, "Culture," Pop Culture and Recreation at 16:40 | Comments (16) | Trackbacks (0)

Trackbacks

Trackback specific URI for this entry

No Trackbacks

Comments

Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)

QUOTE:

Why Most Published Research Findings Are False.

This sentence is false.

#1 Zachriel on 2012-04-04 19:46 (Reply)

If false, what would the negation of the sentence be?

#1.1 chuck on 2012-04-04 20:51 (Reply)

One related example concerns Feynman's work on beta decay. An earlier experiment provided weak support for T neutron-proton coupling. After a while, it became accepted wisdom. Even though Feynman recognized it as weak support at the time, he still relied upon this "fact". Well, it was wrong. Only later, when new data showed a discrepancy, and after a few wrong steps because of the accepted wisdom, did a new theory emerge which also explained parity violations.

This is all pretty normal for scientific work, especially when there is little or ambiguous data. It's not as if the original experiment supporting T was nefarious.

#2 Zachriel on 2012-04-04 19:47 (Reply)

So now we are just arguing about what percentage of published findings are wrong. That's progress, I guess.

#2.1 chuck on 2012-04-04 20:53 (Reply)

That's always been the case. Modern peer review is just the start of the process of determining the validity of any study. And while a scientific finding can provide support, all hypotheses are considered tentative.

#2.1.1 Zachriel on 2012-04-05 07:59 (Reply)

Zactly. The methodology should be repeatable, and, hopefully, repeated.

#2.1.1.1 Steve in CT on 2012-07-24 17:48 (Reply)

"False" and "nefarious" are not the same thing.

#2.2 Texan99 (Link) on 2012-07-24 19:44 (Reply)

"This sentence is false." == Dog chases own tail, catches same.

Actually, I would assert that most published research findings are either irrelevant (i.e., of little interest) or incomplete rather than wrong, although a good proportion may properly be classified as incorrect. Incompleteness is not the same as erroneous, e.g., Newton's laws are not wrong but rather incomplete; they simply do not extend to the relativistic domain explored by Einstein.

#3 Agent Cooper on 2012-04-04 21:19 (Reply)

Does it seem that the rate of scientific discovery and technical innovation has recently slowed to a drunk's crawl, despite the addition of tens of millions of new scientists around the world?

It's as if all the low-hanging scientific discoveries and technical inventions have been picked, and scientists are now incapable of reaching any higher.

Are scientific discovery and technical innovation now on asymptotic paths?

#4 PacRim Jim (Link) on 2012-04-05 05:41 (Reply)

PacRim Jim: Are scientific discovery and technical innovation now on asymptotic paths?

The mystery of dark energy, tantalizing glimpses of how the quantum world is expressed in the broad structure of the cosmos, mapping the human genome. Every year there are new scientific discoveries. Humans have barely touched the surface of the universe.

#4.1 Zachriel on 2012-04-05 08:07 (Reply)

"Dark energy" is not a discovery, being a reflection of what we don't know rather than what we do know. It is the residual explanation cosmologists grasp in desperation after all other conceivable explanations have been eliminated. It is a modern-day phlogiston, though gussied up to make it respectable for polite, high-level conversation. When the mysterious ways of nature go beyond the existing limits of human comprehension, the witch doctors call it Black Magic....or Dark Energy.

#4.1.1 Agent Cooper on 2012-04-05 14:16 (Reply)

Breathless Discovery-Channel speculations aside, there's good reason to think we're continuing to make solid scientific discoveries in all kinds of fields. I suspect that in every age, most of what people believed was being discovered was balderdash. That's certainly the impression one gets from reading about the bitter disputes among scientists over the last several centuries. One hundred years from now, people probably will be looking back on what we are working on now and concluding that lots of it was silly, while other parts held up. Aren't there always hacks among us? And opportunistic politicians dressed up as researchers?

#4.1.2 Texan99 (Link) on 2012-07-24 19:54 (Reply)

Breathless Discovery-Channel speculations aside.... Don't forget Nova. Talk about doing science a disservice. Real science is plodding and pedestrian, and the would-be scientist had better be that kind of person. In the '50s, I was a boy bacteriologist (published twice in peer review journals), until becoming totally bored with science and taking up an aviation career. Have never regretted it.

#4.1.2.1 BillH on 2012-07-25 11:11 (Reply)

Here's a good blog post on replication in bioinformatics.

#5 chuck on 2012-04-05 11:56 (Reply)

No, human nature has not changed in the last several thousand years, nor is it likely to. Hubris. Every generation thinks they are the bees knees. But in fact, we are still in the stone ages. Sorry to burst bubbles. No I'm not. Look around guys. This 'new' age stuff so popular today is basically a throwback to witchcraft, druids, Delphic oracle, nature worshiping, sacrificing for weather, crops and fertility, OLD age crap. Animal rights? Homosexual marriage? Hate crimes? Yup, real advanced we are. NOT.

#6 W. C. Taqiyya on 2012-04-06 02:42 (Reply)

My dad used to tell me, in a heavy German accent, "90% of everything is crap". Then he'd revise it to 99%.

I miss the old boy. Who knew he was so smart?

#7 Fred Z on 2012-07-25 23:44 (Reply)

Add Comment

Name
Email	(Your e-mail will not show in your comment)
Homepage
In reply to
Comment	By commenting on this site you agree to the site rules listed here. Email addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for email notifications. Quick reference guide: [i] italics [/i], [b] bold [/b], [u] underline [/u], [url] (web address) [/url]. More tips here. Enclosing asterisks marks text as bold (word), underscore are made via _word_. E-Mail addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for E-Mail notifications. To prevent automated Bots from commentspamming, please enter the string you see in the image below in the appropriate input box. Your comment will only be submitted if the strings match. Please ensure that your browser supports and accepts cookies, or your comment cannot be verified correctly. Enter the string from the spam-prevention image above: BBCode format allowed
	Remember Information? Subscribe to this entry

Maggie's Farm

Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page

Categories

Quicksearch

Links

Blog Administration

RSS Readers

Tuesday, July 24. 2012

Reposted: "Why Most Published Research Findings Are False"