It's a wonderful thing that we now have places to go to find these negative result papers. Like the author stated, the public never easily finds out when science is wrong. Now hopefully the media will be more willing to correct their erroneous scientific reporting since they have these resources.
Announcement
Collapse
Natural Science 301 Guidelines
This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.
As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.
Forum Rules: Here
As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.
Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less
Scientists Are Wrong All the Time, and That’s Fantastic
Collapse
X
-
Scientists Are Wrong All the Time, and That’s Fantastic
It's a wonderful thing that we now have places to go to find these negative result papers. Like the author stated, the public never easily finds out when science is wrong. Now hopefully the media will be more willing to correct their erroneous scientific reporting since they have these resources.Last edited by Jesse; 02-28-2015, 04:38 AM."Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." ― C.S. Lewis, God in the Dock: Essays on Theology (Making of Modern Theology)Tags: None
-
While it's great to make it easier to publish negative results, and while it's inevitable that science is sometimes wrong, there's no reason science has to be wrong as often as it is. There are broad fields of science where most new results are probably wrong, and that's just ridiculous. More rigorous statistical standards would help a lot.
-
Originally posted by sfs1 View PostWhile it's great to make it easier to publish negative results, and while it's inevitable that science is sometimes wrong, there's no reason science has to be wrong as often as it is. There are broad fields of science where most new results are probably wrong, and that's just ridiculous. More rigorous statistical standards would help a lot.
Are you a scientist that can provide some basis for the above?
The bottom line is out of 10s of thousands of research papers and projects every year, science is not often wrong. There is also an excellent track record of science finding and correcting errors. Some scientific knowledge is not totally correct or accurate, because of the limited knowledge, but when new knowledge and research becomes available science's self corrective methods correct previous research. Scientists are the ones that correct errors and problems in science not philosophers and theologians.
You, of course, can cite errors and problems, but not significant when compared to many published works where science is right on.Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:
go with the flow the river knows . . .
Frank
I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.
Comment
-
Originally posted by shunyadragon View PostYou have to be more specific here, a broad negative brush has little meaning unless you can do better then 'there is no reason science is wrong as it often is.'
Are you a scientist that can provide some basis for the above?
The bottom line is out of 10s of thousands of research papers and projects every year, science is not often wrong. There is also an excellent track record of science finding and correcting errors. Some scientific knowledge is not totally correct or accurate, because of the limited knowledge, but when new knowledge and research becomes available science's self corrective methods correct previous research. Scientists are the ones that correct errors and problems in science not philosophers and theologians.
You, of course, can cite errors and problems, but not significant when compared to many published works where science is right on.
Comment
-
What the general public doesn't understand well is that, in general, natural science gives the best possible explanation with the extant data.
There are hypotheses/theories that have a probability of correctness close to 100%, others are more tentative, but they're testable/falsifiable and do give explanations that fit the data, and are not WAGs.
K54
Comment
-
Originally posted by Jesse View PostIt's a wonderful thing that we now have places to go to find these negative result papers. Like the author stated, the public never easily finds out when science is wrong. Now hopefully the media will be more willing to correct their erroneous scientific reporting since they have these resources.
Are scientists themselves encouraged to make their results known to the mainstream, or, is that something that certain journals do, or is it something that the university and labs the scientists work for do? Or...who's in charge of that? How much financial incentive through grants, and whatnot, is there for scientist to publish positive results (looking back through the article, I guess they do mention that "scientists desperately need those high-profile publications to secure funding and tenure"). Is there a way to curb or put a stop to that? Should there be?
I also notice that most of the negative results from later experiments highlighted in the article are from psychological studies. Is there a higher or lower rate of negative findings in certain branches than there are in others? For instance, is physics an area with a higher degree of reliability in initial experiments, compared to, say, biology?
Comment
-
Originally posted by klaus54 View PostWhat the general public doesn't understand well is that, in general, natural science gives the best possible explanation with the extant data.
There are hypotheses/theories that have a probability of correctness close to 100%, others are more tentative, but they're testable/falsifiable and do give explanations that fit the data, and are not WAGs.
K54
Comment
-
Originally posted by Adrift View PostWhat's a WAG?
I'm always still in trouble again
"You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
"Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
"Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman
Comment
-
Originally posted by Adrift View PostInteresting article. I wonder how much of the problem has to do more with how the media chooses to sensationalize headlines. I don't know how many times I've read a headline that says "scientists cure cancer!!", and then you read the article and you find out they were able to successfully treat a certain type of cancer in some mice under certain conditions, or you find out that the cancer is destroyed...along with the host. Or how many times in the last few years have we seen headlines strongly hinting at having found life on other planets, and when you actually read the article, its mostly guess work about planets that may or may not be life supporting under the right circumstances?
Are scientists themselves encouraged to make their results known to the mainstream, or, is that something that certain journals do, or is it something that the university and labs the scientists work for do? Or...who's in charge of that? How much financial incentive through grants, and whatnot, is there for scientist to publish positive results (looking back through the article, I guess they do mention that "scientists desperately need those high-profile publications to secure funding and tenure"). Is there a way to curb or put a stop to that? Should there be?
I also notice that most of the negative results from later experiments highlighted in the article are from psychological studies. Is there a higher or lower rate of negative findings in certain branches than there are in others? For instance, is physics an area with a higher degree of reliability in initial experiments, compared to, say, biology?
science-news-cycle.jpg
I'm always still in trouble again
"You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
"Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
"Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman
Comment
-
Originally posted by Chrawnus View PostAnd then there's swag, which is just pure abomination.
Swag."Kahahaha! Let's get lunatic!"-Add LP
"And the Devil did grin, for his darling sin is pride that apes humility"-Samuel Taylor Coleridge
Oh ye of little fiber. Do you not know what I've done for you? You will obey. ~Cerealman for Prez.
Comment
-
fat fingers and slow brain
Originally posted by Adrift View PostLooks about right.
Also, "theory" is misunderstood. "Theory" in police work and common parlance means either a hunch, WAG, or what scientists would call an "hypothesis."
OTOH, a scientific theory is a well-tested collection of hypotheses on a common theme, or a "great theory" which is the best available explanation of a broad range of data, e.g., Plate Tectonics and biological evolution by genetic diversity, natural selection, genetic drift, natural selection, changing biomes over time, extinction producing vacated niches, adaptation of other species to these niches, catastrophes, ...
Of course anti-evolutionists LOVE the "only a theory" spin, spoken out of either pure ignorance or outright deceit by their "leaders" to the credulous.
K54Last edited by klaus54; 02-28-2015, 05:35 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by klaus54 View PostSymptomatic of the public's misunderstanding of natural scientific method is the confusion of the word "proof". In science and police work, proof means "evidence", in mathematics/logic it mean 100% certainty within an axiom system.
Also, "theory" is misunderstood. "Theory" in police work and common parlance means either a hunch, WAG, or what scientists would call an "hypothesis."
OTOH, a scientific theory is a well-tested collection of hypotheses on a common theme, or a "great theory" which is the best available explanation of a broad range of data, e.g., Plate Tectonics and biological evolution by genetic diversity, natural selection, genetic drift, natural selection, changing biomes over time, extinction producing vacated niches, adaptation of other species to these niches, catastrophes, ...
Of course anti-evolutionists LOVE the "only a theory" spin, spoken out of either pure ignorance or outright deceit by their "leaders" to the credulous.
K54
I'm always still in trouble again
"You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
"Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
"Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by eider, 04-14-2024, 03:22 AM
|
20 responses
69 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Sparko
Yesterday, 02:42 PM
|
||
Started by Ronson, 04-08-2024, 09:05 PM
|
41 responses
163 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Ronson
04-12-2024, 09:08 AM
|
||
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-18-2024, 12:15 PM
|
48 responses
140 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Sparko
03-20-2024, 09:13 AM
|
Comment