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
See more
See less

The case against medical science

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by Paprika View Post
    As argued by the Editor-in-Chief of The Lancet:
    The article you quote jumps around from discussing medical science specifically and science in general. All the evidence cited seems to relate to the former, and yet the author seems happy to apply it generally to all science. Is there any evidence it applies to all science?

    Medical science is a huge business in a way that most science is not, and that puts a lot of pressure on workers to get results. I am dubious that that is true outside the pharmaceutical industry.
    My Blog: http://oncreationism.blogspot.co.uk/

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Paprika View Post
      Hardly. I'm moving from discussion of a specific example to a general example, to argue that blind faith in scientists is often unwarranted.
      First going to the specific to the general without sources does not work. No one has arguedblind faith(religious agenda?).in scientists. Your arguing an extreme position based one specific area of problems with research.

      There has been several threads in the past concerning problems with 'peer review' in scientific research. Peer review does not stand alone as the sole quality control for scientific research. In fact it is true that vested interests within institutions does create problems relying on peer review alone as a quality control in science. The primary control is redundant research by different institutions and in different countries over time. An important note here is the process is actually working in that bad or questionable research IS BEING called to question. It is the general rule for scientists to be skeptical and question research and try to resolve problems as this article reveals, and not have just 'blind faith' in research results. This is almost totally absent in traditional religions.

      Yes, it is common for those who idolise Science to conflate the rigour of particle physics research, for example, with research in other sciences. I am attacking this type of religious belief by using a certain amount of hyperbole.
      Your talking the press here, and not the your vague unqualified generalization of scientists. I still smell 'religious agenda in your reference to 'this type of religious belief'

      Yes, scientist as they normally do 'talk up' and promote the importance of their research, but you are still neglecting the historical skeptical view of scientists, and the redundant research that is in history the way bad, questionable, and inadequate research is ferreted out.

      Of course. When a general statement is made it is (or should be) understood that one is not claiming that all the instances covered are identical in all respects.
      Generalization statements are pretty much wrong at the gitgo, and should not be. Again, without sources, your generalizing from one article on problems in medical research to a generalization about science in general peppered with 'religious faith' statements. Again standard religious agenda verbage of those who do their best to bring science into question,
      Last edited by shunyadragon; 05-30-2015, 06:56 AM.
      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


      • #18
        Originally posted by The Pixie View Post
        The article you quote jumps around from discussing medical science specifically and science in general. All the evidence cited seems to relate to the former, and yet the author seems happy to apply it generally to all science. Is there any evidence it applies to all science?

        Medical science is a huge business in a way that most science is not, and that puts a lot of pressure on workers to get results. I am dubious that that is true outside the pharmaceutical industry.
        The problems certainly extend far beyond the pharmaceutical industry. Most biomedical research is funded by governments and has no direct bearing on revenues, or on medicine for that matter. And much of it uses sloppy statistical standards (among other problems) that let researchers claim significance for results that aren't right.

        Knowledge is still accumulating, to be sure; there's just a lot of wasteful noise in the process that could be avoided if more rigor were applied.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by The Pixie View Post
          The article you quote jumps around from discussing medical science specifically and science in general. All the evidence cited seems to relate to the former, and yet the author seems happy to apply it generally to all science. Is there any evidence it applies to all science?
          I think it clear that the context clearly limits it to medical science.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
            First going to the specific to the general without sources does not work.
            I don't necessarily see how.

            No one has arguedblind faith(religious agenda?).in scientists. Your arguing an extreme position based one specific area of problems with research.
            I am arguing for a higher level of skepticism than normally held. Arguing against 'blind faith' - which I hope no one here holds - serves as hyperbole to highlight the point.

            It is the general rule for scientists to be skeptical and question research and try to resolve problems as this article reveals, and not have just 'blind faith' in research results.
            The intended audience of my posts was non-scientists, the non-experts. I try to encourage them not to rely on the experts too much.

            Your talking the press here, and not the your vague unqualified generalization of scientists. I still smell 'religious agenda in your reference to 'this type of religious belief'

            Yes, scientist as they normally do 'talk up' and promote the importance of their research, but you are still neglecting the historical skeptical view of scientists, and the redundant research that is in history the way bad, questionable, and inadequate research is ferreted out.
            I'm not sure what 'talking the press' means. And I quite agree that there has been a lot of bad, questionable, and inadequate research so one can't really trust recent research to a high degree; some time must be given for debate, questioning, replication and so forth.

            Generalization statements are pretty much wrong at the gitgo, and should not be. Again, without sources, your generalizing from one article on problems in medical research to a generalization about science in general peppered with 'religious faith' statements. Again standard religious agenda verbage of those who do their best to bring science into question,
            My aim is to encourage non-experts to maintain a properly skeptical attitude towards what the experts say; I really don't see why you should have a problem with it.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Paprika View Post
              As argued by the Editor-in-Chief of The Lancet:
              I suspect it's a huge problem.

              But two points.

              If three quarters of research is crap, perhaps, just perhaps, one quarter is not bad and over the long term it will win out.

              Unfortunately, two problems arise:-

              1) Public mistrust and

              2) An awful lot of wasted effort and spent resource.

              The more there is of this stuff - the questioning of methodology, the questioning of statistics, the questioning of peer review, the better - I hope.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by rwatts View Post
                I suspect it's a huge problem.

                But two points.

                If three quarters of research is crap, perhaps, just perhaps, one quarter is not bad and over the long term it will win out.

                Unfortunately, two problems arise:-

                1) Public mistrust and

                2) An awful lot of wasted effort and spent resource.

                The more there is of this stuff - the questioning of methodology, the questioning of statistics, the questioning of peer review, the better - I hope.
                I think that's right. In a few areas, a desire to come up with results led to collective pressure to find an effect when there wasn't one, leading to fairly large-scale distortions, including clinical trials. I'm thinking particularly of the use of stem cells to treat cardiomyopathy; I found this paper really disturbing.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by rwatts View Post
                  If three quarters of research is crap, perhaps, just perhaps, one quarter is not bad and over the long term it will win out.
                  Perhaps. But I think it much more likely that if there is no real disincentive against publishing bad or shoddy research (it's become a norm for goodness' sake!) then it will continue to proliferate. This is just plain human nature.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Paprika View Post
                    Perhaps. But I think it much more likely that if there is no real disincentive against publishing bad or shoddy research (it's become a norm for goodness' sake!) then it will continue to proliferate. This is just plain human nature.
                    Yes, you could be right.

                    Notwithstanding what I wrote about the quarter of good science, I think there needs to be a real disincentive.

                    Sure, folk will try and get around it, but most won't. Complete and utter open access might help, but I don't see that happening.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Paprika View Post
                      Perhaps. But I think it much more likely that if there is no real disincentive against publishing bad or shoddy research (it's become a norm for goodness' sake!) then it will continue to proliferate. This is just plain human nature.
                      There are already disincentives. Getting a reputation, either as an individual researcher or as a field, for shoddy work is a good route to long-term loss of prestige, funding and employment. The difficulty is in aligning the short-term incentives with the long-term ones. But even without accomplishing that, some subfields have made good progress. Particle physics has gone from rigorous to even more rigorous, while genetic epidemiology has gone from really crappy to rigorous. Those fields might have been easier to change because they're dominated by a small number of large groups. I dunno.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by sfs1 View Post
                        There are already disincentives. Getting a reputation, either as an individual researcher or as a field, for shoddy work is a good route to long-term loss of prestige, funding and employment.
                        When at least half the research in the field is shoddy or bad, it implies that almost everyone is getting away with it, which means the disincentive of a possibly getting called out and getting a bad reputation matters little, if any.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Paprika View Post
                          When at least half the research in the field is shoddy or bad, it implies that almost everyone is getting away with it, which means the disincentive of a possibly getting called out and getting a bad reputation matters little, if any.
                          But they do matter enough to motivate entire fields to reform themselves. That was my point.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Paprika View Post
                            When at least half the research in the field is shoddy or bad, it implies that almost everyone is getting away with it, which means the disincentive of a possibly getting called out and getting a bad reputation matters little, if any.
                            Sounds like an interesting 'fallacy.' Nothing so far has been documented as to shoddiness of the research, but it is a reach to say 'almost everyone is getting away with it,' from the undocumented 'at least half.'
                            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


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                              Sounds like an interesting 'fallacy.' Nothing so far has been documented as to shoddiness of the research, but it is a reach to say 'almost everyone is getting away with it,' from the undocumented 'at least half.'

                              I have quoted two editors-in-chiefs of two of the most prestigious medical journals commenting on the state of the research. They have overseen peer review of medical research for decades each, and I see no reason to doubt their testimony on the state of the research. Now given the amount of research that they say is bad or shoddy, and the number of researchers in the field actually called out for misconduct and the conclusion 'almost everyone is getting away with it' is easily reached.

                              But shunya trying to find fault when there's clearly none is hardly unexpected. Carry on.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by Paprika View Post

                                I have quoted two editors-in-chiefs of two of the most prestigious medical journals commenting on the state of the research. They have overseen peer review of medical research for decades each, and I see no reason to doubt their testimony on the state of the research. Now given the amount of research that they say is bad or shoddy, and the number of researchers in the field actually called out for misconduct and the conclusion 'almost everyone is getting away with it' is easily reached.

                                But shunya trying to find fault when there's clearly none is hardly unexpected. Carry on.
                                So what!?!?!?!? No examples nor specifics, This does not remotely lead to this foolishness Paprika, "it implies that almost everyone is getting away with it, which means the disincentive of a possibly getting called out and getting a bad reputation matters little, if any."
                                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

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-18-2024, 12:15 PM
                                48 responses
                                135 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Sparko
                                by Sparko
                                 
                                Started by Sparko, 03-07-2024, 08:52 AM
                                16 responses
                                74 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by rogue06, 02-28-2024, 11:06 AM
                                6 responses
                                48 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Working...
                                X