On 3/25/2025 8:16 PM, AMuzi wrote:
I've mentioned this crisis here previously. This is a new title by an
experienced researcher on the growing unreliability of once-trusted
published scientific papers.
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/218244940-unreliable
Reader reviews on that page are great.
Focus here is on biomedical research but all the sciences share this
lack of rigor, honesty, reproducibility, etc now.
They may share it to _some_ degree, but I think you tend to greatly
overstate the problem. The percentage of published papers found to be
faulty is tiny. Science essentially runs on corroboration. If subsequent >researchers don't find strong evidence of fallacy, data is generally good.
I'm more disturbed by a relatively recent tendency to say "Ah, science
is worthless."
I've mentioned this crisis here previously. This is a new
title by an experienced researcher on the growing
unreliability of once-trusted published scientific papers.
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/218244940-unreliable
Reader reviews on that page are great.
Focus here is on biomedical research but all the sciences
share this lack of rigor, honesty, reproducibility, etc now.
On 3/25/2025 8:16 PM, AMuzi wrote:
I've mentioned this crisis here previously. This is a new
title by an experienced researcher on the growing
unreliability of once-trusted published scientific papers.
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/218244940-unreliable
Reader reviews on that page are great.
Focus here is on biomedical research but all the sciences
share this lack of rigor, honesty, reproducibility, etc now.
They may share it to _some_ degree, but I think you tend to
greatly overstate the problem. The percentage of published
papers found to be faulty is tiny. Science essentially runs
on corroboration. If subsequent researchers don't find
strong evidence of fallacy, data is generally good.
I'm more disturbed by a relatively recent tendency to say
"Ah, science is worthless."
On 3/25/2025 8:16 PM, AMuzi wrote:
I've mentioned this crisis here previously. This is a new title by
an experienced researcher on the growing unreliability of
once-trusted published scientific papers.
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/218244940-unreliable
Reader reviews on that page are great.
Focus here is on biomedical research but all the sciences share this
lack of rigor, honesty, reproducibility, etc now.
They may share it to _some_ degree, but I think you tend to greatly
overstate the problem. The percentage of published papers found to be
faulty is tiny. Science essentially runs on corroboration. If
subsequent researchers don't find strong evidence of fallacy, data is generally good.
I'm more disturbed by a relatively recent tendency to say "Ah, science
is worthless."
On 3/26/2025 8:36 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 3/25/2025 10:39 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 3/25/2025 8:16 PM, AMuzi wrote:
I've mentioned this crisis here previously. This is a
new title by an experienced researcher on the growing
unreliability of once-trusted published scientific papers.
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/218244940-unreliable
Reader reviews on that page are great.
Focus here is on biomedical research but all the
sciences share this lack of rigor, honesty,
reproducibility, etc now.
They may share it to _some_ degree, but I think you tend
to greatly overstate the problem. The percentage of
published papers found to be faulty is tiny. Science
essentially runs on corroboration. If subsequent
researchers don't find strong evidence of fallacy, data
is generally good.
I'm more disturbed by a relatively recent tendency to say
"Ah, science is worthless."
I used to believe that as well. When it was true.
Retracted published papers were 500 in 2010.
For 2023 there were 10,000,
But that's out of something approaching ten million papers
per year! It's far, far less than one percent.
On 3/26/2025 1:20 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> writes:
On 3/25/2025 8:16 PM, AMuzi wrote:
I've mentioned this crisis here previously. This is a new title by
an experienced researcher on the growing unreliability of
once-trusted published scientific papers.
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/218244940-unreliable
Reader reviews on that page are great.
Focus here is on biomedical research but all the sciences share this
lack of rigor, honesty, reproducibility, etc now.
They may share it to _some_ degree, but I think you tend to greatly
overstate the problem. The percentage of published papers found to be
faulty is tiny. Science essentially runs on corroboration. If
subsequent researchers don't find strong evidence of fallacy, data is
generally good.
Science essentially runs on money, and monopsony has not been good for
science.
Some really high profile papers have been discovered, belatedly, to have
been garbage, for example:
https://www.science.org/content/article/researchers-plan-retract-landmark-alzheimers-paper-containing-doctored-images
This paper was the starting basis for most Alzheimer's research in the
last two decades, and several useless drugs that were rubber stamped
"approved" by a useless FDA. Fraudulent garbage.
Yes, it happens. But as with other problems noted here, the frequency is
much less than sometimes pretended.
I'm more disturbed by a relatively recent tendency to say "Ah, science
is worthless."
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 546 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 01:43:27 |
| Calls: | 10,387 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 14,061 |
| Messages: | 6,416,749 |
