What's new
US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Science is NOT So Hallowed as Atheists Claim

ChemEngineer

Diamond Member
Joined
Feb 5, 2019
Messages
3,016
Reaction score
2,418
Points
1,940
The Economist
May 14, 2015

The Trouble With Scientists


A rule of thumb among biotechnology venture-capitalists is that half of published research cannot be replicated. Even that may be optimistic. Last year researchers at one biotech firm, Amgen, found they could reproduce just six of 53 “landmark” studies in cancer research. Earlier, a group at Bayer, a drug company, managed to repeat just a quarter of 67 similarly important papers.

////


The hallowed process of peer review is not all it is cracked up to be, either. When a prominent medical journal ran research past other experts in the field, it found that most of the reviewers failed to spot mistakes it had deliberately inserted into papers, even after being told they were being tested.

Psychologist Brian Nosek of the University of Virginia says that the most common and problematic bias in science is “motivated reasoning”: We interpret observations to fit a particular idea. Psychologists have shown that “most of our reasoning is in fact rationalization,” he says. In other words, we have already made the decision about what to do or to think, and our “explanation” of our reasoning is really a justification for doing what we wanted to do—or to believe—anyway. Science is of course meant to be more objective and skeptical than everyday thought—but how much is it, really?



I was aware of biases in humans at large, but when I first “learned” that they also apply to scientists, I was somewhat amazed, even though it is so obvious.



Given that science has uncovered a dizzying variety of cognitive biases, the relative neglect of their consequences within science itself is peculiar. “I was aware of biases in humans at large,” says Hartgerink, “but when I first ‘learned’ that they also apply to scientists, I was somewhat amazed, even though it is so obvious.”



“Science advances one funeral at a time.” – Max Planck
 

occupied

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 8, 2011
Messages
27,088
Reaction score
7,815
Points
280
Making scientists compete capitalist style for grant money and negotiate the petty politics of academia does no actual service to science. Then there's the idea that science should ultimately produce things to sell. Science IS the most exalted thing mankind has ever produced without question. It's just always been kind of messy in practice. It has lifted us out of savagery, ignorance and want and there has always been a bunch of flat-earthers who think it was a bad move.
 

C_Clayton_Jones

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2011
Messages
60,376
Reaction score
18,332
Points
2,250
Location
In a Republic, actually
The Economist
May 14, 2015

The Trouble With Scientists

A rule of thumb among biotechnology venture-capitalists is that half of published research cannot be replicated. Even that may be optimistic. Last year researchers at one biotech firm, Amgen, found they could reproduce just six of 53 “landmark” studies in cancer research. Earlier, a group at Bayer, a drug company, managed to repeat just a quarter of 67 similarly important papers.

////


The hallowed process of peer review is not all it is cracked up to be, either. When a prominent medical journal ran research past other experts in the field, it found that most of the reviewers failed to spot mistakes it had deliberately inserted into papers, even after being told they were being tested.

Psychologist Brian Nosek of the University of Virginia says that the most common and problematic bias in science is “motivated reasoning”: We interpret observations to fit a particular idea. Psychologists have shown that “most of our reasoning is in fact rationalization,” he says. In other words, we have already made the decision about what to do or to think, and our “explanation” of our reasoning is really a justification for doing what we wanted to do—or to believe—anyway. Science is of course meant to be more objective and skeptical than everyday thought—but how much is it, really?



I was aware of biases in humans at large, but when I first “learned” that they also apply to scientists, I was somewhat amazed, even though it is so obvious.



Given that science has uncovered a dizzying variety of cognitive biases, the relative neglect of their consequences within science itself is peculiar. “I was aware of biases in humans at large,” says Hartgerink, “but when I first ‘learned’ that they also apply to scientists, I was somewhat amazed, even though it is so obvious.”



“Science advances one funeral at a time.” – Max Planck
This fails as a straw man fallacy.

Those free from religion "claim" no such thing.
 

itfitzme

VIP Member
Joined
Jan 29, 2012
Messages
4,892
Reaction score
263
Points
83
Location
United States
The Economist
May 14, 2015

The Trouble With Scientists

A rule of thumb among biotechnology venture-capitalists is that half of published research cannot be replicated. Even that may be optimistic. Last year researchers at one biotech firm, Amgen, found they could reproduce just six of 53 “landmark” studies in cancer research. Earlier, a group at Bayer, a drug company, managed to repeat just a quarter of 67 similarly important papers.

////


The hallowed process of peer review is not all it is cracked up to be, either. When a prominent medical journal ran research past other experts in the field, it found that most of the reviewers failed to spot mistakes it had deliberately inserted into papers, even after being told they were being tested.

Psychologist Brian Nosek of the University of Virginia says that the most common and problematic bias in science is “motivated reasoning”: We interpret observations to fit a particular idea. Psychologists have shown that “most of our reasoning is in fact rationalization,” he says. In other words, we have already made the decision about what to do or to think, and our “explanation” of our reasoning is really a justification for doing what we wanted to do—or to believe—anyway. Science is of course meant to be more objective and skeptical than everyday thought—but how much is it, really?



I was aware of biases in humans at large, but when I first “learned” that they also apply to scientists, I was somewhat amazed, even though it is so obvious.



Given that science has uncovered a dizzying variety of cognitive biases, the relative neglect of their consequences within science itself is peculiar. “I was aware of biases in humans at large,” says Hartgerink, “but when I first ‘learned’ that they also apply to scientists, I was somewhat amazed, even though it is so obvious.”



“Science advances one funeral at a time.” – Max Planck


You are confused about what a science paper and journal is.

It's a diary not gospel.

A science paper is one researcher presentation of their notes from what they did. It doesn't make anything a fact. Never has, never will. In a perfect world 5-10% of all experiments reported will be unrepeatable. That just how reality works. Scientists aren't monks, priests or saints. The same nature of the human mind applies to them as any other human being. And like any other organized human endeavor , it will have better times and worse times.

The scientific methodology, hypothesis testing, the scientific method and established science from over 4 centuries of scientific research and advancement is still the best humanity has to offer in documenting and describing how nature and the Universe works. Anyone that chases after the conclusions of a single paper is I was aware of biases in humans at large, but when I first “learned” that they also apply to scientists, I was somewhat amazed, even though it is so obvious fool's gold.

"I was aware of biases in humans at large, but when I first “learned” that they also apply to scientists, I was somewhat amazed, even though it is so obvious."

Duh! Science proved that centuries ago.


Got anything new to report?
 

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$280.00
Goal
$350.00

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top