NEWS: Science Is Mostly Wrong

GEEK: Science Is Mostly Wrong

Now, I pride myself on being a hard working scientist, but when it comes to writing peer reviewed papers for journals, sometimes it is far too much hassle than it is worth. So, it comes as no shock that most scientific papers aren't quite correct.

So, it is not the original idea that is wrong, but the method of testing a hypothesis or the subsequent analysis that is wrong, leading to many false claims based upon only a slight indication that the hypothesis is correct.

It is interesting that the author notes small sample size as a problem: in recent years, ethical concerns have ensured that any experiments involving animals operate with low "degrees of freedom"; the minimal number of animals are used. I can see this piece of research being useful to the animal rights lobby, fresh from their victory last week in closing a UK guinea pig farm

There is a great deal of science which doesn't use these sort of stats etc, and so is largely immune from this problem.

And everyone knows its generally the idea that matters - not the details.

That's where intelligent design has us beat. No scientific method = no erroneous results.

Do you mean reported in the popular press?

Peer-reviewed Journals always ask for this sort of stuff....

Mass media reporting of science is typically abysmal, as bean already pointed out there's little mention of primary sources and findings are usually shown as being definitive rather than speculative, which is more common (and usually noted in primary literature.)

That being said - it's sad if this is true, since the peer reviewing process is specifically designed to root out errors caused by investigator bias, or sampling/statistical errors.

Not the chemistry articles I've seen. I think almost all of the chemistry articles I have seen in journals indicate the method of funding at the very end of the article. Take a look at some.

Not to hijack this thread.....But does anyone else find it HILARIOUS
that there are some poeple who will take any excuse to rag on this ID topic????

I could start a thread about kittens and some jackass would somehow get a shot at ID in there...pathetic


back to original topic...thank you

:LOL: You fucking crack me up.

Indeed.

TV news report: "A survey has shown that..."

And you listen further and find that a survey has indicated some kind of correlation that sounds interesting, and the tiny snippet of interview of the lead researcher indicates that they're not trying to put too strong an interpretation on their findings.

I think of most statistical/empirical research findings as somewhat contingent.

huh?

ID is an easy target for taking a shot at, because every one of its proponents is either gullible to a frankly hilarious extreme, or a fucking liar.

This thread had nothing to do w/ID, but still someone wanted to throw in an ID critizism .... bringing it up whenever possible...
but now I am contributing to the misdirection of this thread...sorry

You work for the Discovery Institute or something?
It was funny, and he is not a jackass for posting it.

now, back to original topic

point proven again

It was a joke, a funny joke, and especially poignant coming from a scientist.

*shakes head as point missed as usual, apoligizes to original poster- leaves thread* (but waiting for inevitable condesending critisizm)

... so she wrote a paper that said, this paper has a 50% chance of being bullshit?

Perhaps if you were a really funny person like Rickets, you'd get why the inclusion of an ID joke in a sciency thread makes sense. You see, jokes are funny when topical insights are used in clever ways. ID is a hot topic right now, this is a science thread, and Rickets used it to his advantage. What don't you get, exactly?

If this was a thread on say... baking Apple Pies and Rickets made the joke "Boy, I but those intelligent design guys think that God designed Apples to stay firm even at high temperatures, har har." (sorry, I'm not as funny as he is) you might have a point, but as usual you're just doing a great job of making yourself look like a total fool.

i don't find it off topic or hilarious. neither do you. stop getting your panties in a bunch when someone takes the time to point out that intelligent design isn't science. unless you do, your panties are going to be perpetually bunched around these parts.

condesending critizism....hmmm who would have saw that coming....

I conceed, perhaps I just didn't get the joke... sorry Rickets I hope I didn't ruin your day...

Actually believe it or not I don't care what people say about ID...In fact I have learnt a lot, and my original stand FOR ID has weakened...I am not ashamed to say it, I like learning new things from different sources...
I guess, me PERSONALLY just am tired of all the threads dedicated to slamming it...not debating it, just ranting about it on and on ad nauseum...

and a character flaw I have is voicing my opinion....lesson learned


[Edited on Aug 31, 2005 by thorr74]

I didn't want to disappoint you. While we're at it, it's condescend. Since you haven't caught on yet, this site has a pretty low tolerance for dumbassery. Think twice about posting something inflammatory.

While we're at it, it's actually criticism and concede, too.