Monday, December 22, 2014

Article: Why Most Published Science Studies Are Wrong
A simple idea underpins science: “trust, but verify”. Results should always be subject to challenge from experiment. That simple but powerful idea has generated a vast body of knowledge. Since its birth in the 17th century, modern science has changed the world beyond recognition, and overwhelmingly for the better.
Little wonder that one in three researchers knows of a colleague who has pepped up a paper by, say, excluding inconvenient data from results “based on a gut feeling”. 
And as more research teams around the world work on a problem, the odds shorten that at least one will fall prey to an honest confusion between the sweet signal of a genuine discovery and a freak of the statistical noise. Such spurious correlations are often recorded in journals eager for startling papers. 
Some government funding agencies, including America’s National Institutes of Health, which dish out $30 billion on research each year, are working out how best to encourage replication.
I started this blog back in June. I have deliberately sought out research that 1) contradicted the "received" and politically correct narrative and/or 2) "research" that is obviously bogus.

The paper reports between 75-90% of research findings could not be "replicated" (the gold-standard of research). That is, 75-90% of published research is bunk.

One of my favorite targets have been research focusing on global warming. It is obvious why this has been such an easy target for someone who actually thinks about the research, rather than repeat talking points.

Anything people, government and money touches, they corrupt. And $30 billion pays for a lot of corruption. I do not mean corruption in the sense of bribes. I mean paying for biases. Research that produces the correct answers get rewarded.

Michael Mann of Penn State is considered a major player in the field of climate change, yet the "hockey stick" research was full of cherry-picked data ("...One in three researchers knows of a colleague who has pepped up a paper by, say, excluding inconvenient data"). He has been called a fraud, though not in the technical and legal sense such as the convicted swindler, Bernie Madoff.

No comments:

Post a Comment