[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 56 KB, 624x351, 6346.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9833854 No.9833854 [Reply] [Original]

How do /sci/ ever recover?

Most Scientific Findings Are Wrong or Useless


A 2015 editorial in The Lancet observed that "much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue." A 2015 British Academy of Medical Sciences report suggested that the false discovery rate in some areas of biomedicine could be as high as 69 percent. In an email exchange with me, the Stanford biostatistician John Ioannidis estimated that the non-replication rates in biomedical observational and preclinical studies could be as high as 90 percent.

https://reason.com/archives/2016/08/26/most-scientific-results-are-wrong-or-use

>> No.9833857

0/10

>> No.9833863

>>9833854
/sci/ BTFO yet again

>> No.9833896

>>9833854
Muh reproducibility crisis
meh.

>> No.9833909

>>9833854
>biomedicine
that's not science anon

>> No.9833969

>>9833854
>bio<whatever>
Fucking lol

>> No.9833984

>>9833854
>biomedicine
>biostatistician

>>>/an/ is that way.

>> No.9834318

>>9833854
Clinical research is the biggest bullshit I've ever seen.
The volunteers and employees gathering the data have huge biases.
The researchers only want to pump out papers and sometimes data "accidentally" goes missing before the data collectors "officially" records the data.
There is also a huge amount of p-hacking going on.
>This is at a very large and recognized medical group that owns several hospitals.

>> No.9834320

>>9833854
Can someone photoshop a furnace that they are walking into to make the image more grim.

>> No.9834356

>>9833896
avg /sci/entist works 30 hours a week

>> No.9834361

>>9834318
and its only 38% worse than average.

>> No.9834376
File: 571 KB, 807x805, 1515489276127.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9834376

>>9834318
When science is about a bunch of idealistic NEET aristocrats dicking around, you get unbiased progress.

When science is people's day job and getting results means getting published, which you need to do to keep your job, you get p-hacking and "lost" data. The people who are willing to cheat to get published outcompete those who stick to the method. It's really just a matter of incentives and good old natural selection.

>> No.9834381

>>9834376
>When science is about a bunch of idealistic NEET aristocrats dicking around, you get unbiased progress.
Not true. Science stayed static in many areas at certain times purely because it went against philosophical or cultural doctrine.

>> No.9834393

>people, even journalists read headlines in science journals instead of reading explanations

big whoop

>> No.9834759

>>9833854
>Most Scientific Findings Are Useless

This is the real problem. Where are my space ship ? Where is my lunar colony ? Where is my pollution free atmosphere ?

>> No.9834785

>>9833854

Talked to a bio professor a few years ago. He had this experiment with a relative error of over 100%.

"but the average is pretty much what I'm expecting. So we'll just publish it"

>> No.9834876

>"Anon I know you want to do things properly and make sure the results are correct and if we were scientists two hundred years ago that would be the proper thing to do, but these days you should just wrap this up, publish and move on. If we find we were wrong later we can just publish again."

^ Literal words uttered by my PhD advisor at Cambridge University.

>> No.9835770 [DELETED] 

>>9833854
>the world is infested with psychopaths
>turns out things may not be true
>"shocked"