Page 1 of 4
#1
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2015/08/27/trouble-in-science-massive-effort-to-reproduce-100-experimental-results-succeeds-only-36-times/

Not all science of course, that was just the clickbait, but this is pretty interesting nonetheless.

It doesn't even mean the studies were wrong, just that the standards for publication were perhaps a bit shoddy.

But it does make one wonder...
“Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge.”
Charles Darwin
#3
Science is the process of discovery and it is never really finished. Lots of starts, stops, and oops.
"Your sound is in your hands as much as anything. It's the way you pick, and the way you hold the guitar, more than it is the amp or the guitar you use." -- Stevie Ray Vaughan

"Anybody can play. The note is only 20 percent. The attitude of the motherfucker who plays it is 80 percent." -- Miles Davis

Guthrie on tone: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zmohdG9lLqY
#4
Quote by Cajundaddy at #33571002
Science is the process of discovery and it is never really finished. Lots of starts, stops, and oops.


just like Arby911 in bed
#5
Quote by MeGaDeth2314
just like Arby911 in bed

lol'd
Quote by jakesmellspoo
ooh look at me i'm ERIKLENSHERR and i work at fancy pants desk jobs and wear ties and ply barely legal girls with weed and booze i'm such a classy motherfucker.
#6
Quote by Article
Dutch psychologist Diederik Stapel admitted in 2011 that he’d been fabricating his data for years.


So this is how they spend our tax payments??
.
#7
One big issue is that there are so many different places out there trying hard to publish studies that what is published is rarely checked out before given the green light. Slapsy is also very correct. Those two ideas are the basis for the book Bad Science.
OBEY THE MIGHTY SHITKICKER
#8
Quote by slapsymcdougal
This is why it's important to publish everything. Including the failure to replicate.


Wrong.

To get scientific papers published, sometimes all you need to do is send your study to a journal and attach a check and they will publish it for you. The issue here is that you have "science" journals that have zero reputation, peer review, or standards other than "send us money and we will publish you."

Any reputable scientific journal will not accept random studies jsut for paying a fee. Most of them (like Nature) actually do peer review of the study that filters out a high percentage of the garbage prior to papers ending up in the journal.

Now if you have a study that seems good on the surface and then turns out they over looked a factor, did some math wrong, or had a flaw in it, then absolutely we need to see the study and let peer review take over.

However any idiot can write up a paper titled "Injecting HIV into a Basket Ball Causes a Wormhole to Open to the Andromeda Galaxy" and get it published if they find a journal that is just for the money. Thing like this have happened and many scientist will send in bunk studies to less reputable journals to filter them out and call bullshit on them.

It is incredibly easy to get bullshit science papers published. It is also incredibly easy to spot them. It is incredibly difficult to get a garbage study published in a reputable journal.

If anyone actually gives a damn I can look into some of the journals that you should actually pay attention when it comes to science topics.
“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” ― Neil deGrasse Tyson

Quote by lolmnt
PC police strike again


If you have a computer related question, ask here!

Official Mayor of the Computer Thread
#9
If you read what is published in trusted journals then no

longing rusted furnace daybreak seventeen benign nine homecoming one freight car
#10
I just read the article. It was about psychology. That made me chuckle.
“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” ― Neil deGrasse Tyson

Quote by lolmnt
PC police strike again


If you have a computer related question, ask here!

Official Mayor of the Computer Thread
#11
Quote by Fat Lard
So this is how they spend our tax payments??


Uh, dutch.

I don't think you had to worry about it.
o()o

Quote by JamSessionFreak
yes every night of my entire life i go to bed crying because i wasnt born american
#12
Science under capital.


Gozd in gora poj,
silen ženimo hrup,
uboga gmajna, le vpup, le vkup,
le vkup, le vkup z menoj,
staro pravdo v mrak tulimo,
da se pretulimo skozi to zimo
#13
I doubt it's even 40% that's not crap.
40% non bullshit rate is amazingly high for any type of human endeavor.
#14
Quote by JustRooster
One big issue is that there are so many different places out there trying hard to publish studies that what is published is rarely checked out before given the green light. Slapsy is also very correct. Those two ideas are the basis for the book Bad Science.

One root cause of the problems with publishing work is that it's an industry in and of itself.

Originally, publishing was the means of distributing the results of your work; and you could only do that on a large scale with the aid of someone who could make and distribute copies. Specialist societies and journals grew as a means of attempting to aggregate research that is in the same field, because that was a useful thing to do.

In more recent times, though, paper based publishing has become(or is becoming, depending on your viewpoint) an anachronism. The vested interests of the publishing companies is in fact hampering the potential of electronic publishing(and therefore nearly cost-free distribution), and the added bonus of actually being able to attach raw data, instead of having to rely on summary.

Additionally, full electronic publishing like this would allow data mining and other 'big data' techniques to be employed to more easily identify relevant papers for both literature surveys in adavance of new research and meta-analysis of existing data.

Quote by DamienEx1021
Wrong.

To get scientific papers published, sometimes all you need to do is send your study to a journal and attach a check and they will publish it for you. The issue here is that you have "science" journals that have zero reputation, peer review, or standards other than "send us money and we will publish you."

Any reputable scientific journal will not accept random studies jsut for paying a fee. Most of them (like Nature) actually do peer review of the study that filters out a high percentage of the garbage prior to papers ending up in the journal.

Now if you have a study that seems good on the surface and then turns out they over looked a factor, did some math wrong, or had a flaw in it, then absolutely we need to see the study and let peer review take over.

However any idiot can write up a paper titled "Injecting HIV into a Basket Ball Causes a Wormhole to Open to the Andromeda Galaxy" and get it published if they find a journal that is just for the money. Thing like this have happened and many scientist will send in bunk studies to less reputable journals to filter them out and call bullshit on them.

It is incredibly easy to get bullshit science papers published. It is also incredibly easy to spot them. It is incredibly difficult to get a garbage study published in a reputable journal.

If anyone actually gives a damn I can look into some of the journals that you should actually pay attention when it comes to science topics.
And this is why, as I explained above, the current paradigm for publication needs to get right to ****.
Last edited by slapsymcdougal at Aug 27, 2015,
#15
The center's director, Brian Nosek, a University of Virginia psychology professor, said the review focused on the field of psychology because the leaders of the center are themselves psychologists.


That likely has a lot to do with it. Every psychology professor I took classes with and every psych major I've spoken with has more or less said that there's no such thing as concrete causation in psychology because A. there's a massive amount of information that we don't know about the human thought process and psyche, and B. there's dramatic variation from one person to the next.

In the absence of concrete, provable causes, correlation to show that X likely means Y or often means Y is the route taken instead, and the biases and opinions of the researchers will play into anything even remotely subjective, which data about correlation can often be. What's a coincidental margin to one person is proof to another, what's insignificant to one is massive to another, etc., etc.

That's not to say that the overall point of the study - to take information with a grain of salt and be critical of something, especially if they don't explain their methods - is invalid, but, fittingly enough, a grain of salt is warranted here as well, because there's not exactly a ton of concrete information in psychology in the first place.
THE FORUM UPDATE KILLED THE GRADIENT STAR

Baltimore Orioles: 2014 AL Eastern Division Champions, 2017: 73-78
Baltimore Ravens: 2012 World Champions, 2017: 2-0
2017 NFL Pick 'Em: 24-7
#19
"Study" my ass......get it


Also, it's extremely unscientific to believe something simply because it's published in a prestigious or non prestigious journal
Last edited by EyeNon15 at Aug 27, 2015,
#20
Quote by Big bang theory
idk but 100% of Math sucks ass.

typical big bang theory hype guy who actually doesn't know science but laughs when he audience does ha ha ha look at me now son
it's all just coming back
it's all coming back

it's all coming back to me
#23
Einstein is one of the biggest frauds that ever existed. You'll have to dig and research to find out though. That's just the tip of the iceberg. On the other end of the spectrum of that piece of garbage you have Tesla. This was a true scientist that bucked the trends and didn't go with the flow...and it got him robbed and killed.

The biggest fraud is that people think just because there's a big calculation behind it, it must be true. A lot of these "formulas" and "calculations" are tweaked to get the answers they want.
#25
i actually saw somehting about that but didn't read it cause I don't care if einstein was legit or not cause science happened anyway and that's the cool bit
it's all just coming back
it's all coming back

it's all coming back to me
#26
Quote by pressureproject
Einstein is one of the biggest frauds that ever existed. You'll have to dig and research to find out though.

I'm curious to hear you out on this. What's in his history that makes him a fraud?
The biggest fraud is that people think just because there's a big calculation behind it, it must be true. A lot of these "formulas" and "calculations" are tweaked to get the answers they want.

Any examples?
#28
Tesla is no longer some underrated underappreciated genius.
He has a freaking car named after him he's accurately revered these days, or at least not underappreciated and lost to history.

Though i would like to drive an Einsteinmobile
Last edited by EyeNon15 at Aug 27, 2015,
#29
I think it's funny when people who seemingly just learned about the history of modern invention and electricity and are like "oh my gosh Tesla is AMAZING Edison was such a lamer why is nobody talking about this I'm gonna spread the word and everyone will be enlightened like me"

But everybody knows that shit now anyways. It's not cool counterculture to be a Tesla enthusiast anymore. Nor Elon Musk. Move on to someone else if you have to revere a living person so much.

Quote by EyeNon15 at #33571151

Though i would like to drive an Einsteinmobile


It would be relatively fast
My God, it's full of stars!
#30
Do you even charge your Model S P85 with your free Solar City energy from your Tesla home battery bro
.
#31
Quote by slapsymcdougal at #33571045
The vested interests of the publishing companies is in fact hampering the potential of electronic publishing(and therefore nearly cost-free distribution), and the added bonus of actually being able to attach raw data, instead of having to rely on summary.

Additionally, full electronic publishing like this would allow data mining and other 'big data' techniques to be employed to more easily identify relevant papers for both literature surveys in adavance of new research and meta-analysis of existing data.


Big journals definitely make more from online views than their actual publications. Not to mention you HAVE to publish your raw data if you want to publish in most of them. So I'm not really sure what you're trying to say.
#32
Quote by Zaphikh
I'm curious to hear you out on this. What's in his history that makes him a fraud?

Any examples?


I could give you links out the yingyang, but you obviously have a computer....look for it yourself. Odds are you'd write off anything I gave you anyhow. He was used for a purpose...and accomplished what our govt. wanted him to. There's a lots of scientists doing that today who work in the CDC, at Universities...etc.

Tesla, on the other hand had the key to free energy...and the powers that be would have none of that.
Last edited by pressureproject at Aug 27, 2015,
#33
OH a conspiracy theorist, awesome, we need a new one of those.
My God, it's full of stars!
#34
Can't spell rap without science
Quote by DisarmGoliath
Facesitting is a violation of freedom of speech, because how can you speak when you have an ass covering your face?
#35
Quote by pressureproject
I could give you links out the yingyang, but you obviously have a computer....look for it yourself. Odds are you'd write off anything I gave you anyhow. He was used for a purpose...and accomplished what our govt. wanted him to. There's a lots of scientists doing that today who work in the CDC, at Universities...etc.

Tesla, on the other hand had the key to free energy...and the powers that be would have none of that.


Here, let me help.

Tesla was beyond genius. And a total wackjob.

Einstein was a genius. More or less stable though.

You need this. http://zapatopi.net/afdb/
“Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge.”
Charles Darwin
#36
Quote by pressureproject
I could give you links out the yingyang, but you obviously have a computer....look for it yourself. Odds are you'd write off anything I gave you anyhow. He was used for a purpose...and accomplished what our govt. wanted him to. There's a lots of scientists doing that today who work in the CDC, at Universities...etc.

Tesla, on the other hand had the key to free energy...and the powers that be would have none of that.

1. Don't even pretend that you know me or how I think about things in general.
2. Drop the paranoid government persecution-complex.
3. A simple example would have sufficed for me to begin my search.
4. A blind search for "Einstein fraud" just leads me to emotional antisemitic articles.
5. I don't care about what you think about Tesla, I'm curious about Einstein. This is the first time in my life that I've ever heard somebody write those words, and I'm always curious to learn about the dark side of people's characters (and if there's any truth behind the claims as well).
6. You neglected to provide the titles of tweaked "formulas" and "calculations".
Last edited by Zaphikh at Aug 27, 2015,
#37
Quote by MeGaDeth2314
just like Arby911 in bed



I'm disappointed, you said you wouldn't tell anyone as long as I didn't mention your fetishes...

If this is how you're going to be, our deal is off!
“Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge.”
Charles Darwin
#38
Quote by Arby911
as long as I didn't mention your fetishes...


He likes to get off to shitty jazz? We all know that already.
There's no such thing; there never was. Where I am going you cannot follow me now.
#39
Quote by JustRooster
One big issue is that there are so many different places out there trying hard to publish studies that what is published is rarely checked out before given the green light. Slapsy is also very correct. Those two ideas are the basis for the book Bad Science.

Have you read Bad Pharma by the same author? It's the same type of thing, but the implications are even scarier than what was stated in Bad Science because it directly affects people in life-or-death situations, in addition to our everyday lives.
cat
#40
Quote by Dreadnought
I think it's funny when people who seemingly just learned about the history of modern invention and electricity and are like "oh my gosh Tesla is AMAZING Edison was such a lamer why is nobody talking about this I'm gonna spread the word and everyone will be enlightened like me"

But everybody knows that shit now anyways. It's not cool counterculture to be a Tesla enthusiast anymore. Nor Elon Musk. Move on to someone else if you have to revere a living person so much.


where's the edward jenner hype ya know ???

Quote by Dreadnought
It would be relatively fast


fuck you
Page 1 of 4