Most of the published science studies found to be wrong

10-09-2007, 04:14 PM

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118972683557627104.html

Professor Chaos · 10-09-2007, 04:23 PM

Nice first post, cumguzzler. Care to just tell me who you are while I'm looking up your IP?

Choobus · 10-09-2007, 04:35 PM

Quote:

Jake S wrote

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118972683557627104.html

fuck off you ~~shit~~ spam eating retard.

Professor Chaos · 10-09-2007, 04:39 PM

Kilik again.

Professor Chaos · 10-09-2007, 04:39 PM

Which leads me to believe that Andymonk isn't Kilik after all, just some other kind of cunt.

GodlessHeathen · 10-09-2007, 04:39 PM

Wow, did that REALLY appear in the Wall Street Journal? Has Murdoch already taken control? This is exactly the kind of idiocy I'd expect from one of his outlets.

Professor Chaos · 10-09-2007, 04:40 PM

Actually, "Jake S" was the same as 69xxxx. That was Kilik, right?

Eva · 10-09-2007, 04:40 PM

....and we have a co-mod with a very fast trigger finger.........

Choobus · 10-09-2007, 04:44 PM

Quote:

GodlessHeathen wrote

Wow, did that REALLY appear in the Wall Street Journal? Has Murdoch already taken control? This is exactly the kind of idiocy I'd expect from one of his outlets.

yeah but it's actually a reasonable article. However, it is wrong to put life sciences in with physical sciences. A measurement of the electron g factor is a very precise thing indeed, whereas a clinical trial is not.

Professor Chaos · 10-09-2007, 04:47 PM

http://www.skepticalcommunity.com/ph...c.php?p=321214

Sternwallow · 10-10-2007, 09:19 AM

Quote:

Choobus wrote

yeah but it's actually a reasonable article. However, it is wrong to put life sciences in with physical sciences. A measurement of the electron g factor is a very precise thing indeed, whereas a clinical trial is not.

This article seems to me to typify the way that science is self-healing and continues to progress toward truth despite inevitable errors.

If religious publications were retracted due to errors, both honest and deliberate, the Bible would have disappeared into the pit of humbug tens of centuries ago and it would have taken Judaism, Christianity and Islam along with it.

Choobus · 10-10-2007, 05:00 PM

Quote:

Sternwallow wrote

This article seems to me to typify the way that science is self-healing and continues to progress toward truth despite inevitable errors.

There is a bit of a problem in the biomedical fields in that very often studies show only weak correlations, and ideas can become accepted partly because they are put forward by influential people. Under these circumstances it can look very bad to publish a dissenting result with a weak conclusion, and data is often analyzed so as to agree with the prevailing view. This is what thearticle is really talking about. As you say, this will get corrected, but it can take a long time, and in the case of medical research, the costs can be large (not just financially). This is particularly bad in the case of studies about correlations between cholesterol and coronary heart disease: an objective analysis of all available studies shows that there is no stastically significant correlation, and yet doscotrs will routinely prescribe statins to peoiple with even a slightly high level. (IF interested see "the cholesterol myth" by U. Ravnskov (MD, PhD)).

Victus · 10-21-2007, 10:15 AM

For life/social sciences, I'm genuinely surprised it's not higher. In physics and similar fields, you have virtually perfect control of everything. In psychology/neuroscience (my field) you have a measure of control, but often it is quite minimal. This is why for a theory to gain widespread acceptance with psych/neuro, it is usually critically tested using multiple different tests and multiple different populations. Hell, I'm proposing a new theory for the etiology of psychopathy that can account for the most symptoms in the fewest steps. If I am right, then there's probably 50+ theoretical/review/perspectives papers that I am invalidated. Then some upstart prick later modifies my theory, and my paper becomes invalidated.

Change is the nature of science. The answer is supposed to change as we conduct further studies.

ghoulslime · 10-21-2007, 10:58 AM

Hmmm...That was pretty much a knock out in the first round.

1. Troll drops stink bomb
2. Mod sprays air freshener to clear the room of the stench
3. Brilliant atheists point out that knowledge of the principles of science is a dynamic variable scrutinized continually until we become omniscient.
4. Sage atheists point out that religious texts are not subjected to even fundamentally evaluation for contradictions with truth
5. Halleluiah! I pronounce this thread cleansed of the spirits of stupidity!

Well, it looks like this has been wrapped up, and we can all go home and enjoy a nice cold beer and a couple of go go girls on each knee!

10-21-2007, 11:00 AM

Is it OK if one has one tit bigger than the other? Can't leave the regular gals out of it, now, can we?

I wonder if "Jake S" is actually pronounced "jackass"?