-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
40% of peered reviewed scientific articles can't be reproduced
- Thread starter whirlingmerc
- Start date
This speaks to why scientists repeatedly test the claims of others.
Upheavals are normal, but generally the understanding improves.
Samuel Patre
New Member
So, you are saying 60% can be reproduced?
And what again were the rates of Theistic Science reproduction?
If you have to have your 'researchers' sign a Statement of Faith, haven't you already compromised yourself?
"Follow the evidence where it leads". That's the joke
And what again were the rates of Theistic Science reproduction?
If you have to have your 'researchers' sign a Statement of Faith, haven't you already compromised yourself?
"Follow the evidence where it leads". That's the joke
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber
If there weren't any that couldn't be reproduced, or even a pretty good number, there would be some serious problems.
News flash : science ain't perfect because humans.
Science gets things wrong all the time. But give me a continual improvement model over a static one any time.
Samuel Patre
New Member
Better to be wrong some of the time than wrong all of the time?
More so, better to learn from your mistakes.
As much as possible I only get upset with my kids when they make the same mistake more than once. Allowance for a level of fallibility is an allowance for both humanity and risk taking.
whirlingmerc
Well-Known Member
when if can't be reproduced is 2 to 1 against what can... it suggests problems
No not on faith, read the article completely and cite accurately. This article describes a successful process where scientific research that cannot be reproduced is rejected. The 60% that can be reproduced is successful in the peer review process.
From: Most scientists 'can't replicate studies'
For its part, the journal Nature is taking steps to address the problem.
It's introduced a reproducibility checklist for submitting authors, designed to improve reliability and rigour.
"Replication is something scientists should be thinking about before they write the paper," says Ritu Dhand, the editorial director at Nature.
"It is a big problem, but it's something the journals can't tackle on their own. It's going to take a multi-pronged approach involving funders, the institutes, the journals and the researchers."
But we need to be bolder, according to the Edinburgh neuroscientist Prof Malcolm Macleod.
"The issue of replication goes to the heart of the scientific process."
Writing in the latest edition of Nature, he outlines a new approach to animal studies that calls for independent, statistically rigorous confirmation of a paper's central hypothesis before publication.
"Without efforts to reproduce the findings of others, we don't know if the facts out there actually represent what's happening in biology or not."
Without knowing whether the published scientific literature is built on solid foundations or sand, he argues, we're wasting both time and money.
"It could be that we would be much further forward in terms of developing new cures and treatments. It's a regrettable situation, but I'm afraid that's the situation we find ourselves in."
The other 60% is obviously reproducible and stands the test of time and the scientific methods, and airplanes fly and computers work, . . . most of the time.
It is interesting that the fundamentalist Christian Creationist view has 0% reproducibility in science.
Last edited:
Altfish
Veteran Member
That's a problem??? No, it's a solution and the reason why science is so powerful.
That is the whole point of peer review; new science has to be repeatable, if not it is modified or rejected.
It is why Theories are so powerful, they have been reviewed modified, re reviewed and found to be solid and repeatable.
Their is no faith about it. Science doesn't fear change
whirlingmerc
Well-Known Member
And there is a question of the embellishment of data for repeatability being so elusive 2 times out of 3
But there is science and there is science. Fraud is not science and assumptions of materialism not inherent to the scientific method
Last edited:
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Not really. Peer review is only the first step in forming a new scientific idea. It is a relatively low bar to pass in the world of science. And yet creationists can't get past it at all. Ideas that are right only 40% of the time still wipe the floor with ideas that are right 0% of the time.
One thing to remember is that in the sciences knowledge is cumulative. So even with only 40% of ideas being right they still add new knowledge when they are right and do not harm the sciences when they are wrong. The wrong ideas are eliminated and right ideas are passed on. Hmm... sounds a bit like a biological process.
ManSinha
Well-Known Member
There are individuals who have been caught embellishing data - they face some pretty severe repercussions up to an including greater scrutiny of research or being banned from publishing
@whirlingmerc - what exactly are you trying to say with your post? It has been explained to you over and over - repeatability preferably in different settings is a core principle of new scientific ideas gaining mainstream acceptance
If you or any one close to you has ever been ill and has the occasion to get treatment - you ought to be thankful that the process used to formalize the broad guidelines of treatment follows this rigorous path.
Yes, there are very human problems, but they are resolved through peer review and the repeating of research over time, confirms those that repeatable, and provide predictable results for further research. Those that are not repeatable are- of course, discarded.
The replication problem is real but applies to a narrow area of science, most often psychology and medicine. The media narrative is sensationalist. But the problem has been obvious to anyone who has noted that coffee is either good or bad for you depending on the latest study, for example.
Physics, chemistry, climate science and the like are reproduced all the time.
The wikipedia article is good Replication crisis - Wikipedia
Physics, chemistry, climate science and the like are reproduced all the time.
The wikipedia article is good Replication crisis - Wikipedia
Samuel Patre
New Member
Just a quick note.
The article doesn't go into any specifics in regards to the fields of science in question, and according to the associated Wiki article this primarily revolves around psychology with some medicine mixed in. Your thread title and subsequent posts make it sound like all sciences uniformly.
It would be interesting to find out ratios in the individual fields.
Is that suggested as true anywhere?
What do you see as the problems?
Are those problems being addressed?
whirlingmerc
Well-Known Member
More than 70% of researchers have tried and failed to reproduce another scientist's experiments, and more than half have failed to reproduce their own experiments.
1,500 scientists lift the lid on reproducibility
perhaps there should be more caution and less rush to publish?
applicable in the sciences and also in the media making rush stories
That doesn't address my questions at all, though.
You said what can't be reproduced is 2 to 1 against what can.
What are you basing that on?