40% of peered reviewed scientific articles can't be reproduced

[shunyadragon]

Not really.

One liner assertions need some substance.

Natural determinism determines airplanes fly and computers work.

 

[Augustus]

In the case of drug tests, they tend to ignore the 'bad' results and only publish the good ones. But when peer reviewed this is easily spotted.

If it was easily spotted then they would never be published. Peer-review generally doesn't check how many darts they threw, it just looks at the ones that hit (and thus got submitted for review).

There is a movement to register all trials in advance using a central database which would be an improvement as it would show how many darts ended up on the floor. Unfortunately, this is not compulsory.

 

[shunyadragon]

If it was easily spotted then they would never be published. Peer-review generally doesn't check how many darts they threw, it just looks at the ones that hit (and thus got submitted for review).

There is a movement to register all trials in advance using a central database which would be an improvement as it would show how many darts ended up on the floor. Unfortunately, this is not compulsory.

Most often the researchers do present professional documentation of procedures followed that those that peer review the research see, but we do not know what took place behind closed doors as in the fraudulent research done after the fact at Duke University.

 

[gnostic]

Should we take the results on faith?

Most scientists 'can't replicate studies'

Can you cite article (your link) without lying, by misrepresenting the article’s contents?

You really should read the article carefully before making false claims as to what has been written.

 

[shunyadragon]

Can you cite article (your link) without lying, by misrepresenting the article’s contents?

You really should read the article carefully before making false claims as to what has been written.

I believe @whirlingmerc misuse of this reference was effectively shot down when analysed from a less biased perspective concerning how it applies to real science.

I really enjoy shooting down @whirlingmerc in his outrageous threads based on his religious agenda.

 

[gnostic]

Scientists sometimes error, therefore we should abandon science (and thus medicine and technology) and fall back upon superstition and sorcery.

It is not only that. It is worse than that.

They want us go back to believing in wishful fairytales and fables of scriptures (eg Bible, Quran), where donkey, snake and ants can talk to humans, or angels and demons can have wings and many heads or faces and many limbs, or beings (jinns) made out of smokeless fire, etc.

They want us go back to believing in miracles, faith healing and speaking in tongues, exorcising demons.

This is creation science.

 

[whirlingmerc]

I believe @whirlingmerc misuse of this reference was effectively shot down when analysed from a less biased perspective concerning how it applies to real science.

I really enjoy shooting down @whirlingmerc in his outrageous threads based on his religious agenda.

It's even worse for the cognitive sciences

Study delivers bleak verdict on validity of psychology experiment results

Study delivers bleak verdict on validity of psychology experiment results
Of 100 studies published in top-ranking journals in 2008, 75% of social psychology experiments and half of cognitive studies failed the replication test

 

[whirlingmerc]

It is not only that. It is worse than that.

They want us go back to believing in wishful fairytales and fables of scriptures (eg Bible, Quran), where donkey, snake and ants can talk to humans, or angels and demons can have wings and many heads or faces and many limbs, or beings (jinns) made out of smokeless fire, etc.

They want us go back to believing in miracles, faith healing and speaking in tongues, exorcising demons.

This is creation science.

Economics results were higher than the psychology results ... if you consider only 40% of the cases failing a great number

And a high number of economic study results
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/03/about-40-economics-experiments-fail-replication-survey


About 40% of economics experiments fail replication survey
When a massive replicability study in psychology was published last year, the results were, to some, shocking: 60% of the 100 experimental results failed to replicate. Now, the latest attempt to verify findings in the social sciences—this time with a small batch from experimental economics—also finds a substantial number of failed replications. Following the exact same protocols of the original studies, the researchers failed to reproduce the results in about 40% of cases.

 

[shunyadragon]

It's even worse for the cognitive sciences

Study delivers bleak verdict on validity of psychology experiment results

Study delivers bleak verdict on validity of psychology experiment results
Of 100 studies published in top-ranking journals in 2008, 75% of social psychology experiments and half of cognitive studies failed the replication test

This does not provide any objective verifiable evidence whatsoever for the assertion of dualism. Psychological experiments DO NOT deal with the problem. The weakness is simply in the subjective nature of psychological experiments.

Where is the peer reviewed research papers that deal specifically with the support that mind/consciousness is NOT dependent on the brain?

Still waiting

 

[whirlingmerc]

This does not provide any objective verifiable evidence whatsoever for the assertion of dualism. Psychological experiments DO NOT deal with the problem. The weakness is simply in the subjective nature of psychological experiments.

Where is the peer reviewed research papers that deal specifically with the support that mind/consciousness is NOT dependent on the brain?

Still waiting

hmmm
economics better
biology worse

some biological research was as low as 10% reproducible
Studies Show Only 10% of Published Science Articles are Reproducible. What is Happening? | JoVE

Studies show a very low reproducibility for articles published in scientific journals, often as low as 10-30%. Here is a partial list:

• The biotech company Amgen had a team of about 100 scientists trying to reproduce the findings of 53 “landmark” articles in cancer research published by reputable labs in top journals.
  Only 6 of the 53 studies were reproduced (about 10%).
  
• Scientists at the pharmaceutical company, Bayer, examined 67 target-validation projects in oncology, women’s health, and cardiovascular medicine. Published results were reproduced in only
  14 out of 67 projects (about 21%).
  
• The project, PsychFileDrawer, dedicated to replication of published articles in experimental psychology, shows a
  replication rate 3 out of 9 (33%) so far.

 

[shunyadragon]

hmmm
economics better
biology worse

some biological research was as low as 10% reproducible
Studies Show Only 10% of Published Science Articles are Reproducible. What is Happening? | JoVE

Studies show a very low reproducibility for articles published in scientific journals, often as low as 10-30%. Here is a partial list:

• The biotech company Amgen had a team of about 100 scientists trying to reproduce the findings of 53 “landmark” articles in cancer research published by reputable labs in top journals.
  Only 6 of the 53 studies were reproduced (about 10%).
  
• Scientists at the pharmaceutical company, Bayer, examined 67 target-validation projects in oncology, women’s health, and cardiovascular medicine. Published results were reproduced in only
  14 out of 67 projects (about 21%).
  
• The project, PsychFileDrawer, dedicated to replication of published articles in experimental psychology, shows a
  replication rate 3 out of 9 (33%) so far.

This does not provide any objective verifiable evidence whatsoever for the assertion of dualism. Psychological experiments DO NOT deal with the problem. The weakness is simply in the subjective nature of psychological experiments.

Where is the peer reviewed research papers that deal specifically with the support that mind/consciousness is NOT dependent on the brain?

Still waiting . . .

 

[whirlingmerc]

This does not provide any objective verifiable evidence whatsoever for the assertion of dualism. Psychological experiments DO NOT deal with the problem. The weakness is simply in the subjective nature of psychological experiments.

Where is the peer reviewed research papers that deal specifically with the support that mind/consciousness is NOT dependent on the brain?

Still waiting . . .

dualism is not the issue

from Wiki
The replication crisis (or replicability crisis or reproducibility crisis) is an ongoing (2019) methodological crisis primarily affecting parts of the social and life sciences in which scholars have found that the results of many scientific studies are difficult or impossible to replicate or reproduce on subsequent investigation, either by independent researchers or by the original researchers themselves.[1][2] The crisis has long-standing roots; the phrase was coined in the early 2010s[3] as part of a growing awareness of the problem.

 

[shunyadragon]

dualism is not the issue

from Wiki
The replication crisis (or replicability crisis or reproducibility crisis) is an ongoing (2019) methodological crisis primarily affecting parts of the social and life sciences in which scholars have found that the results of many scientific studies are difficult or impossible to replicate or reproduce on subsequent investigation, either by independent researchers or by the original researchers themselves.[1][2] The crisis has long-standing roots; the phrase was coined in the early 2010s[3] as part of a growing awareness of the problem.

The bottomline is that the reproducibility crisis has nothing to with your failure to cite scientific research to support your unsupportable assertions.

Blue smoke and mirrors is not a coherent response.
Still waiting . . .

 

[whirlingmerc]

The bottomline is that the reproducibility crisis has nothing to with your failure to cite scientific research to support your unsupportable assertions.

Blue smoke and mirrors is not a coherent response.
Still waiting . . .

Wiki

Because the reproducibility of experiments is an essential part of the scientific method,[4] the inability to replicate the studies of others has potentially grave consequences for many fields of science in which significant theories are grounded on unreproducible experimental work.

 

[shunyadragon]

Wiki

Because the reproducibility of experiments is an essential part of the scientific method,[4] the inability to replicate the studies of others has potentially grave consequences for many fields of science in which significant theories are grounded on unreproducible experimental work.

True So what?!?!?!?

If you followed the thread the problem with the reproducibility of experiments is a positive in the cleansing of research and reinforcing those that are reproducible over time. That is the way science works. Your attempts to use this as a smoke screen to avoid being accountable for backing up your claims makes your line of reasoning worthless. It was very early in the thread that your were trumped and thumped for this foolish game.

The bottomline is that the reproducibility crisis has nothing to with your failure to cite scientific research to support your unsupportable assertions.

Blue smoke and mirrors is not a coherent response.

Still waiting . . .

 

[whirlingmerc]

True So what?!?!?!?

If you followed the thread the problem with the reproducibility of experiments is a positive in the cleansing of research and reinforcing those that are reproducible over time. That is the way science works. Your attempts to use this as a smoke screen to avoid being accountable for backing up your claims makes your line of reasoning worthless. It was very early in the thread that your were trumped and thumped for this foolish game.

The bottomline is that the reproducibility crisis has nothing to with your failure to cite scientific research to support your unsupportable assertions.

Blue smoke and mirrors is not a coherent response.

Still waiting . . .

Of results have not been produced then it is not the scientific method at work because reproducible results is part of the scientific method.

Most scientists surveyed in 2016 agreed it was disconcerting.
Reproducibility of Scientific Results (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
"... In 2016, a poll conducted by the journal Nature reported that more than half (52%) of scientists surveyed believed science was facing a “replication crisis”..."

 

[metis]

Of results have not been produced then it is not the scientific method at work because reproducible results is part of the scientific method.

Replication is only one technique used in science as not all scientific evidence can be subjected to that. For example, we rely on forensics part of the time, which generally is not reproducible. Historical analysis is typically not reproducible. For example, was George Washington our first president here in the States? How could that evidence be "reproducible" today?

In science, we try and deduce from that which is available, and literally nothing is ever considered to be such an absolute fact that cannot ever be possibly questioned.

 

[whirlingmerc]

Replication is only one technique used in science as not all scientific evidence can be subjected to that. For example, we rely on forensics part of the time, which generally is not reproducible. Historical analysis is typically not reproducible. For example, was George Washington our first president here in the States? How could that evidence be "reproducible" today?

In science, we try and deduce from that which is available, and literally nothing is ever considered to be such an absolute fact that cannot ever be possibly questioned.

Forensics is not an operational science, and does not use the scientific method.

 

[metis]

Forensics is not an operational science, and does not use the scientific method.

Absolutely false:
Forensic scientists collect, preserve, and analyze scientific evidence during the course of an investigation. While some forensic scientists travel to the scene of the crime to collect the evidence themselves, others occupy a laboratory role, performing analysis on objects brought to them by other individuals... -- Forensic science - Wikipedia

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

science will always be a work in progress.
scientist will always be able prove their predecessors to be wrong or only partially correct.
only when we know everthing could that process end.
That target will never be fully attained.