Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Not really. And no, the worst tend to be medical papers. This does not help you with your mythical beliefs. Being right only 40% of the time beats being wrong 100% of the time.
-
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
Not really. And no, the worst tend to be medical papers. This does not help you with your mythical beliefs. Being right only 40% of the time beats being wrong 100% of the time.
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber
Economics is mostly speculation as it's very difficult to actually experiment and research such things and it's often based on trends (such as Milton's claim that minimum wage hurts teen employment). Biology has TONS of often repeated tests.
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber
Being right 40% of the time also beats being right 100% of the time (because clearly something is going wrong at that point).
Applied science in Biology like medicine, diet studies and behavioral sciences are problems in Biology are possibly some of the worst, and not Biology in general. Disciplines, my specialties, such as anthropology, paleoanthropology, paleontology and geology do not have significant problems in repeatability
Can you cite references that provide specifics on which fields are worse instead of vague general statements?
You still have failed to respond to the following fact of science.
Simply the research paper results that are reproducible reinforce the growing knowledge of science over the past hundred years and more, those that are not reproducible are the lessons that contribute to the progress of science.
It may be worth noting that some of the earlier research supporting Einstein's Theory of Relativity were found to be not repeatable. It took later more sophisticated research to confirm Einstein's theory.
The reproducible and predictable research results in usable technology in all fields. A good example reproducibility and predictability in research in Biology is in genetics. This very sound predictability has extended into the real world of identifying and curing inherited diseases and defects, tracing family trees and convicting criminals based on genetics,
Last edited:
Justatruthseeker
Active Member
Because economics relies on facts. Evolutionary biology relies on dreams of millions of years......
Justatruthseeker
Active Member
Convicting criminals based upon genetic tests that have nothing to do with comparing segments of one genome and matching it to random segments from another genome. Correct?
One to one matches. Randomly matching segments would not provide the adequate reliability needed.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
So you still do not understand basic science? No dreams are necessary. Millions of years is an easily demonstrable fact.
Incomplete. First they do not compare random segments.
Incomplete and lacks references to explain your intent in terms of peer reviewed science.
Genetics does much better today than you describe.
Ah . . . your true fundamentalist religious agenda rears it's ugly head.
Justatruthseeker
Active Member
The measurement of millions of years. What happens in those millions of years is the fantasy.....
Why are you always using rhetoric?
Justatruthseeker
Active Member
No, just your fundamentalist religious agenda of evolutionary religious PR rearing it’s ugly head. We all understand evolution is your religion, but hey, I support freedom of religion....
Justatruthseeker
Active Member
Because you all never give actual responses to the subject.....
Well, by seeing what else happens at other times during those millions of years, we can know that also.
Eh, more rhetoric sprinkled with some outright lies? Whatever boats your float man.
Rhetoric is the tool of the weak.
Justatruthseeker
Active Member
Ahhh, you mean like finding a tooth, then imagining an entire lifestyle behind the creature that it belonged to?
This kind of knowing? Sounds more like wishful daydreaming...
You know what's wishful daydreaming? This scenario you just concocted.
I find it weird that you cannot distinguish between putting words into another person's mouth, vs what they're actually saying.
To make such boisterous claims, you need scientific peer reviewed research, which is totally lacking,
Your misusing basic English language. Science is science and not religion.
Justatruthseeker
Active Member
He said about as much as you do. Nothing.
I notice you also continually avoid saying anything to support your faith....
All those posts, and all the posts he has done on other forums he inhabits, and never once has this stopped him. So telling him to become a peer reviewed researcher is basically giving him a free pass at making fun of you, because in HIS mind he's entirely 100% certain that the whole thing is just a massive conspiracy.