1. 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!

Scientific articles in peer-reviewed journals

Discussion in 'Science and Religion' started by paarsurrey, Sep 10, 2012.

  1. paarsurrey

    paarsurrey Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    4,929
    Are they 100% accurate?

    How much accurate in percentages?
     
  2. otokage007

    otokage007 New Member

    Messages:
    1,147
    everyone is likely to make a mistake. So no, they are not 100% accurate. But I would say they are accurate enough for you to rely on them without fear.
     
  3. jarofthoughts

    jarofthoughts Empirical Curmudgeon

    Messages:
    3,756
    Nothing is 100% accurate.
    But the sum of scientific knowledge and scientific consensus represent the best and most accurate knowledge we humans have access to.
    In this, scientific articles and peer-reviewed journals play an essential role.
     
  4. RedJamaX

    RedJamaX New Member

    Messages:
    412
    Mathematics is 100% accurate... but the theories math is applied to requires that the measured observations are also 100% accurate, that is not always the case.
     
  5. Alceste

    Alceste Vagabond

    Messages:
    26,030
    Science is a method for ferreting out the truth. It's never finished - there is always something left to learn, and we are always struggling against the filter of our own preconceptions. We can not give a score to the accuracy of any particular field of research because whatever it had left undiscovered is something we don't yet know. We can, on the other hand, assess the methodology, data and conclusions to get some idea whether the research is credible.

    So, while it is impossible for anyone to ever be 100% accurate, scientific research is hundreds of times more accurate than anything else we've come up with to discover what is true, such as religion's approach of just making stuff up.
     
  6. sandandfoam

    sandandfoam Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    11,158
  7. PolyHedral

    PolyHedral Superabacus Mystic

    Messages:
    6,333
    If you've ever read a hard science on in detail, you'll know that they say.
     
  8. Alceste

    Alceste Vagabond

    Messages:
    26,030
    Well, that's true enough. I suppose the difference is that scientists often get caught when they make stuff up or publish shoddy research. It's best to take individual studies with a grain of salt and lend more weight to consensus or meta-analysis.

    Research published by scientists with financial ties to a corporation that stands to profit from a particular conclusion is particularly dodgy, but I consider that PR, not science.
     
  9. Reptillian

    Reptillian Hamburgler Extraordinaire

    Messages:
    2,631
    The trivial stuff gets ignored and is probably not as accurate because no other independent researchers bother to double check the original findings. The useful and important and sometimes earth shattering stuff gets tested and retested and is likely much more reliable.
     
  10. mycorrhiza

    mycorrhiza Ukulele player

    Messages:
    1,439
    Not 100% accurate, but much more likely to be accurate than "scientific" articles that have neither been peer-reviewed nor researched using scientific method.

    Measuring it in percentage would be impossible, as we first need to know everything before we can know if something is 100% correct.
     
  11. Photonic

    Photonic Ad astra!

    Messages:
    2,421
    Depends, how well to you understand the sigma probability scale?

    Also, my guess is that this thread is in response to the higgs boson being peer reviewed and confirmed.
     
  12. Skwim

    Skwim Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    11,282
    Religion:
    Agnostic
    Although such a number would be impossible to determine, generalities can be made. The peer-reviewed science presented in scientific journals, having followed established scientific methodology, is almost always accurate, however the conclusions may be argued. The peer-reviewed "science" in other journals, such as we find in creation science, not having followed accepted science methods, is usually worthless. For example, the International Journal for Creation Research. is a peer reviewing publication that only reviews papers favorable to creationism. Here's the headline for a story by CNET news.
    "Creationists launch peer-reviewed journal

    International Journal for Creation Research will published peer-reviewed papers, but authors mustn't contradict official creationist tenets.

    IJCR provides scientists and students hard data based on cutting-edge research that demonstrates the young earth model, the global flood, the nonevolutionary origin of the species, and other evidences that correlate to the biblical accounts," according to the institute's description.

    In the call for papers, it adds, "Papers can be in any scientific, or social scientific, field, but must be from a young-earth perspective and aim to assist the development of the creation model of origins." And the three or more people who reviewer each paper are advised that each paper must "provide evidence of faithfulness to the grammatico-historical/normative interpretation of scripture."
    source
    So, although it calls the research it reviews "scientific," it doesn't subscribe to the tenets of true science. True, that the science may well be accurate insofar as creation science goes, but in terms of true science the accuracy no doubt dips toward zero.

    And this old cartoon sums up the difference between the two quite well.

    [​IMG]

    So not all peer-reviewing is equal.
     
    Last edited: Sep 10, 2012
  13. Skeptisch

    Skeptisch Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,026
    Scientific articles in peer-reviewed journals question absolutism through peer reviewed experimentation. Testing “absolute” through rigorous scientific examination is the best way to verify, know and support truth. Science has no vested interest in maintaining a theory if it is proven wrong. In fact, we can say that science is in the business of replacing archaic knowledge with stronger representations of provable absolute truth.
    http://www.paleolibrarian.info/2011/12/what-does-it-mean-to-think-in-absolutes.html

    We may say it is the closest approximation of the absolute truth at that time.
     
  14. paarsurrey

    paarsurrey Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    4,929
  15. Tristesse

    Tristesse New Member

    Messages:
    3,341
    Nothing is 100% accurate. Whats valid is getting a consensus amoungst scientists on a working hypothosis or theory, once a hypothesis has gone through the rigor of validation through many scientific scources amoungst their peers, at that point it can be determined to be a valid theory. Whats not a good path way for figuring out whats true or real, is having an authority that is unquestioning on the issue. It's a good thing that the process of science allows for changes and modifications to give a more accurate view of reality.
     
  16. jarofthoughts

    jarofthoughts Empirical Curmudgeon

    Messages:
    3,756
  17. Skwim

    Skwim Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    11,282
    Religion:
    Agnostic
    This from a pseudoscience.
    "The assertions by proponents of orthomolecular psychiatry were rejected in 1973 by a panel of the American Psychiatric Association.[1][11][12] Orthomolecular psychiatry has subsequently found little support in mainstream psychiatry"
    Source:Wikipedia
    The writer of the linked article is an orthomolecular psychologist
     
    Skeptisch likes this.
  18. paarsurrey

    paarsurrey Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    4,929
    And that is your blind-faith, in my opinion.
     
  19. paarsurrey

    paarsurrey Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    4,929
    And what about the second one:

    2. An Epidemic of False Claims
    An Epidemic of False Claims: Scientific American
     
  20. jarofthoughts

    jarofthoughts Empirical Curmudgeon

    Messages:
    3,756
    Nonsense.
    Evidence based ideas will always have a better probability of being right than non-evidence based ideas.
    And any evidence is better than no evidence. Always.

    To say otherwise would not only be illogical, but reveals a blindness to reality that is disasterous.
     
Verification:
Draft saved Draft deleted