Francis Bacon.
Researchers in science often begin studies with a belief in mind and discount findings that discount their belief.
Failure to replicate challenges studies.
“A report on the issue, published in Nature this May, found that about 90% of some 1,576 researchers surveyed now believe there is a reproducibility crisis in science.”
http://www.realclearscience.com/articles/2016/07/19/sit_down_science_we_need_to_talk_109691.html
Link at http://maggiesfarm.anotherdotcom.com/
The failures particularly in biology, psychology and medicine.
Psychology is not a science, any more than is politics. A degree in “political science” means a degree in the history of politics and studies in particular areas of politics. “How political systems work” is not a science.
Dollars measured in billions go to downright false ideas.
Showing posts with label bad science. Show all posts
Showing posts with label bad science. Show all posts
Saturday, July 23, 2016
Thursday, April 14, 2016
That stuff proclaimed good for us probably killed a bunch of citizens
Nutritional scientists decided cholesterol was the problem, and the Admiral Farraguts proclaimed: “Damn the evidence! Full speed ahead!”
“The Minnesota investigators had a theory that they believed in — that reducing blood cholesterol would make people healthier. Indeed, the idea was widespread and would soon be adopted by the federal government in the first dietary recommendations. So when the data they collected from the mental patients conflicted with this theory, the scientists may have been reluctant to believe what their experiment had turned up.”
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2016/04/from-the-annals-of-scientific-objectivity.php
(“(M)ay have been reluctant to believe”? How about “didn’t want to” or “refused to believe” facts that could disprove their theory?
(Do not accept at face value any “Studies show” or “Computer models predict.” Not any.)
Link at http://maggiesfarm.anotherdotcom.com/
“The Minnesota investigators had a theory that they believed in — that reducing blood cholesterol would make people healthier. Indeed, the idea was widespread and would soon be adopted by the federal government in the first dietary recommendations. So when the data they collected from the mental patients conflicted with this theory, the scientists may have been reluctant to believe what their experiment had turned up.”
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2016/04/from-the-annals-of-scientific-objectivity.php
(“(M)ay have been reluctant to believe”? How about “didn’t want to” or “refused to believe” facts that could disprove their theory?
(Do not accept at face value any “Studies show” or “Computer models predict.” Not any.)
Link at http://maggiesfarm.anotherdotcom.com/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)