Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4
White Crane Feather

Confirmation bias anyone?

178 posts in this topic

Posted (edited)

SCIENCE is in crisis, just when we need it most. Two years ago, C. Glenn Begley and Lee M. Ellis reported in Nature that they were able to replicate only six out of 53 “landmark” cancer studies. Scientists now worry that many published scientific results are simply not true.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/02/02/opinion/sunday/scientific-pride-and-prejudice.html?_r=3&referrer=

Edited by White Crane Feather
3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well ... one thing Science Today can't say is that Science knew nothing regarding this all along ~

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is an unfortunate facet of the modern motto of "Publish or die." What makes it really sad is that it still is the best system we've been able to come up with so far.

6 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SCIENCE is in crisis, just when we need it most. Two years ago, C. Glenn Begley and Lee M. Ellis reported in Nature that they were able to replicate only six out of 53 “landmark” cancer studies. Scientists now worry that many published scientific results are simply not true

http://mobile.nytime...?_r=3&referrer=

New scientific study reveals that : Ones own immune system can destroy cancer cells ; I do not believe this to be new.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/cancer-breakthrough-promising-treatment-uses-patients-own-immune-system-to-attack-diseased-cells/

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Science is a human endeavor, so it's never going to be perfect. I heard a story on NPR the other morning about scientists, including Einstein, who made simple math errors, like using a + when they should have used a minus sign and reached erroneous conclusions because of it. It was a reminder that they are sometimes as error prone as the rest of us.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My concern has always been about cancer research. Kimo therapy is devastating to people, is it and sll its variatiins really based on doubled blind peer reviewed research? When all I really come across is that its unethical to give a cancer patient a placebo...whaaaaaa? While I understand the ethical problem, real research an certainty above control would be very difficult if not impossible, yet there are all these new drugs and cancer treatment is 1/3 of the medical industry.. I smell a rat.

Anyway Rupert sheldrake sent me that article, and I though it was particularly revealing and would benefit the folks around here who never question anything "published".

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No one ever said science was perfect. But it does work in the way it is intended to. If it didn't, we wouldn't live in the advanced civilisation that we live in.

Another day, another angry "why doesn't the evidence agree with me???" anti-science post. Pseudo science is pseudo for a reason; the evidence doesn't stack up. And the usual response by the followers is wanting to lower the level of available evidence so they can squeeze their beliefs in.

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No one ever said science was perfect. But it does work in the way it is intended to. If it didn't, we wouldn't live in the advanced civilisation that we live in.

Another day, another angry "why doesn't the evidence agree with me???" anti-science post. Pseudo science is pseudo for a reason; the evidence doesn't stack up. And the usual response by the followers is wanting to lower the level of available evidence so they can squeeze their beliefs in.

Oh please... There is nothing angry about it. The point of the article is to show that many times science isn't science at all even when claiming to be. This is not an anti science post, it is a pro science post.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree ~ it is Pro Science to wanting Science to get back some of its humble origins ... when Science was bigger than Scientists ~

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh please... There is nothing angry about it. The point of the article is to show that many times science isn't science at all even when claiming to be. This is not an anti science post, it is a pro science post.

Well in all fairness, this was posted in the "Spirituality vs Skepticism" section, thus implying some kind of antagonistic view towards science, and of course articles such as this will only strengthen such beliefs in those already wary of science. Of course the point of the article is problems with the publishing of findings and not the scientific method itself.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I agree ~ it is Pro Science to wanting Science to get back some of its humble origins ... when Science was bigger than Scientists ~

Science hasn't changed. What has changed is that business has developed out of science and corrupted the scientific process with the quest for profit. The OP does not suggest that the process of scientific discovery is flawed. It simply points out the invariably corruptive influence of "businessifying" science.

Money ruins everything.

Edited by Leonardo
3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

~snip

Money ruins everything.

Like I said Master Leo ~ when Science was bigger than Scientists ~

~

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

My concern has always been about cancer research. Kimo therapy is devastating to people, is it and sll its variatiins really based on doubled blind peer reviewed research? When all I really come across is that its unethical to give a cancer patient a placebo...whaaaaaa? While I understand the ethical problem, real research an certainty above control would be very difficult if not impossible, yet there are all these new drugs and cancer treatment is 1/3 of the medical industry.. I smell a rat.

Anyway Rupert sheldrake sent me that article, and I though it was particularly revealing and would benefit the folks around here who never question anything "published".

Having Multiple Sclerosis means I get bombarded with all kinds of cures and treatments from the "natural" drug industry and the medical drug industry. That means I have to take the time to look up the research and peer reviews, if there is any. MS comes and goes so without placebo you couldn't tell if it worked or not. I suppose with cancer the control is whether or not the patient dies. Peer review works, but it has to be given time to do the research. Science taking a back set to greed is nothing all that new. Piltdown Man is an example of science going wrong, but in time was shown to be a hoax.

Edited by GreenmansGod
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Science hasn't changed. What has changed is that business has developed out of science and corrupted the scientific process with the quest for profit. The OP does not suggest that the process of scientific discovery is flawed. It simply points out the invariably corruptive influence of "businessifying" science.

Money ruins everything.

So you should know by now Leo, that I'm somewhat of an economist. Can you tell how that can be thwarted?

Edited by White Crane Feather

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well in all fairness, this was posted in the "Spirituality vs Skepticism" section, thus implying some kind of antagonistic view towards science, and of course articles such as this will only strengthen such beliefs in those already wary of science. Of course the point of the article is problems with the publishing of findings and not the scientific method itself.

Well.. You are completely wrong in your first sentence. You are assuming that skepticism = science. While I understand why you would think that it is simply not true... Hint.... I'm a skeptic as well. And this highlights my attitude towards Pseudo skepticism.

And yes... The method is pretty good, but there are vast problems with drawing absolute conclusions from the method. And this is not an anti science post I happen to be a fan. It's only that the pedis tool that its on is not logical. Much like the lives athlete that you latter find out takes drugs and beats his wife. Traditional science always seeks to eliminate the human factor of course all scientists that we know of are human ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

New scientific study reveals that : Ones own immune system can destroy cancer cells ; I do not believe this to be new.

http://www.cbsnews.c...diseased-cells/

No. But it is a new scientific study. :innocent:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Just like anything else, there's good science and bad science. If you don't do a study properly then the result won't be valid. Garbage in, garbage out (so to speak).

Edited by Lilly
typo
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just like anything else, there's good science and bad science. If you don't do a study properly then the result won't be valid. Garbage in, garbage out so to speak.

Even if you do a study properly, the result can still lead you down an erroneous path.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Do scientists make mistakes? Absolutely they do, and a few studies are even seriously flawed or outright made up. However just because a few studies are dubious doesn't disavow EVERYTHING science has discovered or continues to accomplish right now. The fact of it is with a combination of new technologies and new discoveries that inform old discoveries science finds new information. I sometimes stop and wonder what is the issue people have with science because of a few issues when everything around us is evolving at an accelerated rate, our devices, our health, our means of transport, our understanding of the universe. The vast amount of information we gather every day pales in comparison to a few bad scientists.

Edited by darkmoonlady
4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're talking about science as if it's an entity. It's not. It is a methodology of study. Yes, people screw up the methodology, people get things wrong, people make mistakes, but the methodology itself is sound. I don't know how that can even be argued. Science is the single most effective way we have of discerning the true nature of reality. Anyone who disagrees with that is either deluding their self, or doesn't understand what science is.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No. But it is a new scientific study. :innocent:

oh yeah , right....like this was just recently discovered. Seriously ? :innocent:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

[media=]

[/media]

Seen a movie last night , and heard this song in it...

There was controversy regarding medical studies ...

Edited by Reann

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

oh yeah , right....like this was just recently discovered. Seriously ? :innocent:

NO but this was a NEW study The wording was technically correct. It was not a study of new science.
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So through the rigors of the scientific method of reproducibility science corrects itself. This is a win and this is how science works.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.