Is most published research wrong?

[Skroe]

You cite Youtube to try and discredit 'scientific studies'... Not to be rude, but you clearly don't know enough to even know the difference, and it's debilitating. You know just enough to be dangerous and should go back to school and get an advanced degree if you want to be able to participate in a meaningful conversation about academia and any shortcomings of the peer review process.

"Well known for being very scientific"

It's frustrating to me that can't appreciate how stupid that sounds to anyone with an advanced degree.

Nailed it.

<- B.S. in C.S. 2008, M.S. in C.S. in 2010.

[MAGAmobile]

What matters more is who peer reviewed the study itself and if people have successfully replicated it elsewhere. Sometimes the latter happens sooner or later or doesn't at all for various reasons. If it hasn't/ can't be replicated by others, its probably bullshit. There are a LOT of studies out there that are straight up garbage due to this. Clickbait headlines from reporters don't help the matter, either.

Thankfully, there are sites that do publish good studies that are repeatable. Unfortunately, most of them require fees and subscriptions to access publicly.

Also as others have stated already, looking at the studies the report cites will aid or discredit the credibility of it.

[Skroe]

Again, you have no PhD. Saying words doesn't change it. You're the intellectual superior of nobody.

On the topic of science, there are only two camps. Those who are scientists and those who are not. Those who have labored away and done study and dedicated themselves to it their entire lives, and those who watch a Carl Sagan archive on Yotube and fancy themselves astrophysicists. Or like Niel Degrasse Tyson on Twitter.

The opinion of non-scientists as to the scientific relevancy of findings is, itself, irrelevant. If it was, creationism would be a legitimate alternative instead of, you know, an actual fairy tale.

Non-scientists are not properly trained or equipped to contextualize the findings of papers. You wouldn't expect a physicists to have an informed opinion about economics or brush techniques with art, and likewise, we shouldn't expect artists to know the first thing about why findings are valid and why they are not. We can see this, ironically, in this paper itself, which has been passed around like the village bong just because some people "out of the circle" liked the implications of it.

[Eviscero]

Again, you have no PhD. Saying words doesn't change it. You're the intellectual superior of nobody.

The tactlessness of your rebuttal shocks no one.

[Deleted]

The tactlessness of your rebuttal shocks no one.

And the apparent attempt of yours at sounding somehow sophisticated surprises nobody.

[Theodarzna]

There are only three good sciences, Geologists, Biologists, and Astronomers, everyone else is a uggo and unpleasant to be around.

[Skroe]

Well I won't miss him.

So... whose for Chinese?

[Deleted]

Research publishing never really was about being true, more so just that there is indications of something. Reading actual publications, would make that rather apparent since a lot of conclusions never really concludes that something is true or false, more so that there is just an indication of something and that further research is needed to find out if the indications means something and what is behind the indications.

It isn't really a problem, until we have something like the mass media jump on it (and they will rarely read anything but the headlines and even more rare the abstract) and report these indications as truths and guidelines to live by.

[Skroe]

Research publishing never really was about being true, more so just that there is indications of something. Reading actual publications, would make that rather apparent since a lot of conclusions never really concludes that something is true or false, more so that there is just an indication of something and that further research is needed to find out if the indications means something and what is behind the indications.

It isn't really a problem, until we have something like the mass media jump on it (and they will rarely read anything but the headlines and even more rare the abstract) and report these indications as truths and guidelines to live by.

The best part about the Higgs Boson being discovered was we hit peak abuse of the phrase "God Particle", a term physicists utterly detested.

Mass media is no friend to science.

[Deleted]

Well I won't miss him.

So... whose for Chinese?

I saw on the headlines of a magazine it makes you fat according to studies, so no thank you!

- - - Updated - - -

The best part about the Higgs Boson being discovered was we hit peak abuse of the phrase "God Particle", a term physicists utterly detested.

Urgh.... Don't remind me.

[Marema]

I watched the video. Now I'm going to create my own Youtube channel and funnel a bunch of BS out there in order to find morons into sharing my video around. I will also get the added benefit of making some extra money from this!

I saw a study on how idiots believe everything they see on youtube. The study has been validated by the OP.

[Milchshake]

Well I won't miss him.

So... whose for Chinese?

I'm buying pizza when the next Finnish Elections roll around. Trolling with extra cheese please!

[BannedForViews]

You cite Youtube to try and discredit 'scientific studies'... Not to be rude, but you clearly don't know enough to even know the difference, and it's debilitating. You know just enough to be dangerous and should go back to school and get an advanced degree if you want to be able to participate in a meaningful conversation about academia and any shortcomings of the peer review process.

"Well known for being very scientific"

It's frustrating to me that can't appreciate how stupid that sounds to anyone with an advanced degree.

"An advanced degree". I hope you realize how egotistical that sounds. Advanced degree in what, and why is that relevant to anything? I can guarantee I went to a better university than you did yet I dont feel the need to tell people their opinions are valid "unless you at least went to Northwestern." It is so grest to see that hubris on the internet is live and well.

[Theodarzna]

In seriousness, this is less of a problem in the strict sciences then say other fields, including my own of History and Linguistics. You could even say the stuff in that video about any research publication.

But, the hard sciences are a bit better at this then say Social Psychology or even general Psychology. He sounds more pissy that the media jumps at bad studies or just jumps at any study to make a headline.

- - - Updated - - -

I'm buying pizza when the next Finnish Elections roll around. Trolling with extra cheese please!

.... I'm lactose intolerant. D:

[Feel The Power]

Not everyone has your mentality and needs to make shit up to look cool online. I actually do have a PhD. Whether you believe it or not changes literally nothing because even if you did recognize that I am your intellectual superior, you are so clearly biased against the well educated you'd somehow twist this interaction to support your preexisting, pathetic, and provably false belief that your opinions are somehow as valid as observations supported by scientific evidence.

Go read even one of the papers listed in this video, then go read every paper it cites, then read the relevant papers those papers cite. Then challenge some of the conclusions with tests of your own. Then come back and I might take you seriously. Till then, shut the fuck up about that which you know nothing.

LOL!!! "Whether you believe it or not changes literally nothing"...then why bring up your fake PhD credentials to begin with? Here's a little tip for you the next time you try to make up silly lies on internet forums...don't try so hard, like you did with this hilarious attempt at a retort. People who do this are breaking one of the golden rules of lying...defending yourself too hard, especially while throwing out insult after insult. Please, just don't do this anymore, literally everyone is sitting here laughing at you or anyone else who tries to do this. Also, congrats if you feel you're people's intellectual superior on a forum that mainly talks about gnomes, space goats, and magic cows.

[Skroe]

I'm buying pizza when the next Finnish Elections roll around. Trolling with extra cheese please!

I'm going to support the most batshit crazy candidate when those roll around. I want Finland to be the first country in the world to give human and civil rights to parrots. Surely, we can find a candidate who will advance that agenda.

[masterhorus8]

"An advanced degree". I hope you realize how egotistical that sounds. Advanced degree in what, and why is that relevant to anything? I can guarantee I went to a better university than you did yet I dont feel the need to tell people theirmopinions are valid "unless you at peast went to Northwestern." It is so grest to see that hubris on the internet is live and well.

You do know what "an advanced degree" actually is, right? No, of course not, or else we wouldn't be having this conversation. An advanced degree is a university degree above a bachelors (usually a master's or doctorate). So no, it's not egotistical at all.

[BannedForViews]

It's a problem in hard sciences too. There were two phd students in france who wrote about some physic phenomenon that turned out to be complete bullshit, the journal they submitted it to for peer review just didnt end up reviewing it or something like that. A pretty substantial amount of medical studies are also unable to be replicated.

All that climate science is 100% correct though. I mean with a p value of .90, how couldnt it be.

[Skroe]

In seriousness, this is less of a problem in the strict sciences then say other fields, including my own of History and Linguistics. You could even say the stuff in that video about any research publication.

But, the hard sciences are a bit better at this then say Social Psychology or even general Psychology. He sounds more pissy that the media jumps at bad studies or just jumps at any study to make a headline.

I read a thing a while ago how editors generally brutalize any writer who makes any article on science the least bit technical in the popular press. It'd be interesting to understand where the fault in the newsmedia industry lies - at the bottom with the writers or at the top with their bosses, who patronize their readers.

[BannedForViews]

You do know what "an advanced degree" actually is, right? No, of course not, or else we wouldn't be having this conversation. An advanced degree is a university degree above a bachelors (usually a master's or doctorate). So no, it's not egotistical at all.

It so wonderfully proves my point thst you didnt read what I wrote and just made up so imaginary coversstion here to respond to. Of course I knew what an advance degree was you twit. You didnt engage with my point though. What field? Why does it matter? How is it relevant to anything? I believe you have a PhD. Good for you. But it is a weak mind that has to convince others they are smart. Just say smart things. If people dont want to believe them, that is their concern, not yours.

And remember, you probably arent the smartest person here. Unless your IQ is 180, I wouldnt brag like it matters much.

- - - Updated - - -

Most of the research people claim wasn't true, isn't really the research that wasn't true but the implications that non-scientists derived from the research. The John Oliver video someone linked sums it up pretty well. A lot of universities have a "publish or perish" attitude with their professors. It puts a lot of pressure on them and more often than not, less well known but still great universities will have professors who publish articles in things that aren't that important really. It's also common for master degree candidates to do a thesis that isn't very groundbreaking or possibly even just a recreation of something already accomplished.

So typically some non-scientist will come along and make all kinds of claims that they believe the article implies but it doesn't. So while the research is fine, the conclusions that someone else unrelated to the research drew may be wrong.

I also don't understand the point in arguing with someone about whether they have a degree they claim to have. Who cares if they do or don't, if you're only argument against them is "you're just trying to look cool claiming you have a degree." Then you're probably already losing the argument.

By the way, I have a master's degree and a couple of peer reviewed publications in mathematics, am I cool?

- - - Updated - - -



You're confusing the p-value with the confidence interval so I'm sure you know what you're talking about.

You are correct. I misspoke. Clearly means I do not know of which I speak. I am sorry I had a momentary mistake. How terrible of me. I wish i could be better at correcting others like you are.