Is most published research wrong?

[BannedForViews]

Obviously my degree itself isn't some magical artifact that gives me knowledge. The years of work it took to earn that degree is what does that and of course people could do exactly what I did on their own with out earning a degree. I think that's what we're all saying though isn't it? Unless you did the work and research to actually comprehend the publication, you probably don't have much merit to comment on the substance of it. Which again is part of the problem. The main problem is that universities just want to pump out publications that are rather insignificant or meaningless, and then people who have no real knowledge in the field come along and draw false conclusions but can't comprehend why they're wrong. Even people with advanced degrees themselves probably do this, but I bet more people without them do it.

So, yes I agree that if it was an absolute requirement then what you initially responded to was false. But hopefully you also agree an advanced degree is still relevant to the discussion as it typically shows experience in the matter.

So 30 posts later after you blind side me by defending him, we agree with each other. I reject people who take my claim farther and believe formal education is essentially worthless. it clearly has merits, but to say those merits only start when "x" like "you get a masters" ignore the people that exist before those merits are earned. It also ignores any knowledge they may already have outside of whatever might be gained through attaining said merits.

I was just trying to make a simple point: That guy was being extremely arrogant in his assertion. I was not trying to argue with the whole internet about why "this and that" that are unrelated to my point.

- - - Updated - - -

Except that it 100% does. The fact that you are unable to grasp the simple fact that having an advanced degree would mean you have a significantly greater grasp of the fundamental procedures and underlying mechanics that go into making any significant "study", the VAST majority of those procedures and mechanics being extremely similar cross discipline, would mean that yes, having pretty much ANY advanced degree would make you significantly more suited to understanding them then someone without one.......

This isn't rocket science. Its literally like stating that anyone who is familiar with the scientific method is more qualified to understand quite literally ANYTHING scientific then someone who is not, because an understanding of the scientific method allows you to greater insight into how all aspects of science works. Sure, it wont make you an expert in every field, but it will allow you to understand them much better. Now just substitute scientific method with "advanced degree" and you end up with the same thing.

You are aware we were taunt the scientific method in like, the 3rd grade?

[Surfd]

You are aware we were taunt the scientific method in like, the 3rd grade?

You are aware that that has absolutely nothing to do with anything I posted?

You are also aware that your reply to my post did absolutely nothing to counter my argument as well, I assume?

[BannedForViews]

You are aware that that has absolutely nothing to do with anything I posted?

Now just substitute scientific method with "advanced degree" and you end up with the same thing.

Now just substitute scientific method with "advanced degree"

Now just substitute scientific method

Nope. Nothing at all. You got me there.

[Surfd]

Nope. Nothing at all. You got me there.

So what you are saying is that the point I made went so far over your head, it is probably in orbit right now? I mean, reading your posts in this thread kind of illustrates how bad you are at this whole "argument" thing, but I didn't realize that even simple things like analogies were beyond you.

"Scientific method" is to "Advanced Degree" and "Science" is to "Scientific Study".

There, I put it in small, easy to understand words. Did that help?

[BannedForViews]

So what you are saying is that the point I made went so far over your head, it is probably in orbit right now? I mean, reading your posts in this thread kind of illustrates how bad you are at this whole "argument" thing, but I didn't realize that even simple things like analogies were beyond you.

The fact that you are unable to grasp the simple fact that having an advanced degree would mean you have a significantly greater grasp of the fundamental procedures and underlying mechanics that go into making any significant "study"

Its literally like stating that anyone who is familiar with the scientific method is more qualified to understand quite literally ANYTHING scientific then someone who is not, because an understanding of the scientific method allows you to greater insight into how all aspects of science works.

Now just substitute scientific method with "advanced degree" and you end up with the same thing.


Go ahead and make me look stupid. Explain to me how the words above, which are yours, are words that I did not understand.

[Surfd]

I just did. Terribly sorry you were unable to complete the rest of the admittedly simple equation on your own. My bad for not including the idea that you also are intended to sub general science with "studies" when you sub Scientific method with "advanced degree", but hey, I figured that would be sort of obvious........

And again, You stating that we all learn the Scientific method in 3rd grade still has nothing to do with what i posted, other then that both your reply and my initial post included the words Scientific method. Your comment contributed nothing, and did not address in any way the argument made in my post.

[BannedForViews]

Well your first post actually just asked how an advanced degree was relevant to the discussion and for a few posts you seemed to be implying that earning an advanced degree doesn't make you anymore qualified to contribute to the discussion than those who haven't. I believe it does more often than not make you more qualified but again, it doesn't mean you need one.

I like to give people the opportunity to explain the stupid things they say. He made a blanket statement with no supporting evidence. I was allowing him to amend that. He didn't want to, because clearly he was too smart for me, and such things. I never meant to imply that degrees are not worthwhile. The certainly are.

This isn't a perfect analogy, but I wouldn't let a plumber give me medical advice, but would I be foolish enough to ignore advice from someone who was not allowed to be a doctor in the US because they didn't have a degree from a US school, but who was a well trained and qualified physician in another part of the world? All I'm saying is that to discount people because they don't fit a neat mold is very dangerous. It is what happens all the times in anything that even gets remotely political. Your specialty isn't special enough for this so your opinion is invalid, etc etc.

- - - Updated - - -

I just did. Terribly sorry you were unable to complete the rest of the admittedly simple equation on your own. My bad for not including the idea that you also are intended to sub general science with "studies" when you sub Scientific method with "advanced degree", but hey, I figured that would be sort of obvious........

And again, You stating that we all learn the Scientific method in 3rd grade still has nothing to do with what i posted, other then that both your reply and my initial post included the words Scientific method. Your comment contributed nothing, and did not address in any way the argument made in my post.

You're bad at analogizing. So people use the scientific method for general science, and people use "advanced degrees" for "studies"? And the standard method of inquiry into pretty much anything academic isn't based on the scientific method? You do know what the scientific method is right?

The scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge.[2] To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry is commonly based on empirical or measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.[3] The Oxford Dictionaries Online define the scientific method as "a method or procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses".[4]

http://www.sciencebuddies.org/scienc...c_method.shtml

There is a flow chart if you're a visual learner.


Also, it appears you tried a different analogism. Is that a word? Anyway, this one is different, and equally terrible.

""Scientific method" is to "Advanced Degree" and "Science" is to "Scientific Study"."

So what you're saying here is you use the scientific method for science, but you use your advanced degree for scientific study?

Do you know what Science means?

Or are you trying to say that you use the scientific method for your advanced degree, and you use science for studying science.

hmmm. that is DEEP. But I'm pretty sure you just use the scientific method, whether you are studying science, or studying why black people have more abortions per capita than white people, for example.

[gtfo_my_internets]

Said me, a PhD. Unlike you and this know-nothing youtuber, I actually have both published and reviewed scientific work.

Have you by chance done a study on horses? Specifically on how high they need to be before they can bear the weight of your massive ego?

Having a PhD doesn't mean you have a superior intellect. It means you paid for a piece of paper with your name on it. Congratulations. Add in the fact that you can get a PhD in just about any field of study, many of which are not even remotely related to anything that most people would think of when they hear the word 'science', and you end up with your claims of having a PhD meaning very little, as well serving no real purpose other than making yourself feel better. Did it work?


Moving on to the topic at hand, I actually do agree with you in some ways, despite the fact that you're an asshole.

As the recipient of a fair number of links to articles about new scientific studies, it is kind of saddening to see how the reactions of friends and family usually turn out. Far too many are willing to blindly believe facts and figures thrown at them without a second thought, or worse still get into arguments despite not ever having thought about the topic at hand in their entire lives up until that point. This video, if even remotely accurate, makes that all seem so much worse.

[Thoughtful Trolli]

Research isn't necessarily bullshit, you just have to remember that even if Mythbusters is doing the research, they will be doing it with their own method.

They might claim it's a scientific method, but when you look at any observation, hypothesis, test subject and the controls against which it is measured, and the literal measurement snapshots of collected data, you're looking at someone's decisions about what is important, no matter how fundamental or basic the data seems to be.

Why would timing be important for a solar eclipse? A million people would be able to tell you that because they are very smart, but in my opinion, being outside to collect data is more important.

Did we miss something? Perhaps the fact that we had to reference being outside, since the phrase "Solar eclipse" automatically suggests and outdoors project. But it had to be said, because its honestly very important to be outside to collect information about a solar eclipse. Anyone who didn't say that, even if it's NASA, was biased because data was presumption from the very start.

That having been said, it might actually be easier to collect data indoors, in an observatory with a large telescope. In regards to whether or not most published research is wrong, we're beginning to see that even if the research is correct, its interpretations and values are always going to be debatable. All of it is rooted in the most basic foundation: Observation changes what is being observed. Especially now that there are fields of Quantum Mechanics.

Long story short, most published research has a very steady and reliable foundation. Its the interpretations that are literally 50/50 in value no matter how many experts agree. Your question isn't wrong, but its wrong because people knew these things, they were as given as having to be outside to observe a solar eclipse. And here I am telling you this, finally, to bring you a new level of understanding.

EDIT: Sorry, I meant to say the most basic foundation in this case is what John Berger said. To paraphrase, "The way we see things is affected by what we understand and believe." or something.

[Rotted]

very well regarded Youtube poster Veritasium giving you the facts

I don't even need to listen to video to start to face palm about how your using this as evidence for your statement.

In Science, we often say we don't prove anything, we disprove. I quite like this saying, it implies we can never be certain of anything, but we can take a bloody good guess to it.

As for published work, lets say for ease, we're only talking about the ones people have actually done the work / not intentional falsified results, so legit people.

They've taken months or years to run their experiments, they've collected the data, its been reviewed by other people in that field and to the best of its ability its as accurate as possible. We take it at face value as being correct, if someone objects, they re run the experiment, if they find something completely different, then they could say they've disproved that theory, but not proved their own, its just what they think is more likely. But unless your a deity of supreme knowledge, we have to take most findings for fact, until disproved otherwise. Otherwise what are you going to do, sit around, wait and ignore all published work until something better comes along? Or just start getting all your information from very well regarded youtubers....

[Surfd]

You're bad at analogizing. So people use the scientific method for general science, and people use "advanced degrees" for "studies"? And the standard method of inquiry into pretty much anything academic isn't based on the scientific method? You do know what the scientific method is right?

The scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge.[2] To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry is commonly based on empirical or measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.[3] The Oxford Dictionaries Online define the scientific method as "a method or procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses".[4]

http://www.sciencebuddies.org/scienc...c_method.shtml

There is a flow chart if you're a visual learner.


Also, it appears you tried a different analogism. Is that a word? Anyway, this one is different, and equally terrible.

""Scientific method" is to "Advanced Degree" and "Science" is to "Scientific Study"."

So what you're saying here is you use the scientific method for science, but you use your advanced degree for scientific study?

Do you know what Science means?

Or are you trying to say that you use the scientific method for your advanced degree, and you use science for studying science.

hmmm. that is DEEP. But I'm pretty sure you just use the scientific method, whether you are studying science, or studying why black people have more abortions per capita than white people, for example.

That is a pretty decent rant that, not surprisingly, still managed to completely fail to address the point that I was making, and still managed to not address the completely irrelevant nature of your reply to my initial post, all while going off on a totally irrelevant tangent about the nature of the scientific method, while simultaneously failing to understand the nature of the original Analogy entirely....... Seems you really are bad at this.

But hey, I am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt, maybe after another 4 or 5 failed attempts you will actually get it right.

I mean, I really don't understand how you can take a simple concept such as:
"Someone who understands the scientific method is more qualified to comment on scientific procedures, regardless of discipline, than someone who does not, because they have a greater understanding of the underlying concepts behind said procedures; and likewise, someone who has an Advanced Scientific Degree is more qualified to to comment on advanced scientific studies, regardless of discipline, than someone who does not, because they have a greater understanding of the underlying concepts and procedures behind preparing and presenting said studies"
and manage to totally miss the point entirely.

[BannedForViews]

That is a pretty decent rant that, not surprisingly, still managed to completely fail to address the point that I was making, and still managed to not address the completely irrelevant nature of your reply to my initial post, all while going off on a totally irrelevant tangent about the nature of the scientific method, while simultaneously failing to understand the nature of the original Analogy entirely....... Seems you really are bad at this.

But hey, I am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt, maybe after another 4 or 5 failed attempts you will actually get it right.

I mean, I really don't understand how you can take a simple concept such as:
"Someone who understands the scientific method is more qualified to comment on scientific procedures, regardless of discipline, than someone who does not, because they have a greater understanding of the underlying concepts behind said procedures; and likewise, someone who has an Advanced Scientific Degree is more qualified to to comment on advanced scientific studies, regardless of discipline, than someone who does not, because they have a greater understanding of the underlying concepts and procedures behind preparing and presenting said studies"
and manage to totally miss the point entirely.

first, you never said this. What you actually said is above. What you are now trying to amend your post to say might as well have never been said. You are just wasting our time. A doctor knows more about medicine, a physist more about physics and a plumber more about plumbing. What is your damn point. Thst was never what was being discussed here.

what you are amending your point to be though, i reject. You think a physist is more qualified to talk about a medical study because of his understanding of procedure? Procedure that is pretty damn uniform across all disciplines, and which we have discussed most educated people are aware of? You sounds pretty ignorant here. Their expertise is from their knowledge of their field, not their understanding of how studies are run. Also the specificity of their focuses for the most part seriously cripple your opinion. An engineer who works on scram jets is more equiped to understand a study on global warming, or the effects of some drug? A doctor or a geologist are more equiped to understand a study on black holes? What is your point? Expertise is a thing for a reason. I have never denied it exists, or that it isnt valuable, but you are making the same fallacy by assuming that any scientist by default understands all science better than nonscientists.

i will repeat this. The opinions of peoples contemporaries are, for the most part, more important than other peoples opinions, but That does not make other peoples opinions irrelevant, and it doesnt automatically make those peoples opinions more valid when talking about unrelated things. I am not going to discuss this with you anymore. You wrote two horrible analogies, you claimed you had been saying one thing the entire time, which you were either terrible at saying or lying about, then you end up right where we started, by making a foolish blanket statement you cannot possibly prove.

- - - Updated - - -

This isn't really about IQ. Having a degree means that you know the process of writing articles and doing studies as well as how to interpret studies done by other people.

An olympic winner in swimming isn't probably going to do too well in skiing if they have never done it before, no matter how big of a prodigy they are in their own field.

So you are saying the athletes cannot do other athletics? Olympic swimmers can ski and olympic skiiers cant swim? Like, they will drown? Seriously?

[Surfd]

first, you never said this. What you actually said is above.

I have never changed my stance or argument. What i said in the first post, is pretty much exactly what i said in the followup post. I changed the wording slightly because you failed to understand it the first time, but the substance of the argument is exactly the same.

Expertise is a thing for a reason. I have never denied it exists, or that it isnt valuable, but you are making the same fallacy by assuming that any scientist by default understands all science better than nonscientists.

No. Nobody has made that assumption at all. The prevailing argument made throughout this thread is that published scientists, or people with advanced degrees would have a better understanding of the methodology behind a scientific study than people without, and as such would be more qualified to comment on them. This is a statement that you have still not managed to successfully refute. If your hypothetical scramjet engineer has a PHD, and has published any studies of his own, then yes, he would be more qualified then someone who has not, to understand a study on global warming. He may not actually understand the finer details of the science, as it is not his field of expertise, but he would be more qualified to examine the study for proper procedure and rigor.

You wrote two horrible analogies, you claimed you had been saying one thing the entire time, which you were either terrible at saying or lying about, then you end up right where we started, by making a foolish blanket statement you cannot possibly prove.

Sorry, but your inability to understand the analogy does not make it "horrible", and again, at no point have I magically changed what I was attempting to say. I compared the impact having vs not having an understanding of the scientific method and how it would affect ones qualifications to understand "science" as a generality to be analogous to the impact of having vs not having a science degree to how it would affect ones qualifications to understanding scientific "studies" as a generality, which is a perfectly fine analogy.

Also, we are what, half a dozen posts into this running debate and you still haven't addressed the completely irrelevant comment you made to my initial post.

[gtfo_my_internets]

So after doing some laundry I came back to finish reading the thread, only to find more of this guy continuing to be a douche.

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.

Your quote contains my answer to the first two questions. Don't care what school: If you had a clue about academia you'd know that often the most important contributors to a field are spread around the country in schools you'd never think to lump together with, say, Stanford, MIT, Harvard, etc. Don't care what scientific subject (incidentally mine is in mathematics... and no, not math. ed.): formal training in any should suffice to culture an informed opinion on these matters. Shit, that's a pretty low bar to be quite honest, but you haven't cleared it.

As for your third question: See Skroe and Nexx's earlier posts for well-articulated reasons why your current education level limits your capacity engage in a meaningful discussion.

EDIT: notice that you're the only one bringing up intellect whenthe rest of us are talking about level of education.

You were saying?

Being 'well educated' in that you attended a post-secondary institution does not immediately qualify you as someone who can engage in meaningful discussion about anything. There are some brilliant minds out there that are entirely self taught, as well as some dim bulbs that can claim ownership of what you would call an advanced degree. While neither may be the norm, enough cases exist to make your immediate dismissal of any opinion formed by someone you assumeto be less educated than yourself seem kind of silly.

[Fincayra]

snip

This is probably the best post I've seen on the forums in a long time. And it'll probably be completely ignored.

[Forogil]

I just now actually watched the video and it is pretty much bullshit. He starts off saying that if we have a significance level of .05 then about 5% of the research out there would be false.

He states that more than 5% of published research is likely to be wrong - due to a bias to not publish the other studies (or test several quantities and only stress one). That combined with an unwillingness to reproduce results in some fields are a concern.

However, if a result is barely significant - it does (in most cases) mean that the result isn't that important and significant.
That is the sad part for most research - not that it is wrong, but that no-one cares about it in detail.

One example in his listed reference was whether thinking of a professor or football hooligan made a difference when taking an IQ-test:
http://www.economist.com/news/briefi...it-not-trouble
If it had a similar effect as drinking half a bottle of vodka I am sure we would know, and there wouldn't be any problem with reproducing it.

Oliver gets that right as far as I recall.

Obviously this will be a shit study and shouldn't be taken with any merit. I think the title of the video is just click-bait since his point seems to be that people just misinterpret studies they don't understand and the media misinforms the population constantly.

Yes, which is a shame since there is a real concern - especially for health-studies (physics have less of that - regardless of pentaquarks - that now seem to actually be observed for real; but it still happens).

The new ideas of agreeing to publish, before the study and thus regardless of the result - and actually publishing the data are steps in reducing this problem; and were already started years ago, years before this video.

[satimy]

The problem is that its very hard to interpret statistics, and even harder to prove that someone did so

[Deleted]

Obiously it'd be exaggerated to call "most published" research wrong.
BUT things like p-hacking are obviously existent and a problem. A lot of studies have design-flaws introducing bias.

I think its pretty dishonest of many posters refusing to accept that the scientific-publication-process isn't perfect.

[Adam Jensen]

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

I saw on an article on Facebook that Chinese is good for your colon, so give me some spoonfuls of that General Tso's!

(Which might not actually be authentic Chinese food . . . maybe someone should do a study on that?)

[Mister Cheese]

Studies say that studies are wrong? That seems kind of um.. paradoxical ?