Critic's Corner Discuss a review. Provide constructive feedback. Talk to the industry.

---

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] Thread: [ Display  All  Email ] [ Critic's Corner ]

---

[ Alert Moderator ]

---

RE: "Why Most Published Research Findings Are False."

Posted by The Bored (B) on April 16, 2016 at 07:22:37

regmac's post violated our rules on copyright

We've salvaged his link and the current responses and included them below.

Sorry, but ... - The Bored 07:17:39 04/16/16 (0)
In Reply to: RE: "Why Most Published Research Findings Are False." posted by regmac on April 15, 2016 at 17:33:55

... that's NOT a "snippet" so your post will be deleted. A few sentences and a link to the original are all that are allowed.

RE: "Why Most Published Research Findings Are False." - RGA 21:17:37 04/15/16 (2)
In Reply to: RE: "Why Most Published Research Findings Are False." posted by regmac on April 15, 2016 at 17:33:55

What a pile of longwinded tripe - let me guess the answer is God right? A religious website I can see. Throw some crud at the wall and hope it sticks - nice try - A for effort - logical failure per usual.

Believe in the invisible fairy tale in the sky all you like. There is no heaven there is no hell - you can imagine it all you like. Man invented everything worthwhile so far and man invented everything horrible as well. The fact that you or these religious dimwits can write their blog is BECAUSE of science that was peer reviewed and works. The medical industry has some issues and Psychology is a field that in most universities is relegated as one of the ARTS subjects not Science subjects. Psychology uses the scientific method - they do their best but it's hardly a hard science - medicine is almost always impossible to control variables so reversals are far more common. But it is corrective.

The only thing corrective about religion is when liberal minded people beat it to death with a big ole voting stick - cause if we followed religion we'd be stuck in the dark ages - women wouldn't be voting and blacks would still be slaves. And we'd be riding camels and would not be having this conversation on the internet because most books except one would have been burned.

Edits: 04/15/16

RE: "Why Most Published Research Findings Are False." - Steve O 22:05:13 04/15/16 (1)
In Reply to: RE: "Why Most Published Research Findings Are False." posted by RGA on April 15, 2016 at 21:17:37

Isn't this an area of legitimate and growing concern within the scientific community? It's certainly not the first time I've encountered an opinion such as this...I believe I read something similar in WSJ a few mos ago where the initiating incident was the retraction of the study of years ago that claimed immunizations caused autism. OTOH, I suspect the article is linked here for purposes that transcend the review of perfectionist audio and more intend a "global" perspective.

RE: "Why Most Published Research Findings Are False." - RGA 06:03:29 04/16/16 (0)
In Reply to: RE: "Why Most Published Research Findings Are False." posted by Steve O on April 15, 2016 at 22:05:13

Science is the pursuit of knowledge - yes there will be dubious scientists - the article is not completely invalid - there are crooks and dishonest scumbags in any line of work - teachers, cops, politicians, lawyers, scientists, engineers etc. Plenty are available for the right price to say whatever some corporation wants them to say - hey I'll gladly tell people Evolution and Climate Change is rubbish for enough zeroes and there are some scientists out there that obviously saw enough zeroes (or they're just stupid and slipped through the cracks at their university (or both)).

And people make mistakes - so do the peer reviewers. ALl of this is true - but on the big issues it rarely is. Some of it is a fact - the term theory in science is what religious apologists don't understand. In the big scheme of things whether people believe what in the OP's article or not won't matter much but this video illustrates why as an educator it is frustrating to come across a total lack of wanting to learn anything that goes against the irrifutable facts of the universe the planet and biology. And the funny thing is these same people will have my reaction to people of faiths that differe from theirs. They are skeptics and atheists when it comes to different faiths like Scientologists or Mormons.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sbsGYRArH_w (Open in New Window)

RE: "Why Most Published Research Findings Are False." - dbphd 19:15:07 04/15/16 (0)
In Reply to: RE: "Why Most Published Research Findings Are False." posted by regmac on April 15, 2016 at 17:33:55

Interesting topic, although I think "most" is a spurious allegation. In social science, in particular, inability to adequately define independent and/or dependent variables is too common, because they are so often too complex. Certainly, that applies to evaluation of audio. And double-blind studies can reveal only that there is no reliably perceived difference, but rarely add understanding about the basis of a difference if one is perceived, again because it's so difficult to define, isolate, and manipulate a single variable.

Well, yes. It is unsurprising. Good post! - Timbo in Oz 19:08:17 04/15/16 (0)
In Reply to: RE: "Why Most Published Research Findings Are False." posted by regmac on April 15, 2016 at 17:33:55

Psychology isn't quite a science anyway. ;~)! And biology is immensely complex, especially genetics.

A former Vice Chancellor of Uni.Canberra turned the way most think of the sciences when he wrote that Physics, Chemistry (and Engineering?) were the 'precise sciences' and down the other end of the spectrum were the 'hard' (to do well) ones like Economics, Sociology and Psychology.

The maths of stats - which is the science of what we can actually know - is an area where few 'scientists' have their minds focussed.

Beta - the probability of type 2 error - is rarely stated in most 'scientific' hypothesis test reports. Just as it isn't given for most DB ABX listening tests. ;-)!

Possibly because it's too often over 0.5 or > 50%? Science?! / Proofs?

Class sizes per teacher in grade schools / primary schools is another case in point. Only when people started doing meta analyses of large numbers of individual studies where 'n' was low, was it confirmed that increasing numbers of students would cause lower outcomes for the students.

That is, only by increasing n can we get beta well below 0.5. And then truths might be revealed.

The Rev. Bayes was one of those 18C English vicars who had sufficient spare time and funds to be an *amateur scientist. * Someone who loved what he was doing.

Probably because he had a 'good living' and could afford a curate or two for all the time-consuming stuff, like pastoral care.

Not so long ago people were taking the view that 'fuzzy logic' aka continuous-set theory would replace Bayesean approaches, but it will survive for the kinds of penetrating critique it can give.

The habit of 'scientists' making their case for atheism sits oddly - for me at least - when seen in the light of the immense impact these priests had on science, especially on the 'is this REALLY true?' side. Aka bullshit detection!


Warmest

Tim Bailey

Skeptical Measurer & Audio Scrounger


Rev. Bayes and exams. (Open in New Window)
Fax mentis incendium gloria cultum, et cetera, et cetera...
Memo bis punitor delicatum! It's all there, black and white,
clear as crystal! Blah, blah, and so on and so forth ...

• http://www.firstthings.com/article/2016/05/scientific-regres   (Open in New Window)

This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:

The Cable Cooker

---

[ Top of Page ] [ Contact Us ] [ Support/Wish List ] [ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]

---

[ General ] [ Speakers ] [ Tubes ] [ Vinyl ] [ Digital ] [ Hi-Rez ] [ Video Asylum ] [ Cables ] [ Tweaks/DIY ] [ Music ] [ Films ]

---