1. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12728
    09 Apr '14 03:192 edits
    1. Demarcation Problem — the problem of reliably distinguishing science from non-science. Modern philosophers of science largely agree that there is no single, simple criterion that can be used to demarcate the boundaries of science.

    2. Falsification Problem — the view, associated with philosopher Karl Popper, that evidence can only be used to rule out ideas, not to support them. Popper proposed that scientific ideas can only be tested through falsification, never through a search for supporting evidence.

    Problems with scientific research

    How science goes wrong

    1. Modern scientists are doing too much trusting and not enough verifying. Nowadays verification (the replication of other people’s results) does little to advance a researcher’s career. And without verification, dubious findings live on to mislead.

    2. Too many of the findings that fill the academic ether are the result of shoddy experiments or poor analysis.

    3. Even when flawed research does not put people’s lives at risk, it squanders money and the efforts of some of the world’s best minds.

    4. Careerism encourages exaggeration and the cherry-picking of results.

    5. The hallowed process of peer review is not all it is cracked up to be, either. When a prominent medical journal ran research past other experts in the field, it found that most of the reviewers failed to spot mistakes it had deliberately inserted into papers, even after being told they were being tested.


    http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21588069-scientific-research-has-changed-world-now-it-needs-change-itself-how-science-goes-wrong
  2. Joined
    11 Nov '05
    Moves
    43938
    09 Apr '14 04:41
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    1. Demarcation Problem — the problem of reliably distinguishing science from non-science. Modern philosophers of science largely agree that there is no single, simple criterion that can be used to demarcate the boundaries of science.

    2. Falsification Problem — the view, associated with philosopher Karl Popper, that evidence can only be used to rule out i ...[text shortened]... 21588069-scientific-research-has-changed-world-now-it-needs-change-itself-how-science-goes-wrong
    Do you yourself, RJHinds, agree to all this, and understand all its implication?

    Or have yuo just copied it in here, without understanding it all?
  3. Standard memberDeepThought
    Losing the Thread
    Cosmopolis
    Joined
    27 Oct '04
    Moves
    78625
    09 Apr '14 06:173 edits
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    1. Demarcation Problem — the problem of reliably distinguishing science from non-science. Modern philosophers of science largely agree that there is no single, simple criterion that can be used to demarcate the boundaries of science.

    2. Falsification Problem — the view, associated with philosopher Karl Popper, that evidence can only be used to rule out i ...[text shortened]... 21588069-scientific-research-has-changed-world-now-it-needs-change-itself-how-science-goes-wrong
    I don't think that the Demarcation problem matters much.

    The point about Popper is interesting, but I think you've misunderstood what he was trying to do. In positivism the basic statement is that all truths are experimentally verifiable. But since the last sentence is a truth which isn't experimentally verifiable there's a problem with positivism. To get round this Popper reversed the burden of proof and required truths not to contradict any experiment yet performed, so that a truth's veracity is contingent on it not being disproved. This means that positivism survives as there is no way of constructing an experiment which will disprove Popper's requirement and that is all the logical system requires to be self-consistent.

    In practice, it makes little difference as the process of constructing an experiment to test a theory requires one to make some predictions and see if they are satisfied, if they are within some acceptable margin of error then the theory is regarded as true. The results of the experiment are supporting evidence. Since a more precise experiment could be constructed in the future the result is provisional.
    1. Modern scientists are doing too much trusting and not enough verifying. Nowadays verification (the replication of other people’s results) does little to advance a researcher’s career. And without verification, dubious findings live on to mislead.

    This is a reasonable point. I'm glad to hear you want taxes raised to make more public money available to be spent on verifying known results.
    2. Too many of the findings that fill the academic ether are the result of shoddy experiments or poor analysis.

    Weasel words I'm afraid. You really need to define what you mean by "too many". Since to a perfectionist one poor paper would be "too many".
    3. Even when flawed research does not put people’s lives at risk, it squanders money and the efforts of some of the world’s best minds.
    4. Careerism encourages exaggeration and the cherry-picking of results.

    This is just rhetoric.
    5. The hallowed process of peer review is not all it is cracked up to be, either. When a prominent medical journal ran research past other experts in the field, it found that most of the reviewers failed to spot mistakes it had deliberately inserted into papers, even after being told they were being tested.

    Care to name the journal? Bear in mind the errors could have been in statistical analysis, which isn't something medical scientists are necessarily going to spot. As an alternative to peer review are you going to advocate priest review?
  4. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12728
    09 Apr '14 07:011 edit
    Originally posted by DeepThought
    I don't think that the Demarcation problem matters much.

    The point about Popper is interesting, but I think you've misunderstood what he was trying to do. In positivism the basic statement is that all truths are experimentally verifiable. But since the last sentence is a truth which isn't experimentally verifiable there's a problem with positivism. ...[text shortened]... arily going to spot. What do you suggest - let priests choose which papers should be published?
    You are welcome to your opinion, however the end of science should not be opinion, but truth.

    You do not seem to understand the five problem I pulled out of the article "Problems with scientific research: How science goes wrong" very well.

    There is nothing said about raising taxes to make public money available to be spent on verifying known results. The point was that dubious results mislead because of not being verified.

    Use a dictionary for the definition of the weasel words.

    The quoted rhetoric from the article has the ring of truth to me and you have not provided any counter rhetoric to disprove its accuracy.

    Apparently the errors in the medical journal were things they expected them to catch. It seems they were too lax in their work too me and to the person writing the article.

    The following is also from the article, since you apparently did not read it:

    The most enlightened journals are already becoming less averse to humdrum papers. Some government funding agencies, including America’s National Institutes of Health, which dish out $30 billion on research each year, are working out how best to encourage replication. And growing numbers of scientists, especially young ones, understand statistics. But these trends need to go much further. Journals should allocate space for “uninteresting” work, and grant-givers should set aside money to pay for it. Peer review should be tightened—or perhaps dispensed with altogether, in favour of post-publication evaluation in the form of appended comments. That system has worked well in recent years in physics and mathematics. Lastly, policymakers should ensure that institutions using public money also respect the rules.

    Science still commands enormous—if sometimes bemused—respect. But its privileged status is founded on the capacity to be right most of the time and to correct its mistakes when it gets things wrong. And it is not as if the universe is short of genuine mysteries to keep generations of scientists hard at work. The false trails laid down by shoddy research are an unforgivable barrier to understanding.
  5. Joined
    06 Mar '12
    Moves
    625
    09 Apr '14 07:312 edits
    What a moron; the moron, unlike me and all scientists here, doesn't understand science and yet thinks he is qualified to lecture to us about "problems with science" 😛 He certainly DOES have a delusionally arrogant condescending high opinion of himself!
  6. Standard memberDeepThought
    Losing the Thread
    Cosmopolis
    Joined
    27 Oct '04
    Moves
    78625
    09 Apr '14 07:35
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    You are welcome to your opinion, however the end of science should not be opinion, but truth.

    You do not seem to understand the five problem I pulled out of the article "Problems with scientific research: How science goes wrong" very well.

    There is nothing said about raising taxes to make public money available to be spent on verifying known results. ...[text shortened]... ork. The false trails laid down by shoddy research are an unforgivable barrier to understanding.
    There is nothing said about raising taxes to make public money available to be spent on verifying known results. The point was that dubious results mislead because of not being verified.

    You have no sense of humour.

    Use a dictionary for the definition of the weasel words.

    No I got the meaning of weasel words right there. What do you mean by "too many"?

    The quoted rhetoric from the article has the ring of truth to me and you have not provided any counter rhetoric to disprove its accuracy.

    No it's just rhetoric. Point 3 is just a consequence of point 2. Point 4 is a problem with careerism and not science.

    I'll take your word for it on the last point.

    No I didn't read the original article. I was commenting on your post.
  7. Joined
    11 Nov '05
    Moves
    43938
    09 Apr '14 08:49
    I asked you a question, RJHinds, did you miss that?

    Here it is again:
    Do you yourself, RJHinds, agree to all this, and understand all its implication?
    Or have you just copied it in here, without understanding it all?
  8. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52619
    09 Apr '14 10:15
    Originally posted by FabianFnas
    I asked you a question, RJHinds, did you miss that?

    Here it is again:
    Do you yourself, RJHinds, agree to all this, and understand all its implication?
    Or have you just copied it in here, without understanding it all?
    Do you realize his main agenda with all this? To belittle science, to weaponize pseudoscience, he never left his main goal to destroy evolution and life origin disciplines. He would rather see ALL science destroyed than to have evolution proven true and therefore the bible fairy tales proven false.

    That is his ONLY agenda.

    He could care less about the larger arguments of the philosophy of science, only in his self mutilated brainwashed religious dogma as a political force to foist creationist propaganda in schools, a criminal act designed to self mutilate even more young impressionable minds.
  9. Joined
    11 Nov '05
    Moves
    43938
    09 Apr '14 10:37
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    Do you realize his main agenda with all this? To belittle science, to weaponize pseudoscience, he never left his main goal to destroy evolution and life origin disciplines. He would rather see ALL science destroyed than to have evolution proven true and therefore the bible fairy tales proven false.

    That is his ONLY agenda.

    He could care less about th ...[text shortened]... ganda in schools, a criminal act designed to self mutilate even more young impressionable minds.
    Then I would like him to try to prove you wrong.
  10. Joined
    06 Mar '12
    Moves
    625
    09 Apr '14 13:49
    Originally posted by FabianFnas
    Then I would like him to try to prove you wrong.
    He will disappoint, as always.
  11. Joined
    11 Nov '05
    Moves
    43938
    09 Apr '14 14:08
    Originally posted by humy
    He will disappoint, as always.
    ... as always.
  12. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12728
    09 Apr '14 14:56
    Originally posted by DeepThought
    There is nothing said about raising taxes to make public money available to be spent on verifying known results. The point was that dubious results mislead because of not being verified.

    You have no sense of humour.

    Use a dictionary for the definition of the weasel words.

    No I got the meaning of weasel words right ther ...[text shortened]... t on the last point.

    No I didn't read the original article. I was commenting on your post.
    "Too many" means too numerous to number.

    This is a place to state opinions on science, so you are welcome to disagree with my quoted expert source of information.
  13. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12728
    09 Apr '14 14:58
    Originally posted by FabianFnas
    I asked you a question, RJHinds, did you miss that?

    Here it is again:
    Do you yourself, RJHinds, agree to all this, and understand all its implication?
    Or have you just copied it in here, without understanding it all?
    Yes.
    No.
  14. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12728
    09 Apr '14 15:01
    Originally posted by FabianFnas
    ... as always.
    Some people are always disappointed if others disagrees with them.
  15. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12728
    09 Apr '14 15:04
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    Do you realize his main agenda with all this? To belittle science, to weaponize pseudoscience, he never left his main goal to destroy evolution and life origin disciplines. He would rather see ALL science destroyed than to have evolution proven true and therefore the bible fairy tales proven false.

    That is his ONLY agenda.

    He could care less about th ...[text shortened]... ganda in schools, a criminal act designed to self mutilate even more young impressionable minds.
    My ONLY agends is to get to the truth.
Back to Top