Why Scientific Studies Are So Often Wrong

The Streetlight Effect

https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/why-scientific-studies-are-so-often-wrong-the-streetlight-effect

Kewpie and wildgrass are looking on the wrong side of the street where there is more light. Don't tell them that though, it makes them angry and they lash out at those telling them the truth.

@Metal-Brain
Lava flow in Iceland is why science is so often wrong?

Maybe you better check out your links before you make even more of a fool out of yourself.

@sonhouse said
@Metal-Brain
Lava flow in Iceland is why science is so often wrong?

Maybe you better check out your links before you make even more of a fool out of yourself.

Maybe you should read the whole link before making a fool out of yourself.

I think that there is truth in this, although I'm not sure if I would call it the street lighting effect.

One of the things that should always be looked at in studies, particularly of the clinical variety, is "who is funding this". If a pharmaceutical company sponsored a study which has the potential to impact on one of their products we would risk a bias being introduced into the process.

With any scientific study I think that it should always be established 1) Who is paying for it and 2) who will benefit.

@medullah said
I think that there is truth in this, although I'm not sure if I would call it the street lighting effect.

One of the things that should always be looked at in studies, particularly of the clinical variety, is "who is funding this". If a pharmaceutical company sponsored a study which has the potential to impact on one of their products we would risk a bias being introduced ...[text shortened]... study I think that it should always be established 1) Who is paying for it and 2) who will benefit.

..and that is exactly why authors have to declare "conflict of interest". At least in the last few years.

@medullah said
I think that there is truth in this, although I'm not sure if I would call it the street lighting effect.

One of the things that should always be looked at in studies, particularly of the clinical variety, is "who is funding this". If a pharmaceutical company sponsored a study which has the potential to impact on one of their products we would risk a bias being introduced ...[text shortened]... study I think that it should always be established 1) Who is paying for it and 2) who will benefit.

Absolutely correct. And what's most alarming is that no mainstream news media even dares to question any conflict-of-interest of 'experts' regarding any medical-related issue these days. But once you find out who now owns or influences the news media, it's not surprising at all.

@metal-brain said
The Streetlight Effect

https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/why-scientific-studies-are-so-often-wrong-the-streetlight-effect

Kewpie and wildgrass are looking on the wrong side of the street where there is more light. Don't tell them that though, it makes them angry and they lash out at those telling them the truth.

If you think this shows that science in general is wrong or unreliable, then you don't understand how science works. Peer review is an essential part of the process. Science is a self-correcting endeavour which never arrives at absolutes, nor pretends to.

@moonbus said
If you think this shows that science in general is wrong or unreliable, then you don't understand how science works. Peer review is an essential part of the process. Science is a self-correcting endeavour which never arrives at absolutes, nor pretends to.

I never said "in general".
Nice try though.

@metal-brain said
I never said "in general".
Nice try though.

Your title is "Why Scientific Studies Are So Often Wrong", which strongly suggests you think science is more often wrong than not.

I found the article superficial. It makes general statements based on a few specific, and apparently randomly chosen, studies. Here is one of the general statements: "Many, and possibly most, scientists spend their careers looking for answers where the light is better rather than where the truth is more likely to lie." Sorry, but the assertion is simply is not borne out by the author's selection of examples. Moreover, the examples he cites are all over the map, but not one of them is thorough: he lurches form Vitamin D to cardiology to Einstein to what killed the dinosaurs.

Another quote from the article: "Mice in particular let researchers extract all sorts of exceptionally clean measurements without complaint. Yet it is a well-documented fact that mouse research often translates poorly to human results." Yup, well-documented. That's how science works; you submit a study for publication, it get peers reviewed. Someone else tries to duplicate the results or improve the accuracy of the first study, and so on.


Concluding quote: "How are we supposed to cope with all this wrongness? Well, a good start would be to remain skeptical about the great majority of what you find in research journals and pretty much all of the fascinating, news-making findings you read about in the mainstream media, which tends to magnify the problems. (Except you can trust DISCOVER, naturally. And believe me, there is no way this article is wrong, either. After all, everything in it is backed by scientific studies.)

Maybe we should just keep in mind what that Einstein fellow—you know, the one who messed up that electron experiment—had to say on the subject: “If we knew what we were doing, it wouldn’t be called research, would it?" "

So, the rational thing to do is to keep on publishing studies, keep on peer-reviewing, keep on trying to duplicate results and improve accuracy, that's how science works. Once in a while a bridge falls down, that's true, and every bridge will fall down someday if it is not properly maintained, but it would be wrong to conclude that most bridges fall down because of faulty science. But that is what this article strongly suggests. What a load of hooey.

@moonbus said
Your title is "Why Scientific Studies Are So Often Wrong", which strongly suggests you think science is more often wrong than not.

I found the article superficial. It makes general statements based on a few specific, and apparently randomly chosen, studies. Here is one of the general statements: "Many, and possibly most, scientists spend their careers looking for answers w ...[text shortened]... wn because of faulty science. But that is what this article strongly suggests. What a load of hooey.

No, that is not what it suggests. Read the article, the whole article.

@metal-brain said
No, that is not what it suggests. Read the article, the whole article.

I did, and I quoted from it. It's superficial bosh.

Here's science getting it right, and spectacularly so:

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-56951752

@moonbus said
I did, and I quoted from it. It's superficial bosh.

Here's science getting it right, and spectacularly so:

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-56951752

Here's science getting it wrong, and spectacularly so:

https://dissidentvoice.org/2020/08/lancetgate-why-was-this-monumental-fraud-not-a-huge-scandal/

Shall we do this every day until you admit your bias is superficial bosh? I can do that. Can you?

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/14/health/virus-journals.html

@Metal-Brain
It doesn't matter much what ANYONE says, you will 'prove' them wrong with some OTHER conspiracy BS website.

@sonhouse said
@Metal-Brain
It doesn't matter much what ANYONE says, you will 'prove' them wrong with some OTHER conspiracy BS website.

You are very good at trolling. Keep it up, I know practice makes perfect.