Scince Studies in Crisis?

[2timothy316]

So we know that science is not perfect. In fact we expect it not to be. But there is a big problem in the community that doesn't get talked about. Did you know that many conclusions are not products of real science at all? How do you feel about the following information?

Most scientists 'can't replicate studies by their peers'
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-39054778

Why should we care? As the article brings out in a quote by Dr Tim Errington who runs The Reproducibility Project, "It's worrying because replication is supposed to be a hallmark of scientific integrity." When integrity wanes the loss of trust soon follows.


"One research team just replicated 100 famous psychology studies, but found they couldn't reproduce about 60% of them."

Open Science Collaboration. "Estimating the Reproducibility of Psychological Science." Science, 28 Aug 2015.


"Another revisited 67 major drug studies, and found that about 75% didn't match their results."

Brian Owens. "Reliability of 'New Drug Target' Claims Called Into Question." Nature, 5 Sep 2011.


"Another team zeroed in on 53 recent cancer studies, and couldn't reproduce 47 of them."

Sharon Begley. "In Cancer Science, Many 'Discoveries' Don't Hold Up." Reuters, 28 Mar 2012.


"One estimate suggests that, in the U.S., we spend $28 billion a year on biomedical research that can't be reproduced."

"How Flawed Science Is Undermining Good Medicine," Morning Edition. NPR, 6 Apr 2017.

[Bust Nak]

How do you feel about the following information?

I feel resassured that science is working as intended. Scientists don't just pay lip service to repeatibility, it isn't just a buzz word, scientists actually try and replicate each other's experiment.

[2timothy316]

How do you feel about the following information?

I feel....

There's the problem.

People don't go to prove or replicate, they just feel. This is why so many scientific flawed studies are still injecting themselves into our lives, wasting time and energy as the facts show. Science is hardly science anymore...it's feelings.

[Bust Nak]

How do you feel about the following information?

I feel....

There's the problem.

People don't go to prove or replicate, they just feel. This is why so many scientific flawed studies are still injecting themselves into our lives, wasting time and energy as the facts show. Science is hardly science anymore...it's feelings.

Did you just asked me how I feel to make a point about feelings? The articles you posted are all about scientists actually proving and replicating experiments.

[Divine Insight]

So we know that science is not perfect. In fact we expect it not to be. But there is a big problem in the community that doesn't get talked about. Did you know that many conclusions are not products of real science at all? How do you feel about the following information?

What bothers me is how people haven't been properly educated in the different types of sciences. And this especially includes the actual scientists working in various fields.

For example, there is a major difference between the physical sciences and the social sciences. In fact, to be perfectly honest I have personally objected to calling psychology as "science" from quite early in my scientific education. I actually dropped out of a psychology class in college at one point because I was disgusted with just how "unscientific" their methods and conclusions actually were.

The discipline of psychology uses a LOT of subjective notions and even stereotyped assumptions. I don't personally place give psychology much merit as a "science". It's far more of a subjective field of study. I can see the reason they call it as "science". They do this because it's based on the scientific method of observation and drawing conclusions from what is being observed. However, in psychology what is being observed is often tainted by the subjective expectations and/or bias of the observer.

So in response to the following:

"One research team just replicated 100 famous psychology studies, but found they couldn't reproduce about 60% of them."

I'm not the least bit surprised, and ironically I would have actually predicted as much.

Also, when it comes to many biological studies I have personally objected to many of the methods used. These studies are often done in ways that can't be verified to actually be dependent upon the specific conditions that are being studied. The reason for this is because often times in the biological sciences there are simply too many factors involved to be able to create a dependable control.

Of course this isn't true of all experiments done in biology. But it's certainly true when scientists are observing large populations and trying to discover what factors might be contributing to a particular disease or disorder. There is a LOT of room for error on those types of studied. This isn't to say that such studies aren't useful. It's just that they aren't going to be dependable with a high percentage rate.

In fact, you need to also realize that many studies that are done using large populations actually have a percentage of reliability associated with them. And often times that percentage is quite low. For example if they perform a large study and get a result that is say 60% in favor of what they are hoping to show they may say that 60% is "statistically significant", because it's quite a bit more than 50/50.

I personally find these kind of studies based on probability and statistics to be extremely undependable. They also shouldn't even be called "scientific" studies, instead they should be called "Statistical studies".

So I object to a lot of things that are being called "scientific". Especially in the studies of psychology and things like cancer research in large populations.

~~~~~

Finally, what truly upsets me is that this sloppy use of the scientific method, especially when applied to something like psychology which is highly subjective, only comes back to reflect poorly on the physical sciences which are far more dependable and backed up by objective evidence, rather than by the subjective views of a particular psychologist or group of psychologists who view the world through their own biased lens.

~~~~~~

So yes, I agree that we need to be careful what we are calling "science".

The "science" of psychology is nowhere near the same as the physical sciences because psychology is based on highly subjective interpretations of observations.

I personally renounce psychology as a science entirely. Precisely because it is based on subjective opinions rather than on objective observations. It's certainly not a "physical science".

And I question the ability of things like cancer research done on large populations to be able to control the myriad of factors that may apply. These studies may produce some useful results that could suggest possible connections between the disease and a potential cause. But to think that this should be accepted as carved in stone is absurd. In fact, if you read these research papers carefully and look at their graphs, they will often reveal that their conclusions are based on very slight statistical differences that they proclaim to be "significant", but whether these small differences are truly significant or not is highly questionable. Especially when they can't control factors that they aren't even aware of.

So yeah, the kind of "sciences" that you have pointed to do not surprise me at all.

But to then think that this should automatically bring the physical sciences into question to the same degree is a grave mistake.

What you are pointing to are "poorly designed disciplines" that are too quick to call themselves "science". They often use experiments and studies that are not well-controlled or even well measured. And they also often use subjective observations that are highly tainted by personal or social bias, that they aren't taking into consideration.

So what I object to is not the "Physical Sciences" but the misuse of the term "science" in situations where subjective observations and statistical methods rule.

How can psychology be a "science" when the psychologist necessarily needs to make a lot of subjective assumptions about what they THINK they are observing?

Note: This is not to say that all psychological observations should be considered null and void. Some psychological studies are fare better controlled and objective than others. But my point is that in the field of psychology it's way too easy to get lost in subjective observations. (i.e. observations where the psychologists are imagining what they are observing by applying incorrect assumptions).

I know this for a fact, because when I took an introductory class on psychology I could instantly see that some of their assumptions were clearly wrong.

So I personally object to calling psychology a 'science'. In many cases it's a social field of study based on the subjective impressions of the psychologists who are doing the study. Possibly useful, but should not be taken as "scientifically definitive". That would be a mistake IMHO.

And the bad part of this is that when these "social sciences" fail, this only comes back to make the physical sciences look just as undependable which is a very incorrect conclusion.

So I'll be the first to accept that "psychology" is a pseudo science.

Possibly useful, but certainly not as dependable as the physical sciences.

[2timothy316]

How do you feel about the following information?

I feel....

There's the problem.

People don't go to prove or replicate, they just feel. This is why so many scientific flawed studies are still injecting themselves into our lives, wasting time and energy as the facts show. Science is hardly science anymore...it's feelings.

Did you just asked me how I feel to make a point about feelings? The articles you posted are all about scientists actually proving and replicating experiments.

Yet they are not being removed these drugs and flawed psychological practices are still in place. It because of the attitude of "I feel resassured that science is working as intended" is why nothing is changing and science is becoming less and less reliable.

[2timothy316]

[Replying to post 5 by Divine Insight]

Yet people say "I feel resassured that science is working as intended".

But it's not. It is actually going in the opposite direction. Real science is actually methodical and has a direction. Yet today people expect something new and exciting and will accept really anything they are told as long as it's new and exciting. Just slap a 'made by science' sticker on it. I can't count how many people jump so quickly for this stuff, it just makes me sad. MSGs, Gluten free, high fructose corn syrup, vaccines etc etc. I know of several people that are scared to death of those things though that none of the so-called negative affects of these things has never been reproduced. When we peel back the sticker we see most of the time some company paid for fudged results. People just jumping heard first because they "feel resassured that science is working as intended." But in reality science's good intentions is being dragged through the mud and a vast majority don't care. Just as long as it fits what they believe.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 1 by 2timothy316]

How do you feel about the following information?

This exact same subject referencing the same comments was posted here not too long ago (don't have time to search for it now) by another anti-science, anti-evolution, conspiracy theorist. Search for it and you can read all the responses then which I expect would just be duplicated here.

You don't seem to appreciate how science works. There are far more examples of valid, reproducible published scientific results than your short list of examples to the contrary, and we have the entire modern suite of technologies, medical treatments, better food supplies, etc. because of science and the scientific method put into operation.

How will the general community know about the research if it isn't published? Publication is what prompts other scientists to investigate the claims, try to reproduce them, etc. And it is not at all surprising that in some fields the number of questionable results from initial publications will be higher than in others. For example, are you surprised that some psychology(!) results aren't confirmed in first papers? Results from drug development and cancer research are less quantitatively predictable early on when new ideas are being tested than, for example, research into fundamental chemistry or particle physics which form the basis for more complex systems. So research papers from drug and cancer research would be expected to yield a greater percentage of papers that may need many iterations (ie. confirmation studies by many different research groups) to reach a final conclusion.

It used to be that a single "polymath" could make advances in many areas of the natural sciences. These days a Ph.D can be so focused you'd need hundreds of them to cover a field a wide as, say, chemistry (organic, inorganic, biological, analytical, physical, and all the subdivisions of each of these). But the process of publication of results, peer review, repeat until there is agreement and experimental confirmation is how it works. Eventually results stand up to hard scrutiny and experiment or they don't, and that path often takes many twists and turns along the way. But if I take an advil for my headache I can be pretty sure it will work and not kill me in the process.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 5 by Divine Insight]

For example, there is a major difference between the physical sciences and the social sciences.

I was typing my post when yours came in so didn't see it, but this is exactly the point I was trying to make. The "quantitativeness" of the physical sciences is far more than for the social sciences, so you'd certainly expect less quantitative consistency (and agreement) in the publications for the social sciences than in the physical.

[Divine Insight]

[Replying to post 5 by Divine Insight]

Yet people say "I feel resassured that science is working as intended".

But it's not. It is actually going in the opposite direction. Real science is actually methodical and has a direction. Yet today people expect something new and exciting and will accept really anything they are told as long as it's new and exciting. Just slap a 'made by science' sticker on it. I can't count how many people jump so quickly for this stuff, it just makes me sad. MSGs, Gluten free, high fructose corn syrup, vaccines etc etc. I know of several people that are scared to death of those things though that none of the so-called negative affects of these things has never been reproduced. When we peel back the sticker we see most of the time some company paid for fudged results. People just jumping heard first because they "feel resassured that science is working as intended." But in reality science's good intentions is being dragged through the mud and a vast majority don't care. Just as long as it fits what they believe.

Something you need to realize.

There are several elements at work here:

1. Science
2. Technology
3. Commercialization
4. Human Dishonesty

1. Science

Science itself is a method of inquiry that seeks to learn the true nature of what's actually going on.

As I say, the physical sciences (mainly Physics and Chemistry) are extremely dependable. They are based on objective measurements that can be dependably repeated.

The biological sciences become less dependable for the simple fact that biology become highly complex and extremely difficult to keep track of all observable. Biology is a fairly dependable science, especially when it gets closer to the molecular level (i.e. the simpler cases), but even biology becomes less dependable as the biological systems become more complex for the simple reason that it's more difficult to keep track of all influencing factors reliably.

When science is taken over to the social level such as in psychology, we're not only talking about a highly complex system (i.e. human behavior), but at this point we also move into the area where we need to start making a lot of subjective assumptions. We are FAR REMOVED from the original scientific method at this point.

Not to say that it has become totally useless, but clearly not nearly as dependable as the original physical sciences.

2. Technology

We must be VERY CAREFUL not to confuse technology with science.

For example science gave us E=mc² (i.e. the discovery that energy and mass are interchangeable via a precise mathematical relationship)

However, it was TECHNOLOGY that gave us nuclear power plants and nuclear bombs.

In other words, science cannot be "blamed" for how we actually use the discoveries of science. How we use these discoveries is up to us.

So science is not the same as technology. Although technology could not exist if we did not first have science. Still, they are two entirely different things that should not be confused.


3. Commercialization

Now we're moving into an area where technologies are being used to make a profit. And science is used for marketing and promotion. NOT for discovering the TRUTH of reality. So science is being abused by commercial industries to the nth degree.

4. Human Dishonesty

Need I even mention this factor? Commercial industries will abuse science to the nth degree to make a profit from the unwary, and it couldn't care less if it gives science a bad name in the process. In fact, Commercial industries often hire Technologists that they call "Scientists" to support their lies.

Anyone can obtain a degree in science and put on a white cloak. That doesn't make them an honest "scientist", it just enables them to get a high-paying job as a dishonest "technology" for an immoral company.

So you can hardly blame "science" for the misguided use of "technologists" by cut-throat companies who want to claim that their products are the best "Snake Oil" on the market.

Yet today people expect something new and exciting and will accept really anything they are told as long as it's new and exciting. Just slap a 'made by science' sticker on it. I can't count how many people jump so quickly for this stuff, it just makes me sad.

That's what these cut-throat dishonest companies are counting on. They prey on precisely this social factor.

By the way, I've said that psychology is a "pseudo science", but it does produce some reliable results. And one fact of social psychology is that people love DRAMA. Many people will create their own drama if it isn't being handed to them by dishonest companies trying to sell them the best snake oil on the market.

So don't blame science for the dishonesty of the commercialization of snake oil.