Most scientific papers are probably wrong

Quote:

---

Odds get even worse for studies that are too small...

---

That´s not correct. Small sample sizes make it difficult to find significant results, but if significant results are found they have the same probability as those of large sample sizes. In fact, a study is more convincing if strong effects are found with small sample sizes. With sample sizes that are large enough, you can prove anything.

In general, the article just addresses some problems with scientific research, but presents no facts. To show that most papers are probably wrong, you would have to take a sample of papers test it and show that most of them are wrong. Thus, the correct conclusion of the presented argumentation would have been "most scientific papers are possibly wrong".

Quote:

---

Religion, on the other hand, seeks to provide answers which may not then be refuted or argued against and are from then on assumed to be the one and only ultimate truth, unchangeable, and infallible;

---

Then what do theologians do? They study scriptures to find the truth. The Roman Catholic church and christianity itself have also changed over the years to fit new ideas . Science also SEEKs the ultimate truth. There is no PROOF its any more correct than religion.

Quote:

---

the religious try to change the question to conform to the answer they wish to hear.

---

And scientists dont?

When it comes to science nothing is a fact or a certainty, merely likely or unlikely. This is pretty much the first thing I learned in exact subjects at school, and a lot of people and many scientists would do well to remember this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

Then what do theologians do? They study scriptures to find the truth. The Roman Catholic church and christianity itself have also changed over the years to fit new ideas . Science also SEEKs the ultimate truth. There is no PROOF its any more correct than religion.

And scientists dont?

---

No, they don't. If you don't grasp the basic idea of the scientific method, the refutability of the theory, then there is little I can do to explain why science if different from religion. Based upon observation, scientists formulate a hypothesis (a question) and make deductions based upon those observations to formulate a theory (an answer to the question). The theory is then tested by making predictions based upon the theory and performing experiments to test the predictions. Those experiments must then be repeatable - in other words the possibility for refutation must exist. A theory which can't be refuted is not a scientific theory (i.e. Intelligent Design), it's a supposition. A theory which can't be repeatedly tested and refuted is not a scientific theory, it's a philosophical statement. Science does not change the question when the facts refute the theory. The theory and the question are not the same thing. "Proven" does not mean incontrovertably true and unchanging in the scientific method. Proven merely means that it fits the observations and the hypothesis and the current theory predicts the results in a repeatable manner. The whole point of the scientific method is that the theory can be proven wrong based upon observable results.

Religion makes suppositions based upon untestable hypothesis which can't be refuted because they can't be tested. Saying that god exists is no different than saying that invisible aliens exist in another dimension that can't be seen or interacted with in anyway - ever. No observable results which can't be explained in other ways. No refutable predictions. Just philosophical suppositions and wishful thinking.

To put it more simply:

Science asks "why does this happen?"

Religion asks "wouldn't it be nice if...?"

You just dont get it. Science is based on nothing more than faith that what we observe is correct. The fact that these facts keep changing as new questions are asked seems to slip right by you.

Geoffrey S summed it up pretty well

Quote:

---

When it comes to science nothing is a fact or a certainty, merely likely or unlikely. This is pretty much the first thing I learned in exact subjects at school, and a lot of people and many scientists would do well to remember this.

---

Science is like gambling. It just says at the moment the odds are in favor of this hypothisis.

But again on things like global warming there are papers to support both points of view. They cant all be correct. People on both sides quote these reports, how shall I say it? "RELIGOUSLY"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

Quote:

---

As Keynes said, "When facts change, I change my mind. What, sir, do you do?"

---

Then I suggest they were not FACTS.

---

Big G, I think you know very well that Keynes wasn't talking about facts like what did you have for breakfast. He was talking about finding out more about a situation.

For instance it might be a fact that you shot an unarmed man dead. I hypothesise that you are a murderer. Further investigation reveals the man was beating your old ma to death at the time. I change my hypothesis.

And the problem is?

Well, I did try to explain it. :wall:

Quote:

---

Science is based on nothing more than faith that what we observe is correct.

---

Riiiiight....

Skipping right over the fact that science has given us a whole bunch of concepts (bacteria, atoms, the mandlebrot set) that in fact can't be observed directly, whereas the humanly limited religous imagination has given us nothing remotely so creative (I give you a black hole, you give me a man in red face paint and call it the devil), how do you suggest we live our lives if we DON'T make the assumption that what we observe is correct?

Anyway, every time I cross the road I put that assumption to the test and its not failed me yet.

An underlying theme to this thread could be…

Don’t believe everything you read. ~;)

I'd bloody well expect them to be wrong mostly. That's the whole point of science. If they were always 100% right then there wouldn't be any progress or anything.

Quote:

---

I'd bloody well expect them to be wrong mostly. That's the whole point of science. If they were always 100% right then there wouldn't be any progress or anything.

---

So perfection is to be avoided. Maybe thats why god made man imperfect.

I thought He made us in His image?

Quote:

---

I thought He made us in His image?

---

Nobodies perfect. ~D

~;) I thought that by definition God is perfect?

Interesting idea actually. If God is perfect, and He made us in His image, even with free will why would a perfect being committ sin?

It all goes back to Epimenides' paradox .

Nonsense. Epimenides' paradox was him, as a Cretan, saying that all men of Crete are liars. That's Epimenides' paradox. This applies to the original story in your original post, in which a scientific paper in a scientific journal states that all scientific papers are wrong. A nice example of Epimenides' paradox; and the cretin (pun intended) who wrote the paper probably didn't even realize he was doing it at the time. Sad, very sad. What does that have to do with a perfect god creating imperfect humans in his image? Nothing.

Quote:

---

in which a scientific paper in a scientific journal states that all scientific papers are wrong.

---

Well show me where it said all scientific papers are wrong? ~:confused:

Epimenides' paradox

Quote:

---

Consider Statement A.

Statement A: "Statement A is not true."

Is Statement A true?

Statement A is not true. Argument 1 explains why.

Argument 1:
SUPPOSE Statement A is true.
Then the proposition that Statement A states is true.
But Statement A states that Statement A is not true.
So, Statement A is not true, contrary to our initial supposition.
So, IN FACT, Statement A is not true.

Unfortunately, Statement A can't be not true either.

Argument 2:
2.1 SUPPOSE Statement A is not true.
2.2. Then the proposition that Statement A states is not true.
2.3 But Statement A states that Statement A is not true.
2.4 So Statement A is not not true, contrary to our initial supposition.
2.5 So, IN FACT, Statement A is not not true.

Your mind should be blown. You should not be saying, "That's puzzling." You should be saying, "My mind is exploding."

---

Now if this dsent seem similar to

God is perfect and made man. But god made man who is imperfect. If god made man in his image how can man be imperfect unless of course god is imperfect.

Last try. The head beating on the wall is giving me a headache and showing no results. :wall:

The paper states that most scientific papers are wrong. You are correct. My error in wording. If most scientific papers are wrong then odds are that this scientific paper is wrong. If this scientific paper is wrong then most scientific papers are right, which means that odds are that this scientific paper is right, and so on, ad infinitum. That is Epimenides' paradox, in reverse actually. Rather than statement A: "This statement is true." you have statement A: "this statement is false." which is the same paradox backwards. ~D

"God is perfect and created imperfect man in his image" is a paradoxical statement, yes. It isn't Epimenides' paradox. Not all paradoxical statements are the same. Zeno's paradox also has nothing to do with Epimenides; but it's still a paradox. Get it? :smash:

Quote:

---

If most scientific papers are wrong then odds are that this scientific paper is wrong

---

This isnt a scientific paper but a statistical anaylisis. The stats prove most scientific papers are wrong.

Heh. Whatever you say, Gawain. Aside from the fact that you have been arguing against statistics in the global warming threads (but I probably should just ignore that, eh?), you've succeeded only in restating my point while attempting to redefine the question to suit your answers. How religious of you.

What, exactly, is difference between your assertion that statistical analysis isn't science and Bill Clinton making an assertion about the definition of the word "is"? It depends on what the definition of the word "is" is! It depends on what the definition of the word science is!

On that note, I give up.

Quote:

---

Aside from the fact that you have been arguing against statistics in the global warming threads

---

No just certain statistics. I quote ones that refute those I dissagree with. Again we cant all be correct. Its like one of my favorite sayings. No matter how much knowledge man has and how well you educate everyone at least half the population will be of below average intelligence.

The level of statistical significance isnt the problem. Most research attempts to achieve at 95 or 99% level of certainty, and this is adequate to ensure that the findings are not the result of random error.

If you think that 1 in 20 is good odds, try to win money on a roulette table by betting your money split between two numbers (the odds for hitting one number in American casinos is 1/37, hitting a split number is close to 1/18.5 which is close to 1/20. You'll not make much cash at this game, because 1 in 20 is really poor odds, and 1 in 100 (99%) is worse.

No, the real problem with most faulty research lies in the bias of the researcher finding its way into the results. Pharmaceutical scientists finding their new drug is safe, or McDonalds researchers finding the Big Macs don't really cause that much more artery clogging than a Whooper does.

It's not science that is faulty, it is the people who claim to do science that is the weak point.

87% of all Americans know that, based on my research, which consisted of thinking about what others might say if I got up from the game and went outside and asked them.

ichi :bow: