Most scientific papers are probably wrong

**Gawain of Orkeny** · 09-01-2005, 15:28

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

Then I suggest they were not FACTS.

**Aenlic** · 09-01-2005, 16:00

The difference is that science attempts to find answers to the best degree of accuracy available, while acknowledging that the answers may not be complete and may change based upon new data.

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; and when questions provoke answers which disagree with the one and only ultimate infallible truth, the religious try to change the question to conform to the answer they wish to hear.

**Gawain of Orkeny** · 09-01-2005, 16:10

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.

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

And scientists dont?

**Geoffrey S** · 09-01-2005, 16:11

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.

**Aenlic** · 09-01-2005, 16:35

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...?"

**Gawain of Orkeny** · 09-01-2005, 16:45

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

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"

**Aenlic** · 09-01-2005, 16:56

Well, I did try to explain it.

**English assassin** · 09-01-2005, 17:53

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.

**yesdachi** · 09-01-2005, 17:54

An underlying theme to this thread could be…

Don’t believe everything you read.

**A.Saturnus** · 09-01-2005, 16:02

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".

**English assassin** · 09-01-2005, 16:56

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

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?