Wall Street Journal- Most published science studies found to be wrong

[Immortal4life]

Wall Street Journal- Most published science studies found to be wrong

 

A lot of people these days it seems, like to take concepts like "science" and 'logic" as if they are tangible laws and not just illusions. But isn't that the biggest illusion of all? That you can somehow transcend the limitations of the human mind and ego and somehow understand truth or the real nature of something by somehow implementing protocols and doing little "controlled scientific experiments"? The mind is always the ruler, and yet human minds as they are born into the earth plane are bound by limitations at every turn. You can't eliminate the effect of the mind on reality and it's surroundings no matter how hard you try, as there is also the subconcious mind and the inner being. In addition to that Parasychology has proven humans can project images and thoughts to other humans minds, and that human minds and thoughts effect random particle generation making it not so random.

 

Most Science Studies Appear to Be Tainted By Sloppy Analysis

Science Journal - WSJ.com

http://www.marginalrevolution.com/margin....ost_publis.html

Writing in PLoS Medicine, John Ioannidis says:

 

There is increasing concern that in modern research, false findings may be the majority or even the vast majority of published research claims. However, this should not be surprising. It can be proven that most claimed research findings are false.

[Encephalon]

Wall Street Journal- Most published science studies found to be wrong

 

A lot of people these days it seems, like to take concepts like "science" and 'logic" as if they are tangible laws and not just illusions. But isn't that the biggest illusion of all? That you can somehow transcend the limitations of the human mind and ego and somehow understand truth or the real nature of something by somehow implementing protocols and doing little "controlled scientific experiments"? The mind is always the ruler, and yet human minds as they are born into the earth plane are bound by limitations at every turn. You can't eliminate the effect of the mind on reality and it's surroundings no matter how hard you try, as there is also the subconcious mind and the inner being. In addition to that Parasychology has proven humans can project images and thoughts to other humans minds, and that human minds and thoughts effect random particle generation making it not so random.

 

Most Science Studies Appear to Be Tainted By Sloppy Analysis

Science Journal - WSJ.com

http://www.marginalrevolution.com/margin....ost_publis.html

 

I think you've completely missed the whole point of the article. This is not an indictment of the scientific method; it's an observation of how rampant are the flawed research practices of human beings.

 

Judging by the points you've made in other posts as well as this one, your agenda seems plain enough; you fancy yourself as a one-man crusader out to undermine the world scientific communty and have us replace it with metaphysics and superstition. Attributing the earthquake in Japan to "Gaia," the living earth who's taking out her wrath on the human race, was not only idiotic but profoundly vulgar and beneath the measure of wisdom and clear thinking that must be summoned to address this tragedy. New Age bullshit doesn't have a lot of utility here.

 

Sorry for not being more diplomatic, but not all of us in here are uneducated idiots looking for the hippest new mythology. I appreciate your heartfelt desire to update our ruling paradigm, but this is accomplished by transcending the paradigm, not going back to the Pre-Copernican era and looking for shortcuts around it.

 

If this is genuinely an interest of yours, as I believe it is, then there's no way around reading Thomas Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. We all had to read it in college. You will too.

 

Sincerely,

Blasto, the presumptous and pedantic asshole from hell

[Ken]

Well done, you nailed it completely! There is nothing more infuriating to me than new age superstitious asshats spewing their bullshit on the web.

 

I think you've completely missed the whole point of the article. This is not an indictment of the scientific method; it's an observation of how rampant are the flawed research practices of human beings.

 

Judging by the points you've made in other posts as well as this one, your agenda seems plain enough; you fancy yourself as a one-man crusader out to undermine the world scientific communty and have us replace it with metaphysics and superstition. Attributing the earthquake in Japan to "Gaia," the living earth who's taking out her wrath on the human race, was not only idiotic but profoundly vulgar and beneath the measure of wisdom and clear thinking that must be summoned to address this tragedy. New Age bullshit doesn't have a lot of utility here.

 

Sorry for not being more diplomatic, but not all of us in here are uneducated idiots looking for the hippest new mythology. I appreciate your heartfelt desire to update our ruling paradigm, but this is accomplished by transcending the paradigm, not going back to the Pre-Copernican era and looking for shortcuts around it.

 

If this is genuinely an interest of yours, as I believe it is, then there's no way around reading Thomas Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. We all had to read it in college. You will too.

 

Sincerely,

Blasto, the presumptous and pedantic asshole from hell

[Immortal4life]

I think you've completely missed the whole point of the article. This is not an indictment of the scientific method; it's an observation of how rampant are the flawed research practices of human beings.

 

What I wrote is not necessarily specifically regarding the article.

 

The article just adds to the evidence, that many ideas people today have about reality and science are faulty, have holes, and can be twisted.

 

This Wall Street Journal article exposes but only one flaw in modern science and modern thinking that can be transcended and overcome. This however is not the only flaw.

 

And think about it...."the flawed research practices of human beings"....you can blame it all on "practices", but who was it that created the methodology in the first place? Human Beings. The Human Mind, with it's limited perception, and limited capacity. The source is flawed, the method is limited, and the result is flawed.

Edited March 16, 2011 by Immortal4life

[Enishi]

Over time as countless peer reviewed research studies are done accurate truths and theories which "work" in terms of the present data tend to crystallize more. When stuff first comes out and gets reported in a sensationalized manner you will tend to see more errors however.

[joeblast]

The important part is that errors are recognized as such and that groupthink and ideology are not allowed to surpass reason in assessing situations.

 

You can absolutely include the IPCC's reports in these flawed studies.

[zerostao]

"science is as much a faith based belief system as any other organized religion"

is this clearer? i am not stating this altho i agree 100%. i am repeating it. the person who said it was Paul Davies

Edited March 16, 2011 by zerostao

[joeblast]

riiiight, so if you dont believe it then its not true? disregard empirical results?

[Otis]

Wall Street Journal- Most published science studies found to be wrong

 

A lot of people these days it seems, like to take concepts like "science" and 'logic" as if they are tangible laws and not just illusions. But isn't that the biggest illusion of all? That you can somehow transcend the limitations of the human mind and ego and somehow understand truth or the real nature of something by somehow implementing protocols and doing little "controlled scientific experiments"? The mind is always the ruler, and yet human minds as they are born into the earth plane are bound by limitations at every turn. You can't eliminate the effect of the mind on reality and it's surroundings no matter how hard you try, as there is also the subconcious mind and the inner being.

There's an ironic contradiction in your post.

 

You write that sloppy analysis is a problem in science; fine.

 

However, the empirical method is the least sloppy process we have, thus far. Parapsychology, by contrast, is usually based on the sloppiest analyses possible.

 

If you think that science isn't going far enough, then become a scientist, and try to improve the rigors of testing. But if you just don't like science, don't try to discredit it with "sloppiness", because all other opinion is based upon far sloppier methods.

 

It's like creationists complaining that Evolution is just a "theory", although their alternative doesn't even rise to that level; it's just wishful thinking.

Edited March 16, 2011 by Otis

[zerostao]

I think you've completely missed the whole point of the article. This is not an indictment of the scientific method; it's an observation of how rampant are the flawed research practices of human beings.

 

Judging by the points you've made in other posts as well as this one, your agenda seems plain enough; you fancy yourself as a one-man crusader out to undermine the world scientific communty and have us replace it with metaphysics and superstition. Attributing the earthquake in Japan to "Gaia," the living earth who's taking out her wrath on the human race, was not only idiotic but profoundly vulgar and beneath the measure of wisdom and clear thinking that must be summoned to address this tragedy. New Age bullshit doesn't have a lot of utility here.

 

Sorry for not being more diplomatic, but not all of us in here are uneducated idiots looking for the hippest new mythology. I appreciate your heartfelt desire to update our ruling paradigm, but this is accomplished by transcending the paradigm, not going back to the Pre-Copernican era and looking for shortcuts around it.

 

If this is genuinely an interest of yours, as I believe it is, then there's no way around reading Thomas Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. We all had to read it in college. You will too.

 

Sincerely,

Blasto, the presumptous and pedantic asshole from hell

Blasto the presumptous i presume?

just a couple of things here, otherwise a really great post

first i look at flawed research practices of human beings. are scientists presumed to be human beings?

the world scientific community self undermines enough already, there is no need for outside crusaders.

science TRIES to offer plausible explanations for events, things, phenomena,etc scientists do not speak in terms of this shall be this way and only this.

uneducated idiots as opposed to what/ educated idiots?

above may be debatable idk. but you mentioned thomas kuhn who himself mentions "we can never fully rely on full objectivity"

in fact he suggests the opposite of what you suggests he suggests. he is more well known for his sociology and philosphy than of his physcis. further he says in his commensurabilty/incommesurbility concept that "there is no way in which one can compare them to each other in order to determine which is accurate"

reductio ad absurdum

his entire idea IS to shift the paradigm. so , is this just more new agey bullshit or wth ? reading a book and understanding a book/2 different things

Blasto, tell me you posted this in jest , just curious if anyone out here knew any better or not? right?

why do so many take SCIENCE so seriously? the scientists really don't.

[Encephalon]

What I wrote is not necessarily specifically regarding the article.

 

The article just adds to the evidence, that many ideas people today have about reality and science are faulty, have holes, and can be twisted.

 

This Wall Street Journal article exposes but only one flaw in modern science and modern thinking that can be transcended and overcome. This however is not the only flaw.

 

And think about it...."the flawed research practices of human beings"....you can blame it all on "practices", but who was it that created the methodology in the first place? Human Beings. The Human Mind, with it's limited perception, and limited capacity. The source is flawed, the method is limited, and the result is flawed.

 

 

The fact that we haven’t fully figured out the universe is not the problem. You could probably argue that we are beginning to see the limits of Newtonian physics, but that is no reason to go online and throw salvos at the scientific method and preach metaphysics.

Ecology is a subject better suited to the understanding of conditions on our planet as it is teeming with life, but this actually obliges us to be even more tenacious with the scientific method, but deployed in the service of biological science, in addition to the tools of Newtonian discoveries.

 

An important part of the appeal of Taoism is the discovery that ancient Taoists conceived of essential ecological facts that have been corroborated by modern science, but they did so by refining their powers of intuition. Anyone not heartened and overwhelmed with encouragement by this simple fact is missing the boat. The implication is that we do possess another means of more deeply understanding our world without jettisoning our rational faculties. “The Web of Life” by Fritjof Capra is a modern classic that details this phenomenon. “The Dharma of Natural Systems” by Joanna Macy, “A Buddhist History of the West” by David Loy, “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions” by Thomas Kuhn, and “The Passion of the Western Mind” by Richard Tarnas all contribute powerfully to this understanding, and those are just four titles that I’ve read. There are hundreds more on the subject.

 

I honor your desire to see the world healed, and as you have correctly intuited, this will require a better understanding of it, but your prescription of throwing the baby out with the bathwater to make room for metaphysical speculation doesn’t seem all that viable to me.

Edited March 16, 2011 by Blasto

[Encephalon]

Blasto the presumptous i presume?

just a couple of things here, otherwise a really great post

first i look at flawed research practices of human beings. are scientists presumed to be human beings?

the world scientific community self undermines enough already, there is no need for outside crusaders.

science TRIES to offer plausible explanations for events, things, phenomena,etc scientists do not speak in terms of this shall be this way and only this.

uneducated idiots as opposed to what/ educated idiots?

above may be debatable idk. but you mentioned thomas kuhn who himself mentions "we can never fully rely on full objectivity"

in fact he suggests the opposite of what you suggests he suggests. he is more well known for his sociology and philosphy than of his physcis. further he says in his commensurabilty/incommesurbility concept that "there is no way in which one can compare them to each other in order to determine which is accurate"

reductio ad absurdum

his entire idea IS to shift the paradigm. so , is this just more new agey bullshit or wth ? reading a book and understanding a book/2 different things

Blasto, tell me you posted this in jest , just curious if anyone out here knew any better or not? right?

why do so many take SCIENCE so seriously? the scientists really don't.

 

 

I have to give Immortal4 credit; his writing is comprehensible, even if I find reason to disagree.

I agree that Kuhn seeks a paradigm shift.

[lazy cloud]

@zerostao, Does walking in circles contribute to talking in circles?

Sometimes I find it hard to follow exactly what you are trying to say.

 

Blasto did suggest that Kuhn does seek to transcend the paradigm.

 

Regardless of physics or metaphysics, preaching is probably not the best way to try and convey the message.

Obviously science is not Absolute. It does seem the more reasonable approach.

Edited March 16, 2011 by lazy cloud

[Immortal4life]

An important part of the appeal of Taoism is the discovery that ancient Taoists conceived of essential ecological facts that have been corroborated by modern science, but they did so by refining their powers of intuition.

 

Bingo. We have a winner.

 

This kind of gets to the matter at hand, and to the point I'm making.

 

So many people want to close their minds. They want to only believe in one way or the other. Some people will only believe in science. Others, only want to believe in intuition. In the end we need both, and not only do we need both, but eventually both these things must be integrated together if we are to ever get to any real truth.

Edited March 16, 2011 by Immortal4life

[zerostao]

[zerostao]

I have to give Immortal4 credit; his writing is comprehensible, even if I find reason to disagree.

I agree that Kuhn seeks a paradigm shift.

i hate the expression "my bad" but in this case it is very appropiate for me to say, my bad.

i totally misread Blasto's post. in fact we are more in agreement than not on this issue. i realize that would be hard for most to see due to my language skills.

i also respect Blasto for not responding harshly to me. even if he would have been perfectly right to do so.

as i take the one foot out of my mouth for my previous post , i will use the other foot to swiftly kick myself in the rear.

Thanks also to lazy cloud for pointing out my mistake to me. and hopefully Blasto understands and accepts my apology.

[lazy cloud]

Your welcome Zerostao.

[Encephalon]

i hate the expression "my bad" but in this case it is very appropiate for me to say, my bad.

i totally misread Blasto's post. in fact we are more in agreement than not on this issue. i realize that would be hard for most to see due to my language skills.

i also respect Blasto for not responding harshly to me. even if he would have been perfectly right to do so.

as i take the one foot out of my mouth for my previous post , i will use the other foot to swiftly kick myself in the rear.

Thanks also to lazy cloud for pointing out my mistake to me. and hopefully Blasto understands and accepts my apology.

 

No worries.

[Immortal4life]

[lazy cloud]

riiiight, so if you dont believe it then its not true? disregard empirical results?

To bring up Thomas Kuhn again as he is the fashionable example here. "It cannot be expected that 2 different scientists will make the same observations viewing the same empirical data/methods.

Even if there were agreed on methods of inference and interpretation , scientists will still most likely disagree on the findings."

Empirical results cannot be viewed as scientifically sound evidence.

I could bring forth scientist after scientist that would agree to this. The real heavy weight scientists whose names we all recognize.

So i wouldn't totally disregard empirical results but I certainly wouldn't put too much stock in it either.

[zerostao]

Wall Street Journal- Most published science studies found to be wrong

 

A lot of people these days it seems, like to take concepts like "science" and 'logic" as if they are tangible laws and not just illusions. But isn't that the biggest illusion of all? That you can somehow transcend the limitations of the human mind and ego and somehow understand truth or the real nature of something by somehow implementing protocols and doing little "controlled scientific experiments"? The mind is always the ruler, and yet human minds as they are born into the earth plane are bound by limitations at every turn. You can't eliminate the effect of the mind on reality and it's surroundings no matter how hard you try, as there is also the subconcious mind and the inner being. In addition to that Parasychology has proven humans can project images and thoughts to other humans minds, and that human minds and thoughts effect random particle generation making it not so random.

 

Most Science Studies Appear to Be Tainted By Sloppy Analysis

Science Journal - WSJ.com

http://www.marginalrevolution.com/margin....ost_publis.html

IF i am reading this right i think this shows a very good conceptual understanding in regards to "science". IMO some folks subsitute "science" to be their "religion". thus believing it is all knowing and never failing to yield the truth.

In regards to belief of scientific evidence look here at 1,2,3

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_proof

 

scientific method look here at 7,12,13,14,16 ,24

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method you will also notice paul feyerabend's

claim that the descriptions of scientific method have little relation to the ways

science is actually practiced.

 

Plato and his deductive reasoning according to carl sagan set science back at least 500 years.

Aristotle is actually the one where empiricism came from and he believed that universal truths could be reached via induction , which is more or less an educated guess.or at least intuitive.

fast forward up thru the 17th,18th,19th,centuries there is alot of debate about inductive,deductive,abductive reasonings, if any actually exist or not or if they need to be used in combination to be truly scientific. trying to improve on syllogism.

einstein really doesnt even come into play with this thread so i wont go into him.

even if many of his contemporaries do.

my scientist,ace in the hole cards are hiesenberg and schrodinger but i don't even have to play those cards on the table either.

i will play a joker tho, karl popper who is generally considered the or at least one of the greatest minds in science and philosophy and economics and well in the world of academicsof the 20th century .after his name are letters, and letters, fairly long strand of letters.

anyways karl popper see93,94,95,96,97 . to summarize >>there is no method for ascertaining whether a hypothesis is 'probable' or even probably true.

THAT SCIENCE IS FALLIBLE AND HOLDS NO AUTHORITY.

further in contrast to empiricist views he WELCOMED METAPHYSICS and gave qualified support to myth and psuedosciences.

i will point out on a side note here and of course it doesnt prove anything.

it was an astrologer that called this earthquake before it happened . no one in the scientific community even suggested an imminent danger.

so how can we dimiss the validity of a psuedoscience over "science"

 

Immortal4life is right on with this thread. i have not looked at his posts in other thread. this is a taoist philosophical site(i guess?) whatever that means anyways?

but go to a scientific site and try to make your claims in support of empirical evidence. you will go up against the science establishment , they do hold cards too.

practically it is trial and error that can be trusted to give consistent view of the long run. alot of trial and alot of errors.scientists play a game of going back and forth disproving the other scientists. hey , they make money at it. its a cool game.

so many looking at them as the high priests with all the answers.

[Seth Ananda]

Of course there are empirical results we can rely on every time, like potasium chloride and red phosphorous will explode when put together. Its just how it is.

Science is only a problem when It becomes fixed and dogmatic.

 

Science is also a measurement criteria that is constantly evolving, unlike religious or many metaphysical perspectives. This should be seen as a good thing, as it allows us to keep updating and learning, rather than stagnating under someones untested, written Law.

 

Often this loosness, say where scientists happily discard yesterdays 'truth' in favour of a newly discovered 'truth', is used as a weapon against them in an attempt to discredit them. If anything the fact that the theory's keep updating should show how good the scientific paradigm is, as a system capable of evolution.

 

That said, I still get frustrated at dogmatic science, when it starts to believe its current understanding is going to be 100% true forever. Fortunatly they have the scientific process to protect them from their own dogmatic One truth paradigms - which are probably just cultral echoes of the old religious one truth belief.

 

Also being a metaphysician I tend to believe that the Rational mind [and thus science] was a crucial development in Human evolution. Before this advance we existed in the pre rational mind set, which although probably had some great things going for it, also ment that If someone rocked up and said Muhumed [peace be upon him] just flew round a mountain on a horse, or Krishna held up a mountain with one finger, I would probably believe him.

I also tend to believe that we are evolving towards a new consciousness centered around knowing and other cool stuff, but this will in no way make the rational obslete. If anything each new stage enriches or further enlightens the prievious processes.

 

Anyway thats enough blah from me, lol.

[joeblast]

To bring up Thomas Kuhn again as he is the fashionable example here. "It cannot be expected that 2 different scientists will make the same observations viewing the same empirical data/methods.

Even if there were agreed on methods of inference and interpretation , scientists will still most likely disagree on the findings."

Empirical results cannot be viewed as scientifically sound evidence.

I could bring forth scientist after scientist that would agree to this. The real heavy weight scientists whose names we all recognize.

So i wouldn't totally disregard empirical results but I certainly wouldn't put too much stock in it either.

Good post, Seth

 

LC, consider context - your words are a little too inclusive - some things are known quite concretely, while others are known but theoretically. Dogma has no place in science; when it does, it becomes politics.

[Birch]

"Often this loosness, say where scientists happily discard yesterdays 'truth' in favour of a newly discovered 'truth', is used as a weapon against them in an attempt to discredit them. If anything the fact that the theory's keep updating should show how good the scientific paradigm is, as a system capable of evolution."

 

IMO unfortunately this is much more used "for" and "against" specific interests. Irony being scientists (mostly) work within a proper understanding of the "scientific method" whereas those upon whom results have the most impact do not.

There's been some great recent arguments for "ethical" science, including economics...

 

A great read is Jonathan Marks "Why I am not a scientist".

 

I'd love to see everyone learning the scientific method:-)

[ralis]

One quick example of pseudo scientific, unprovable, with no peer review is the "Jenny Cell." This is some gimmick where a device filled with water, will power an automobile forever. Free energy! People buy this stuff?

 

Purveyors of this sort claim to understand the innermost workings of zero point energy, whatever that is.

 

http://etheric.vpinf.com/prototypes-1.html