5 ms·

>the median scientific paper is wrong. Are you being literal about that or is that just a figure of speech? Could you please provide a source for those claims

by JD557 10y ago

>the median scientific paper is wrong. Are you being literal about that or is that just a figure of speech? Could you please provide a source for those claims, if true?

lkbm 10y ago
I assume he's alluding to Ioannidis's 2005 paper "Why Most Published Research Findings Are False"[0] and/or the replication crisis[1] in general. [0] http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124 http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/jou... [1] http://www.nature.com/news/1-500-scientists-lift-the-lid-on-reproducibility-1.19970 http://www.nature.com/news/1-500-scientists-lift-the-lid-on-...
- PaulHoule 10y ago
  Partly that and also based on my experience getting a PhD in physics where I found: (i) published physics papers with 30 pages of math in them frequently had errors, (ii) if you have a large number of signs the odds are 50-50 you will get the sign right in a long calculation, and (iii) you can't say high energy physics papers are "right" or "wrong" anyway... I mean, does anybody think we really live in an anti-DeSitter space? Medicine on the other hand has the problem that you can't really afford large enough sample sizes to have sufficient statistical power.
  - nonbel 10y ago
    >"Medicine on the other hand has the problem that you can't really afford large enough sample sizes to have sufficient statistical power." This really isn't the major problem w/ modern medical research. In fact, if they had properly powered studies there would be far too many "discoveries" and the real problem would become obvious. The real issue is that the efforts to come up with and study models capable of precise predictions (eg Armitage-Doll, SIR, Frank-Starling, Hodgekin-Huxly) have been all but choked out in favor of people testing the vague hypothesis "there is a correlation". There is always some effect/correlation in systems like the human body, so it is only a matter of sample size. As explained long ago by Paul Meehl, this is a 180 degree about-face from what was previously called the scientific method: http://www.fisme.science.uu.nl/staff/christianb/downloads/meehl1967.pdf http://www.fisme.science.uu.nl/staff/christianb/downloads/me...

by JD557 10y ago

>the median scientific paper is wrong. Are you being literal about that or is that just a figure of speech? Could you please provide a source for those claims, if true?

lkbm 10y ago

I assume he's alluding to Ioannidis's 2005 paper "Why Most Published Research Findings Are False"[0] and/or the replication crisis[1] in general. [0] http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124 http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/jou... [1] http://www.nature.com/news/1-500-scientists-lift-the-lid-on-reproducibility-1.19970 http://www.nature.com/news/1-500-scientists-lift-the-lid-on-...

PaulHoule 10y ago
Partly that and also based on my experience getting a PhD in physics where I found: (i) published physics papers with 30 pages of math in them frequently had errors, (ii) if you have a large number of signs the odds are 50-50 you will get the sign right in a long calculation, and (iii) you can't say high energy physics papers are "right" or "wrong" anyway... I mean, does anybody think we really live in an anti-DeSitter space? Medicine on the other hand has the problem that you can't really afford large enough sample sizes to have sufficient statistical power.
- nonbel 10y ago
  >"Medicine on the other hand has the problem that you can't really afford large enough sample sizes to have sufficient statistical power." This really isn't the major problem w/ modern medical research. In fact, if they had properly powered studies there would be far too many "discoveries" and the real problem would become obvious. The real issue is that the efforts to come up with and study models capable of precise predictions (eg Armitage-Doll, SIR, Frank-Starling, Hodgekin-Huxly) have been all but choked out in favor of people testing the vague hypothesis "there is a correlation". There is always some effect/correlation in systems like the human body, so it is only a matter of sample size. As explained long ago by Paul Meehl, this is a 180 degree about-face from what was previously called the scientific method: http://www.fisme.science.uu.nl/staff/christianb/downloads/meehl1967.pdf http://www.fisme.science.uu.nl/staff/christianb/downloads/me...