4 ms·

I think we're passed the point where studies can be reproduced effectively. I actually think the scientific model is falling apart. We've discovered the easy th

by jbob2000 9y ago

I think we're passed the point where studies can be reproduced effectively. I actually think the scientific model is falling apart. We've discovered the easy things, and those studies were easy to reproduce. We built a model of science around the low hanging fruit. How are you going to reproduce a study about a cancer drug? Synthesizing the drug itself is a huge endeavor, never mind finding a group of participants with the exact cancer you need. How would you reproduce the Large Hadron Collider experiments? You'd need to rebuild one of the most technically challenging, most expensive scientific instruments ever made.

SubiculumCode 9y ago
Cost aside you make a good point. In today's science we are trying to uncover subtle effects with much more noise.
lotsofpulp 9y ago
There's enough resources to conduct multiple wars and bailout the financial industry every 10 years, but not enough resources to educate our fellow citizens and fund research? (with all results open and accessible to all through this fancy thing called the internet) Our problem isn't lack of resources. There's 7.5 billion people in the world, I can't believe we've ran out of control groups and experiments to do. Maybe it's a little more difficult with medical edge cases, but there's plenty of other things to research. It's just hard to do it politically, especially with people that are "anti-science", meaning against funding research that might show outcomes that aren't good for them economically, or against their religion.
haZard_OS 9y ago
> I actually think the scientific model is falling apart. You must have a totally different definition of "the scientific model" than I do. I suspect (although I could be wrong) is that you have an oversimplified view of just what the scientific process is. The scientific model/process is not a linear list of discrete steps moving from "Ask a question" to "Communicate results"; it is not a discrete and static set of criteria we apply to individual experiments or instrument output. Berkeley University does a good job of providing visualizations on this topic: http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/howscienceworks_02 http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/howscienceworks_02
- jbob2000 9y ago
  Ok, I read your link. I still think my comments stands. My argument would be that the "Community Analysis and Feedback" section is practically impossible to maintain. Back in early science days, this used to be a valuable section because the pool of "scientists" was huge and they often crossed disciplines. Now you have all sorts of specialties such that the pool of colleagues who are able to understand and assess your work might be, like, 8 people. There was a Japanese mathematician who recently put out a huge proof that claimed to solve a major math problem (I am forgetting all of the important details here, so forgive me). The news wasn't so much that he created the proof, but that they couldn't find anyone to verify it!

SubiculumCode 9y ago

Cost aside you make a good point. In today's science we are trying to uncover subtle effects with much more noise.

lotsofpulp 9y ago

There's enough resources to conduct multiple wars and bailout the financial industry every 10 years, but not enough resources to educate our fellow citizens and fund research? (with all results open and accessible to all through this fancy thing called the internet) Our problem isn't lack of resources. There's 7.5 billion people in the world, I can't believe we've ran out of control groups and experiments to do. Maybe it's a little more difficult with medical edge cases, but there's plenty of other things to research. It's just hard to do it politically, especially with people that are "anti-science", meaning against funding research that might show outcomes that aren't good for them economically, or against their religion.

haZard_OS 9y ago

> I actually think the scientific model is falling apart. You must have a totally different definition of "the scientific model" than I do. I suspect (although I could be wrong) is that you have an oversimplified view of just what the scientific process is. The scientific model/process is not a linear list of discrete steps moving from "Ask a question" to "Communicate results"; it is not a discrete and static set of criteria we apply to individual experiments or instrument output. Berkeley University does a good job of providing visualizations on this topic: http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/howscienceworks_02 http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/howscienceworks_02

jbob2000 9y ago
Ok, I read your link. I still think my comments stands. My argument would be that the "Community Analysis and Feedback" section is practically impossible to maintain. Back in early science days, this used to be a valuable section because the pool of "scientists" was huge and they often crossed disciplines. Now you have all sorts of specialties such that the pool of colleagues who are able to understand and assess your work might be, like, 8 people. There was a Japanese mathematician who recently put out a huge proof that claimed to solve a major math problem (I am forgetting all of the important details here, so forgive me). The news wasn't so much that he created the proof, but that they couldn't find anyone to verify it!