6 ms·
"The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample size
by sjwalter 5y ago
"The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness."
Richard Horton, current editor of The Lancet: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(15)60696-1/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6...
- sjwalter 5y agoThis is also especially ironic considering The Lancet published a totally fabricated study that supposedly demonstrated how dangerous a Trump-touted Covid treatment was. https://www.the-scientist.com/features/the-surgisphere-scandal-what-went-wrong--67955 https://www.the-scientist.com/features/the-surgisphere-scand...
- nimish 5y agoThe Lancet is no stranger to promoting pseudoscience. John Snow challenging the miasma theory of cholera really ground its gears. Plus ça change...
- magnetowasright 5y agoCan’t forget the Andrew Wakefield vaccine nonsense they platformed as well
- brutusborn 5y agoHe talks about the case against science as well as bad studies like they are the same thing. Science is simply a method that can be done well or badly. The bad studies aren't fundamental to science itself.
- zepto 5y ago> Science is simply a method that can be done well or badly Science as a word doesn’t typically denote “the scientific method”. It usually means the body of knowledge and the collective of institutions that claim to practice the method. The bad studies may not be fundamental to some abstract ideal of what science could be, but they seem pretty fundamental to humans doing science in the real world.
- brutusborn 5y agoI completely agree that the term science has many meanings which include the overall body of knowledge which includes bad studies. However I can't understand why bad studies would be fundamental to "humans doing science"? You don't need to take other research results as correct to do your own, so why does bad science need to be part of the mix? Can't we choose to ignore them or treat them with skepticism?
- zepto 5y ago> You don't need to take other research results as correct to do your own Usually you do need to rely on other people’s results.
- brutusborn 5y agoBut why? Is it because you can't tell good studies from bad? If so, doesn't that mean that you shouldn't be using these studies in the first place?
- zepto 5y agoIsn’t that the whole point? It does in fact seem that scientists in general are not good at telling good studies from had. Why would this be surprising?
- brutusborn 5y ago