3 ms·
The scientific method has advanced so far in the past century that any new "breakthrough" without proper empirical evidence and due process of science makes me
by kunai 13y ago
The scientific method has advanced so far in the past century that any new "breakthrough" without proper empirical evidence and due process of science makes me feel like it's just quack science.
Forget about the journals, forget about peer review, just have evidence. Anecdota have proven to be very unreliable in critical testing scenarios.
- beagle3 13y agoSo has so called "evidence". Can't google right now, but recently someone tried and failed to reproduce ~60% of celebrated cancer results published in Science & Nature from the last 20 years. Also, ionaddis has shown most published research in medicine and nutrition to be wrong. "Publish or perish" has replaced the gold of gold standard with tungsten, with everyone related aware of it, but no one doing anything about it.
- zxcdw 13y agoI remember the amount of non-reproducible research was as high as 90 %? Google returns some hits from May 7th(and I remember the HN post from around a month ago, we talk about the same thing I think) or so with that title, but perhaps the actual number is somewhere between 60 and 90 %?
- beagle3 13y agoYou're right, I was misremembering. http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/28/us-science-cancer-idUSBRE82R12P20120328 http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/28/us-science-cancer-... Thanks for correcting - it was much worse than I remembered.