Let's face it: Most science is flawed

[ronburgundy]

I´ve never heard of this publication before, but after a quick glance... looks like a click-farm. All head-lines are sensationalist and overblown. I´ve seen worse. But also better.

Ok, shoot the messenger. Now, what about the message?
EB

The message is also terrible for the reason I explained above. Also, he isn't shooting the messenger, which means the one who merely delivered it, but highlighting the lack of credibility of the one who created the message. Such websites are known to manufacture attention grabbing hype as their source of profit, and such hype is incompatible with factual or reasoned analysis since the truth is rarely as attention grabbing as various distortions of it. With finite time, can be rational to use such facts about the source of a message to ignore the message until it comes from a more credible source that might have some interest in facts and reason.

 

[fromderinside]

I´ve never heard of this publication before, but after a quick glance... looks like a click-farm. All head-lines are sensationalist and overblown. I´ve seen worse. But also better.

Ok, shoot the messenger. Now, what about the message?
EB

Ah the messenger. Vox tars itself by rubbing itself up all shiny in the patina of the reputations of NYT and Economist.

Shoot the sunufabeatch.

 

[Kharakov]

Silly, why would you expect to find Jesus on a din of inequity like facebook?

Ah the *intellectualism* of atheists who cannot write simple English, substituting "inequity"
for iniquity. Almost as amusing as Isaac Asimov becoming an atheist because his prayer
to pass a science test was not "answered." Asimov also refused to fly in commercial aircraft,
another mark of his (wink, nudge) *rationality.*

heh heh heh

I am not laughing with atheists. I am laughing AT them.

You're such a jerk. I bet you laugh at puppies when they stumble and do something cute!

 

[bilby]

Silly, why would you expect to find Jesus on a din of inequity like facebook?

Ah the *intellectualism* of atheists who cannot write simple English, substituting "inequity"
for iniquity. Almost as amusing as Isaac Asimov becoming an atheist because his prayer
to pass a science test was not "answered." Asimov also refused to fly in commercial aircraft,
another mark of his (wink, nudge) *rationality.*

heh heh heh

I am not laughing with atheists. I am laughing AT them.

Well speaking for all atheists, (which I can do because our great and infallible leader, Isaac Asimov, is no longer alive to do so), I would like to say that we are deeply hurt by your mockery, not least because we are all desperately keen to earn your respect, but have sadly failed by allowing one of our number to commit a typographical error.

Of course, it is possible that Asimov was not speaking ex cathedra when he declared commercial aircraft unsafe, so with appropriate care to avoid heresy, I think most atheists are comfortable to go against his edict on that one. That is, those few of us who are left; because after we realised that you were laughing AT us, most of us immediately decided to convert to whatever batshit crazy denomination you represent.

That's the big problem with atheism; having a small number of powerful leaders who dictate exactly how we must all think leaves us open to cunning and cleverly crafted arguments such as the use of (wink nudge) to describe a trait that doesn't define us anyway.

Could the last atheist to convert please turn out the lights?

 

[ApostateAbe]

In an analysis of 300 clinical research papers about epilepsy — published in 1981, 1991, and 2001 — 71 percent were categorized as having no enduring value. Of those, 55.6 percent were classified as inherently unimportant and 38.8 percent as not new. All told, according to one estimate, about $200 billion — or the equivalent of 85 percent of global spending on research — is routinely wasted on flawed and redundant studies.​

So "redundant" science means "no enduring value." I want to stab the author and stab him again to be redundant.

 

[Juma]

In an analysis of 300 clinical research papers about epilepsy — published in 1981, 1991, and 2001 — 71 percent were categorized as having no enduring value. Of those, 55.6 percent were classified as inherently unimportant and 38.8 percent as not new. All told, according to one estimate, about $200 billion — or the equivalent of 85 percent of global spending on research — is routinely wasted on flawed and redundant studies.​

So "redundant" science means "no enduring value." I want to stab the author and stab him again to be redundant.

Why is it that people cite stuff but doesnt give the source? Pure evil?
Reference. Please!!!

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

Why is it that people cite stuff but doesnt give the source? Pure evil?
Reference. Please!!!

It's from the article in the op. The article, in turn, is referencing this: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23706263

 

[Shadowy Man]

How did Isaac Asimov die?

Hint: it wasn't in a commercial airplane crash.

 

[Daisy]

In an analysis of 300 clinical research papers about epilepsy — published in 1981, 1991, and 2001 — 71 percent were categorized as having no enduring value. Of those, 55.6 percent were classified as inherently unimportant and 38.8 percent as not new. All told, according to one estimate, about $200 billion — or the equivalent of 85 percent of global spending on research — is routinely wasted on flawed and redundant studies.​

So "redundant" science means "no enduring value." I want to stab the author and stab him again to be redundant.

Surely confirming (or not) previous notable studies that did advance the science (or seemed to) is an essential part of science.

Or, what Loren Pechtel said.

 

[Malintent]

In the preface of science textbooks there's usually an appeal to readers to report errors or omissions to the editor. There are also revisions and updates in each subsequent edition.

You'll never see this in religious writing.

Isn't the New Testament in effect a rewriting of the Old Testament? Isn't the Quran in effect a re-writing of the
Bible? You don't expect God to put a note explicitly saying so do you?

Also, the Bible is subject to reviews and new editions, all guided by the hand of God to be sure.

We don't see what we don't want to see.
A-men.
EB

I don't think that poster was referring to textbooks about religion. He specifically said that textbooks would have a note about corrections. Obviously (to me) he was referring to religious scripture. Does the Quran or any other bible have some statement on the inside cover that requests corrections to factual errors herein?

Regarding comments about that post that imply religious texts HAVE been modified from their original... those are unauthorized changes, not solicited by the original author, who almost always states the opposite... that this is the unchanging, perfect, word of god.

So cut the crap.

My favorite Jewish mother once said, "NEW testament? Any idiot can write a sequel"

 

[ronburgundy]

Isn't the New Testament in effect a rewriting of the Old Testament? Isn't the Quran in effect a re-writing of the
Bible? You don't expect God to put a note explicitly saying so do you?

Also, the Bible is subject to reviews and new editions, all guided by the hand of God to be sure.

We don't see what we don't want to see.
A-men.
EB

I don't think that poster was referring to textbooks about religion. He specifically said that textbooks would have a note about corrections. Obviously (to me) he was referring to religious scripture. Does the Quran or any other bible have some statement on the inside cover that requests corrections to factual errors herein?

Regarding comments about that post that imply religious texts HAVE been modified from their original... those are unauthorized changes, not solicited by the original author, who almost always states the opposite... that this is the unchanging, perfect, word of god.

So cut the crap.

My favorite Jewish mother once said, "NEW testament? Any idiot can write a sequel"

In fact, the NT very clearly states that everything in the OT is still perfectly true and valid.

In Matthew 5:17, Jesus says, "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them."

IOW the NT is not a revision and is a denial of any past errors, while at the same time says things that are logically contradictory to the OT and even other parts of the OT. Since religious ideas have no logical, empirical, or any other principled basis, there is no basis on which to say that any old ideas were wrong. Thus religion virtually never says this. Instead, religion just invents new or modified versions of ideas (on equally arbitrary basis) and puts them forth while simultaneously re-affirming old ideas that are in logical contradiction to the new. Again, since none of the ideas are based in application of reason, their logical incoherence is not viewed as a problem.