if 61% of psych experiments cant be reproduced...

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

  • No ad networks!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • danb

    dont be a dumbass
    Feb 24, 2013
    22,704
    google is your friend, I am not.
    https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-bad-is-the-governments-science-1523915765

    For a 2015 article in Science, independent researchers tried to replicate 100 prominent psychology studies and succeeded with only 39% of them.


    In 2012 the biotechnology firm Amgen tried to reproduce 53 “landmark” studies in hematology and oncology. The company could only replicate six.


    If you cant believe these, there is about a 99% chance Bloomturds paid propaganda is wrong too.

    And no i dont support gov gun studies, because this. Any conclusion gets a gov imprimatur, but its probably wrong.
     

    Jim12

    Let Freedom Ring
    MDS Supporter
    Jan 30, 2013
    33,876
    If it can't be replicated, isn't it considered theoretical?
     

    DanGuy48

    Ultimate Member
    Interesting info, and distressing. A lot of people aren’t aware of this aspect of scientific investigation, this need to verify and to attempt to falsify. It is one thing that makes scientific progress slow. If these recent survey articles are correct, that there really this much irreproducible science being published, then there’s obviously not enough verifying/falsifying going on.

    I think part of it is that salami science has become the norm. I mean that researchers tend to slice their publications into the minimal amount necessary to get published. This makes these individual articles rather mundane and maybe not many people want to waste their time checking them. I remember one researcher, when I was looking into how he performed a certain immune technique, had published 3 different papers, in 3 different journals describing the same exact experiment. The only difference was that he used different signals for each (immunofluorescence, immunoperoxidase and immunoglobulin by EM). That should have been one paper but he gets 3 more papers on his bibliography instead of one more. I have no idea how often he did that.
     

    Huckleberry

    No One of Consequence
    MDS Supporter
    Oct 19, 2007
    23,316
    Severn & Lewes
    Did they test the probability of answers for the most common question that most Psych majors ask?

    Would you like fries with that?
     

    danb

    dont be a dumbass
    Feb 24, 2013
    22,704
    google is your friend, I am not.
    Interesting info, and distressing. A lot of people aren’t aware of this aspect of scientific investigation, this need to verify and to attempt to falsify. It is one thing that makes scientific progress slow. If these recent survey articles are correct, that there really this much irreproducible science being published, then there’s obviously not enough verifying/falsifying going on.

    I think part of it is that salami science has become the norm. I mean that researchers tend to slice their publications into the minimal amount necessary to get published. This makes these individual articles rather mundane and maybe not many people want to waste their time checking them. I remember one researcher, when I was looking into how he performed a certain immune technique, had published 3 different papers, in 3 different journals describing the same exact experiment. The only difference was that he used different signals for each (immunofluorescence, immunoperoxidase and immunoglobulin by EM). That should have been one paper but he gets 3 more papers on his bibliography instead of one more. I have no idea how often he did that.

    Thats actually pretty common break your PhD dissertation into 2 or 3 publishable papers.

    The real questions. . Did he get the same answer 3 times, and did he cite himself. :lol2:

    Sad , but probably the answer is no and yes.
     

    5.56blaster

    Ultimate Member
    Eggs are bad, no their good now. Artificial sweetners are good, now they cause cancer. Global warming, I was driving in snow flurries in Westminster today. I did some work with a guy from the EPA one time and he said that if they came up with real answers and solutions to problems they wouldn't get anymore money. That's a hint. All you need to do is watch The Big Bang Theory to see this in action.
     

    jrumann59

    DILLIGAF
    MDS Supporter
    Feb 17, 2011
    14,024
    *****Demonstrably False. There's an old YouTube video clearly showing that someone put a gun to his head before he said that... ;) (Too soon???)

    You are thinking Abe Lincoln, he refered to Abe Lincon who was a central American speaker related to Cerwin Vega...
     

    teratos

    My hair is amazing
    MDS Supporter
    Patriot Picket
    Jan 22, 2009
    59,775
    Bel Air
    People are no longer as interested in data integrity. They want "studies" that support their views. It used to be that guys like.....oh, I don't know.....I'll pick a name out of the air......Daniel Webster with the Bloomberg School of Public Health, would be shunned if they couldn't testify to their findings under oath. Now, it is ignored.
     

    RoadDawg

    Nos nostraque Deo
    Dec 6, 2010
    94,189
    #YaJussGottaLuvScience....

    Say it...
    Write it...
    Publish it...
    Get peers to agree with it...

    It becomes "Scientific Theory".

    Now... that is not "regular theory"... no... it must now be believed and accepted as truth...

    Because... well...

    IT'S SCIENTIFICALLY ACCEPTED!
     

    sxs

    Senior Member
    MDS Supporter
    Nov 20, 2009
    3,378
    Anne Arundel County, MD
    Remembering my Psych and Abnormal Psych courses from 40 years ago, many of the theories revolve around statistical data and not replicatable experimentation. Nothing I have read in intervening years suggests that has changed. As such, it really isn't a 'hard science' like physics. Furthermore, all to often, the fact that correlation doesn't always equal causation gets lost on the general public....and sometimes in the community of those conducting the studies as well.
     

    rob

    DINO Extraordinaire
    Oct 11, 2010
    3,099
    Augusta, GA
    Remembering my Psych and Abnormal Psych courses from 40 years ago, many of the theories revolve around statistical data and not replicatable experimentation. Nothing I have read in intervening years suggests that has changed. As such, it really isn't a 'hard science' like physics. Furthermore, all to often, the fact that correlation doesn't always equal causation gets lost on the general public....and sometimes in the community of those conducting the studies as well.
    You are not taking into account modern liberal scientific method.
    1. Pick your cause.
    2. Determine which outcome is desired.
    3. Design a study which backs that outcome.
    4. Publish your study showing all conservatives are evil.

    Sent from my SM-T320 using Tapatalk
     

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Latest posts

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    274,943
    Messages
    7,259,752
    Members
    33,350
    Latest member
    Rotorboater

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom