Re: Why Most Published Research Findings Are False

From: Michael Roberts <michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk>
Date: Thu Sep 08 2005 - 17:08:06 EDT

I am surprised that no one has picked Bob up on this . does everyone agree or is Bob just a leftie?

I consider this to be a very serious issue, but it treads on many toes.

Tonight a leading light of Christians in Science described ID to me as devilish and needing to be stamped under foot. Is he just another r Episcopalian leftie like Bob and myself?

Michael
  ----- Original Message -----
  From: Robert Schneider
  To: Michael Roberts
  Cc: asa@calvin.edu
  Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2005 12:13 PM
  Subject: Re: Why Most Published Research Findings Are False

  I agree, Michael, but I think, unfortunately, that the attitude toward scientists expressed in Janice's screed are all too common among ID supporters and reflect a growing anti-science movement in the US. Science has become enmeshed in the culture wars here. The inherent methodological skepticism that a scientist should bring to the reading of any published research is one thing. But what we have here, I think, is the creation of negative images of the scientific endeavor for the purposes of ideological agendas, and loaded rhetoric that characterizes any scientific hypotheses or research the anti-science people don't like with terms like "junk science" promoted by advocates of "the religion of scientism." As charges that the present US administration's ideologues have been manipulating scientific research, some by its own agencies, for its own purposes, e.g., in the controversy over global warming, becomes more of a public issue, you can bet that partisan attacks against the research and those who conduct it will grow. I think that the scientific community as a whole have been slow to respond to this state of affairs publically, for example it has taken a decade to wake up to the assault on mainstream science by the ID advocates and see the growing negative effects it has engendered in the American public. Public confidence in science in this country has eroded, perhaps for a number of reasons (e.g., the unintended negative effects of some technological applications of scientific discoveries; or technological applications that go against some peoples' religious beliefs), but one of them has been the conflict over evolution and ID and the success of the ID people in morphing sincere believers' apprehensions about evolution into a more general distrust of science. All of the above is, of course, MHO.

  Bob Schneider
    ----- Original Message -----
    From: Michael Roberts
    To: Pim van Meurs ; janice matchett
    Cc: asa@calvin.edu
    Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2005 1:55 AM
    Subject: Re: Why Most Published Research Findings Are False

    Wow! What utter nonsense
      ----- Original Message -----
      From: janice matchett
      To: Pim van Meurs
      Cc: asa@calvin.edu
      Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2005 12:45 AM
      Subject: Re: Why Most Published Research Findings Are False

      At 04:33 PM 9/4/2005, Pim van Meurs wrote:

        It pays off to read the paper in question as it presents a much better understanding as to why this is the case.

        The paper itself states " However, this should not be surprising. It can be proven that most claimed research findings are false."

        Interesting study which shows why science is such a challenging endeavor.

        *dila813 on http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1473915/posts explained it quite well*

        Pim

        What's your conclusion Janice?

      ## My conclusion? Follow the money. Money, power, and approval from their peers is what motivates those who engage in junk science and the religion of scientism. They outnumber serious scientists 99 to 1. Many of them teach their religion of scientism in science classes in the public schools.

      If children come out of the tax-payer funded schools believing that man will "destroy the planet" unless the USA signs the Kyoto "treaty", they have not learned "science" in science class.

      That is going to stop.

      Janice

        janice matchett wrote:

          Interesting article in case some haven't seen it. ~ Janice

          *Why Most Published Research Findings Are False
          *Published online 2005 August 30. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124.
          http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pubmed&pubmedid=16060722
          <http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pubmed&pubmedid=16060722>Copyright <http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/about/copyright.html>: 2005 John P. A. Ioannidis.

          The above was posted by me here in the thread below:
          http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1473915/posts?page=34#34

          *Most scientific papers are probably wrong
          <http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1473915/posts>**newscientist.com ^ <http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1473915//%5Ehttp://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7915> *| 02:00 30 August 2005 | Kurt Kleiner
          Posted on *08/31/2005 3:09:18 AM EDT* by *dila813
          *http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1473915/posts
Received on Thu Sep 8 17:11:32 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Sep 08 2005 - 17:11:32 EDT