Is most published research wrong?

[Kott]

go away troll - :troll:

Go away devil you have nothing in me.

 

[Nick M]

For those of us in Delmar's now huge weekly weigh in thread, this applies. I remember reading in Dr Atkins book a comment about doing the same research studies over and over because people don't get the results they wanted. Same with cholesterol. In addition to man made global warming not existing and macro-evolution still having never been observed.

 

[6days]

Is most published research wrong?

Much of what has been published about 'historical science' (stellar evolution, common ancestry, abiogenesis, etc) is wrong due to 'reinforcement syndrome'. It is an identified problem where beliefs / hypothesis is reinforced by a researcher who selectively uses data to fit the belief. Data, or interpretations that do not support the belief is rejected. (Reasons for rejecting include words like error in measurement, contamination, anomaly etc).

Example 1... Looks like dino, but it's bird.
Here is a quote from an evolutionist who admits fossilized footprints sure look like a dinisaur; but then says they can't be a dinosaur because they are not in the geological layer his belief system requires...
"In rocks of Mesozoic age, tracks of this size and shape would likely be interpreted as having been made by a small dinosaur, but during the Cenozoic Era, the track maker could only have been a giant ground dwelling bird". (In USA Paleontogy 2012 article titled 'Giant Eocene bird footprints from northwest Washington)


Example 2...Looks like bird, but its dino.
In 2002 fossilzed bird tracks were found in Argentina in rock dated as Late Triassic. However, evolutionists don't believe birds existed then, so they said the footprints must be from birdlike dinosaurs.
(2002 in journal 'Nature', article titled 'Bird-like fossil footprints from the Late Triassic). Perhaps these evolutionists later realized the circular logic they had used, so they then found a dating method that allowed them to say the bird tracks were made by birds. They upped the date by about 180 million years. (2013 in 'Nature', article titled 'A Late Eocene date of Late Triassic birds tracks)

 

[gcthomas]

Much of what has been published about 'historical science' (stellar evolution, common ancestry, abiogenesis, etc) is wrong due to 'reinforcement syndrome'. It is an identified problem where beliefs / hypothesis is reinforced by a researcher who selectively uses data to fit the belief. Data, or interpretations that do not support the belief is rejected. (Reasons for rejecting include words like error in measurement, contamination, anomaly etc).

Example 1... Looks like dino, but it's bird.
Here is a quote from an evolutionist who admits fossilized footprints sure look like a dinisaur; but then says they can't be a dinosaur because they are not in the geological layer his belief system requires...
"In rocks of Mesozoic age, tracks of this size and shape would likely be interpreted as having been made by a small dinosaur, but during the Cenozoic Era, the track maker could only have been a giant ground dwelling bird". (In USA Paleontogy 2012 article titled 'Giant Eocene bird footprints from northwest Washington)


Example 2...Looks like bird, but its dino.
In 2002 fossilzed bird tracks were found in Argentina in rock dated as Late Triassic. However, evolutionists don't believe birds existed then, so they said the footprints must be from birdlike dinosaurs.
(2002 in journal 'Nature', article titled 'Bird-like fossil footprints from the Late Triassic). Perhaps these evolutionists later realized the circular logic they had used, so they then found a dating method that allowed them to say the bird tracks were made by birds. They upped the date by about 180 million years. (2013 in 'Nature', article titled 'A Late Eocene date of Late Triassic birds tracks)

This 2002 paper argued that the Triassic bird like prints were indeed made by early birds.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v417/n6892/full/nature00818.html

Can it be that your cut n paste from the web had presented a less than honest overview of the science?

 

[6days]

This 2002 paper argued that the Triassic bird like prints were indeed made by early birds.

False.....
They say it looks like a duck..it walks like a duck...but it's a dinosaur.
Or, if you want their exact wording they say The bird like footprints were from "Late Triassic theropods".
Also, like I said, they mention the 2013 retraction of the 2002 article.

Can it be that your cut n paste from the web had presented a less than honest overview of the science?

I'm quite certain that if I had cut and pasted, you would have found the proof and cried to mommy. Can it be GC has a severe case of reinforcement syndrome that was mentioned earlier?

 

[Stripe]

Read the paper, it'll save you from drawing incorrect conclusions from a brief YouTube summary.

Nope.

You don't get to make things up.

Sent from my SM-G9250 using TheologyOnline mobile app

 

[gcthomas]

Nope.

You don't get to make things up.

Sent from my SM-G9250 using TheologyOnline mobile app

You should learn to read, Stripe. Is that why you have to rely on second hand info from YouTube videos? You are making a fool of yourself to anyone who can read what you will not. Again. Every time a science topic comes up you have to resort to zero content posts to cover up your ignorance - you never learn.

 

[Stripe]

You should learn to read, Stripe. Is that why you have to rely on second hand info from YouTube videos? You are making a fool of yourself to anyone who can read what you will not. Again. Every time a science topic comes up you have to resort to zero content posts to cover up your ignorance - you never learn.

Nope.

Making things up is not acceptable.

 

[Stripe]

It quite clearly applies particularly to unrelated, statistical, low power and marginal p value research.

Nope:

There is increasing concern that most current published research findings are false. The probability that a research claim is true may depend on study power and bias, the number of other studies on the same question, and, importantly, the ratio of true to no relationships among the relationships probed in each scientific field. In this framework, a research finding is less likely to be true when the studies conducted in a field are smaller; when effect sizes are smaller; when there is a greater number and lesser preselection of tested relationships; where there is greater flexibility in designs, definitions, outcomes, and analytical modes; when there is greater financial and other interest and prejudice; and when more teams are involved in a scientific field in chase of statistical significance. Simulations show that for most study designs and settings, it is more likely for a research claim to be false than true. Moreover, for many current scientific fields, claimed research findings may often be simply accurate measures of the prevailing bias. In this essay, I discuss the implications of these problems for the conduct and interpretation of research.

And you made up a whole lot of stuff that simply isn't true:

I've always argued for verification experiments in the Creation/Evolution thread, but Stripe rejected that approach for the radiodating discussion preferring an unverified, underpowered measurement whilst ignoring the repeatedly verified findings.

Nope.

 

[gcthomas]

Nope:

There is increasing concern that most current published research findings are false. The probability that a research claim is true may depend on study power and bias, the number of other studies on the same question, and, importantly, the ratio of true to no relationships among the relationships probed in each scientific field. In this framework, a research finding is less likely to be true when the studies conducted in a field are smaller; when effect sizes are smaller; when there is a greater number and lesser preselection of tested relationships; where there is greater flexibility in designs, definitions, outcomes, and analytical modes; when there is greater financial and other interest and prejudice; and when more teams are involved in a scientific field in chase of statistical significance. Simulations show that for most study designs and settings, it is more likely for a research claim to be false than true. Moreover, for many current scientific fields, claimed research findings may often be simply accurate measures of the prevailing bias. In this essay, I discuss the implications of these problems for the conduct and interpretation of research.

And you made up a whole lot of stuff that simply isn't true:


Nope.

Why did you not notice this part of the abstract?

Published research findings are sometimes refuted by subsequent evidence, with ensuing confusion and disappointment. Refutation and controversy is seen across the range of research designs, from clinical trials and traditional epidemiological studies [1–3] to the most modern molecular research [4,5].

ALL of these techniques are for BIOMEDICAL research.

The paper was published in PLOS MEDICINE journal, and written by a Professor of Medicine and of Health Research and Policy at Stanford University School of Medicine.

This criticism does not apply to non-statistically determined science: relativity, tectonics, chemistry, radioactivity and nuclear physics, most palaeontology, radiodating of rocks and fossils, etc.

Learn to read, Stripe.

 

[Stripe]

This criticism does not apply to non-statistically determined science: relativity, tectonics, chemistry, radioactivity and nuclear physics, most palaeontology, radiodating of rocks and fossils, etc.

We know why you leap to a new accusation when called on your first set of lies.

6:40.

Making stuff up doesn't help.

 

[chair]

We know why you leap to a new accusation when called on your first set of lies.

6:40.

Making stuff up doesn't help.

Stripe,

He didn't make anything up, and there is no accusation there.
I did not use statistics of the type described in my doctorate (physical chemistry), and I am not unusual in that regard.

 

[gcthomas]

We know why you leap to a new accusation when called on your first set of lies.

6:40.

Making stuff up doesn't help.

Oh dear Stripe. You shouldn't parade your ignorance with such a fanfare.

The video at the point you indicate mentions particle physics, the empirical aspects of which are determined statistically from massively repeated experiments. You will note that I carefully excluded particle physics from my list of sciences that the paper does not apply to, since it is blindingly obvious that experimental particle physics is in a different category.

I am concerned, Stripe, that you resort to accusations of lying so quickly when a likely reason for your disagreement is your lack of physics knowledge. It is an odd characteristic you have that when you are arguing about physics with a physicist, you automatically assume that your naïve intuition must be the more accurate.

As with many things, Stripe, you know little and understand less. You should show more humility.

 

[6days]

Oh dear Stripe. You shouldn't parade your ignorance with such a fanfare.
.....
As with many things, Stripe, you know little and understand less. You should show more humility.

GC..... Are YOU willing to show a little humility? It would seem you are the one who "parades ignorance with fanfare". You repeat claims you know are false (IE Suggesting Piltdown was not used in textbooks. You previously had been shown that was false). You parade your frustration by falsely accusing others of cut and paste. GC....Instead of all the rah rah fanfare for evolutionism, why not show a little humility once in awhile and admit others are correct?
GC... Can you admit to the same thing you accuse Stripe of... that there are many things you know little about, and understand less...but still like to give your opinions on?

 

[gcthomas]

You repeat claims you know are false (IE Suggesting Piltdown was not used in textbooks. You previously had been shown that was false).

I was claiming that Piltdown was not used as evidence of evolution, and I just put the request for mentions of Piltdown in textbooks as a low bar of entry for the others to have a go at — it took YOU a long time to get past your embarrassing early attempts, so I was making it easy. Even your rather limited list of mentions includes NOT ONE that USES Piltdown Man as supporting evidence of evolution: they merely make the attempt to place Piltdown in a timeline context. But you ignore that critical failing.

Don't forget that the accusations of cut'n'paste against you were the result of you posting book titles that had NO MENTION of Piltdown, suggesting that you hadn't checked them before you posted the references. That is a poor rhetorical technique, and it opened you up to claims of poor character.

GC... Can you admit to the same thing you accuse Stripe of... that there are many things you know little about, and understand less...but still like to give your opinions on?

There are indeed many things I know little about. Current pop music (eugh), evangelist religio-political dogma, the fundamentals of basket weaving, most cooking techniques and how to coach a rugby team are mostly beyond my comprehension and I steer clear of these topics on ToL. But in the fields of Physics, Geology and the scientific method, I am waaaay ahead of both you and Stripe. Stripe continues to persist in appallingly low quality arguments that even a casual acquaintance with the science would have prevented, so he really should stick to things he is an expert in. Rugby administration, perhaps, or English teaching, whatever. But you are out of your depths with the science of the reality you have so little contact with. I haven't worked out what you are expert in yet, if anything.

 

[6days]

I was claiming that Piltdown was not used as evidence of evolution.....

That is dishonest of you.
Piltdown was used as evidence of common ancestry evolution in the media, science journals and textbooks. False histories, relatives and timelines were all used. Your suggestion that Piltdown might not be found in even one textbook was dishonest since you previously posted a copy yourself of a textbook that used Piltdown...in addition to the others you were shown previously.

Don't forget that the accusations of cut'n'paste against you were the result of you posting book titles that had NO MENTION of Piltdown

You are dishonest. Laughably so.
No... Actually, you often seem frustrated and try dismiss others by saying they are cut and pasting. You did it in this thread...nothing at all to do with Piltdown.

Take your suggestion... Show some humility

 

[gcthomas]

That is dishonest of you.
…
Take your suggestion... Show some humility

You add nothing but bile to any discussion.

 

[Stripe]

He didn't make anything up.

Sure, he did. I quoted it. He ignored it and skipped to something else.

There is no accusation there.

Of course there is.

I did not use statistics of the type described in my doctorate (physical chemistry), and I am not unusual in that regard.

Good for you.

However, if you think your anecdote eliminates the problem described in the video, it shows that you did not understand it.

Oh dear Stripe. You shouldn't parade your ignorance with such a fanfare.

:yawn:

The video at the point you indicate mentions particle physics.

Exactly. The video describes a problem common to all scientific research. That's why he went to the effort of saying it was not limited as you insist.

The empirical aspects of which are determined statistically from massively repeated experiments.

Therefore, something... :idunno:

You will note that I carefully excluded particle physics from my list of sciences that the paper does not apply to, since it is blindingly obvious that experimental particle physics is in a different category.

Not according to the guys who made the video. :idunno:

I am concerned, Stripe, that you resort to accusations of lying so quickly when a likely reason for your disagreement is your lack of physics knowledge. It is an odd characteristic you have that when you are arguing about physics with a physicist, you automatically assume that your naïve intuition must be the more accurate. As with many things, Stripe, you know little and understand less. You should show more humility.

:yawn:

And amid your desperate push to malign me, you've exposed your ignorance. The video does not describe a physics problem.

 

[gcthomas]

Stripe,

He didn't make anything up, and there is no accusation there.
I did not use statistics of the type described in my doctorate (physical chemistry), and I am not unusual in that regard.

Do you think that Stripe thinks that his style of argumentation is actually similar to that used by scientists and that he is making winning points? Or do you think that he knows he is passing a continuous stream of falsehoods to preach to the choir, so to speak, and doesn't mind how he looks to ordinary educated, thoughtful people?

 

[Stripe]

Do you think that Stripe thinks that his style of argumentation is actually similar to that used by scientists and that he is making winning points? Or do you think that he knows he is passing a continuous stream of falsehoods to preach to the choir, so to speak, and doesn't mind how he looks to ordinary educated, thoughtful people?

:yawn:

Sent from my SM-G9250 using TheologyOnline mobile app