Casual Discussion Science Forum @scivillage

Full Version: Science Isn’t Broken
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/scie...nt-broken/

EXCERPT: [...] From 2001 to 2009, the number of retractions issued in the scientific literature rose tenfold. It remains a matter of debate whether that’s because misconduct is increasing or is just easier to root out. Fang suspects, based on his experiences as a journal editor, that misconduct has become more common. Others aren’t so sure. [...]

If you follow the headlines, your confidence in science may have taken a hit lately.

Peer review? More like self-review. An investigation in November uncovered a scam in which researchers were rubber-stamping their own work, circumventing peer review at five high-profile publishers.

Scientific journals? Not exactly a badge of legitimacy, given that the "International Journal of Advanced Computer Technology" recently accepted for publication a paper titled “Get Me Off Your F###ing Mailing List,” whose text was nothing more than those seven words, repeated over and over for 10 pages. Two other journals allowed an engineer posing as Maggie Simpson and Edna Krabappel to publish a paper, “Fuzzy, Homogeneous Configurations.”

Revolutionary findings? Possibly fabricated. In May, a couple of University of California, Berkeley, grad students discovered irregularities in Michael LaCour’s influential paper suggesting that an in-person conversation with a gay person could change how people felt about same-sex marriage. The journal Science retracted the paper shortly after, when LaCour’s co-author could find no record of the data.

Taken together, headlines like these might suggest that science is a shady enterprise that spits out a bunch of dressed-up nonsense. But I’ve spent months investigating the problems hounding science, and I’ve learned that the headline-grabbing cases of misconduct and fraud are mere distractions. The state of our science is strong, but it’s plagued by a universal problem: Science is hard — really f###ing hard.

If we’re going to rely on science as a means for reaching the truth — and it’s still the best tool we have — it’s important that we understand and respect just how difficult it is to get a rigorous result. I could pontificate about all the reasons why science is arduous, but instead I’m going to let you experience one of them for yourself. Welcome to the wild world of p-hacking.....
P-hacking?  That’s an interesting term.  I’ve never heard it before. 

Data dredging?  Hmm...I’ll have to read up on it.

Thanks, CC!
(Aug 20, 2015 11:52 PM)C C Wrote: [ -> ]EXCERPT: [...] From 2001 to 2009, the number of retractions issued in the scientific literature rose tenfold. It remains a matter of debate whether that’s because misconduct is increasing or is just easier to root out. Fang suspects, based on his experiences as a journal editor, that misconduct has become more common. Others aren’t so sure. [...]

Peer review? More like self-review. An investigation in November uncovered a scam in which researchers were rubber-stamping their own work, circumventing peer review at five high-profile publishers.

Scientific journals? Not exactly a badge of legitimacy, given that the "International Journal of Advanced Computer Technology" recently accepted for publication a paper titled “Get Me Off Your F###ing Mailing List,” whose text was nothing more than those seven words, repeated over and over for 10 pages...

Revolutionary findings? Possibly fabricated.

Science isn't Broken.

Or maybe it is.

http://www.scivillage.com/thread-1290-po...ml#pid2839