Scientists Are Wrong All the Time, and That’s Fantastic

[Kbertsche]

The hyperbole is sfs1 and Kbertsche in overstating the issue of errors and humanness of the problems with science. Put this reference in perspective it would help to read the following neglected by Kbertsche. note highlighted.

Source: http://www.cs.princeton.edu/~ken/Langmuir/langmuir.htm

On December 18, 1953, Dr. Irving Langmuir gave a colloquium at the Research Laboratory that will long be remembered by those in his audience. The talk was concerned with what Langmuir called "the science of things that aren't so," and in it he gave a colorful account of several examples of a particular kind of pitfall into which scientists may sometimes stumble.

Langmuir never published his investigations into the subject of Pathological Science. A tape recording was made of his speech, but this has been lost or erased. Recently, however, a microgroove disk transcription that was made from this tape was found among the Langmuir papers in the Library of Congress, This disk recording is of poor quality, but most of what he said can be understood with a little practice, and it constitutes the text of this report.

A small amount of editing was felt to be desirable. Some abortive or repetitious sentences were eliminated. Figures from corresponding publications were used to represent his blackboard sketches, and some references were added for the benefit of anyone wishing to undertake a further investigation of this subject. The disk recording has been transcribed back onto tape, and a copy is on file in the Whitney Library.

Gratitude is hereby expressed to the staff of the Manuscript Division of the Library of Congress for their cooperation in lending us the disk recording so we could obtain the best possible copy of the Langmuir speech, and for providing access to other related Langmuir papers.

© Copyright Original Source

It is hyperbole and pulp fiction to refer to this reference to justify: "there is no reason science is wrong as often as it is," The statement itself is hyperbole,

As described before, there are very good reasons "science is wrong as often as it is." These reasons reflect the very fallible humanness of science. This does not take into
consideration the self-correcting nature of the methodology of science, which is very effective in correcting science over time.

Apparently you completely misunderstood or misconstrued what I wrote! Yes, there is a very good reason that "science is wrong as often as it is"--lack of rigor in doing science, especially in certain fields.

But even in the most rigorous of scientific disciplines, errors are sometimes made. I agree with you that these errors are eventually corrected. These errors often have common traits, explained by Langmuir, which should help us to spot them earlier.

Langmuir's classic talk in 1953 on "Pathological Science" is quite highly regarded in the world of experimental physics. It was reprinted by Physics Today in the wake of the "cold fusion" furor in the 1980s or 1990s. It was required reading of all his students by my PhD advisor (and I believe by his advisor). Yes, it is old, but its conclusions are timeless.

[Teallaura]

I could say the same about people dismissing an entire article because ecree is mentioned in a minor example.

You could and you'd be correct - but I didn't do that. I agreed with the main point, didn't I? I just stopped reading at the last paragraph where it was already repetitive and they'd thrown in ECREE which makes it hard to take anything else seriously anyway.

[sfs1]

Again, I disagree with your statement in conclusion, "there is no reason science is wrong as often as it is,"
There is good reason science is wrong as often as it is and I gave my reasoning. You are clearly over emphasizing the negative and not taking into the 'facts' that science is self-correcting over time to compensate for the fallible nature of human failings.

Sorry, but your reply does not reply to the argument. Do you agree or disagree that some fields of science could be wrong less often if they adopted different statistical standards?

The population as whole dominated in the population of modern humanity.

[/quote]
A claim without evidence, and that doesn't even answer the question.

[shunyadragon]

Sorry, but your reply does not reply to the argument. Do you agree or disagree that some fields of science could be wrong less often if they adopted different statistical standards?
A claim without evidence, and that doesn't even answer the question.

Please note highlighted.

Not the issue I object to. I agreed there are problem. Your statement is the issue I disagree with; "there is no reason science is wrong as often as it is,"

[shunyadragon]

Apparently you completely misunderstood or misconstrued what I wrote! Yes, there is a very good reason that "science is wrong as often as it is"--lack of rigor in doing science, especially in certain fields.

But even in the most rigorous of scientific disciplines, errors are sometimes made. I agree with you that these errors are eventually corrected. These errors often have common traits, explained by Langmuir, which should help us to spot them earlier.

Langmuir's classic talk in 1953 on "Pathological Science" is quite highly regarded in the world of experimental physics. It was reprinted by Physics Today in the wake of the "cold fusion" furor in the 1980s or 1990s. It was required reading of all his students by my PhD advisor (and I believe by his advisor). Yes, it is old, but its conclusions are timeless.

It does not justify: "there is no reason science is wrong as often as it is," You encourage this misunderstanding by persisting in pushing this to justify the this argument. There are reasons for the problems, and continuing this line of reasoning persists in neglecting the 'facts' that this is old news of very human problems, and over time these problems are resolved.

It outlines some of the reasons there are problems with scientific research, so what?!?!?

There are many references over time that address these issues. This again fails to justify; "there is no reason science is wrong as often as it is,"

[Teallaura]

Please note highlighted.

Not the issue I object to. I agreed there are problem. Your statement is the issue I disagree with; "there is no reason science is wrong as often as it is,"

Psst! Nothing appears highlighted. You can't use italics to highlight in a quote - the whole quote is automatically italicized. Bold or underline will work.

[Kbertsche]

It does not justify: "there is no reason science is wrong as often as it is," You encourage this misunderstanding by persisting in pushing this to justify the this argument. There are reasons for the problems, and continuing this line of reasoning persists in neglecting the 'facts' that this is old news of very human problems, and over time these problems are resolved.

It outlines some of the reasons there are problems with scientific research, so what?!?!?

There are many references over time that address these issues. This again fails to justify; "there is no reason science is wrong as often as it is,"

Shuny, it seems that we are using the English language differently. The statement, "There is no reason for this situation" is often used idiomatically to mean, "There is no need for this situation." If the situation actually exists, then of course there are causes or explanations for it; that's not in question. But if the explanations are sloppiness, lack of rigor, lack of precision, etc, then the situation is unnecessary. The question is whether or not it is necessary that science be wrong as often as it is. This is how I took sfs1's comment, and this is how I think he meant it to be taken.

[sfs1]

Please note highlighted.

Not the issue I object to. I agreed there are problem. Your statement is the issue I disagree with; "there is no reason science is wrong as often as it is,"

That's not a statement I made.

[sfs1]

Shuny, it seems that we are using the English language differently. The statement, "There is no reason for this situation" is often used idiomatically to mean, "There is no need for this situation." If the situation actually exists, then of course there are causes or explanations for it; that's not in question. But if the explanations are sloppiness, lack of rigor, lack of precision, etc, then the situation is unnecessary. The question is whether or not it is necessary that science be wrong as often as it is. This is how I took sfs1's comment, and this is how I think he meant it to be taken.

Correct, except that what I actually wrote was, "while it's inevitable that science is sometimes wrong, there's no reason science has to be wrong as often as it is." Which is pretty unambiguous.

[shunyadragon]

That's not a statement I made.

Yes it is, "while it's inevitable that science is sometimes wrong, there's no reason science has to be wrong as often as it is."

Your added phrase at the beginning changes nothing.

[shunyadragon]

Shuny, it seems that we are using the English language differently. The statement, "There is no reason for this situation" is often used idiomatically to mean, "There is no need for this situation." If the situation actually exists, then of course there are causes or explanations for it; that's not in question. But if the explanations are sloppiness, lack of rigor, lack of precision, etc, then the situation is unnecessary. The question is whether or not it is necessary that science be wrong as often as it is. This is how I took sfs1's comment, and this is how I think he meant it to be taken.

Call it what you may "There is no need for this situation," does not change the problem, but the fact is your rewording it to give it a different meaning. Need was not an issue in the original wording. There is no meaningful context idiomaticism here. The problem is simply say what you mean, and mean what you say.

The discussion of ' no need' is like 'the sky is blue on a clear 4th of July afternoon,' and has no meaning. Of course there is 'no need' for error, fraud, poor research, and so on, and so on. It would be an idealistic fanciful world without it.

[sfs1]

Yes it is, "while it's inevitable that science is sometimes wrong, there's no reason science has to be wrong as often as it is."

Your added phrase at the beginning changes nothing.

It's not the added phrase I'm talking about; it's the words in the quotation marks. I did not make the statement you say I did. Do you understand what quotation marks mean? They mean you're quoting the actual words of someone. Or at least that's what they're supposed to mean.

[sfs1]

Call it what you may "There is no need for this situation," does not change the problem, but the fact is your rewording it to give it a different meaning. Need was not an issue in the original wording. There is no meaningful context idiomaticism here.

Of course need was in an issue in my original wording, as is plain from my actual wording (i.e. the wording I used, not the wording you made up for me).

The discussion of ' no need' is like 'the sky is blue on a clear 4th of July afternoon,' and has no meaning. Of course there is 'no need' for error, fraud, poor research, and so on, and so on. It would be an idealistic fanciful world without it.

The point of my post, and the point of the three cited articles that you've been ignoring with such determination, is simple: there are straightforward, well-understood steps that could be trivially implemented that would improve the accuracy of scientific conclusions. The failure to implement those steps means that a great deal of scientific effort, and lots of time and money, are being wasted for no good reason. You have not rebutted this argument; you have not even responded to it meaningfully. Instead, you've responded with platitudes about unrelated issues.

[sylas]

I've been finding this a tad bewildering. There's an issue with with use of statistics and significance tests in published scientific literature. It's reasonably well known, and there are ideas about addressing the matter. One of the ways to address THIS discussion right here would be to get a focus back to the substance of the matter and what has been published on it.

I'm going to make the references given by sfs1 more explicit, as I think they are good ones, and a better basis for constructive discussion:

• Why Most Published Research Findings Are False, by J.P.A. Ioannidis, in PLOS Medicine, Aug 30 2005, doi 10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124
• An investigation of the false discovery rate and the misinterpretation of p-values, by D. Colquhoun, in Royal Soc. Open Science, 19 Nov 2014, 1:140216, doi 10.1098/rsos.140216
• How to Make More Published Research True, by J.P.A. Ioannidis, in PLOS Medicine, Oct 21 2014, doi 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001747

[Adrift]

I've been finding this a tad bewildering.

What are you finding bewildering? shunyadragon's replies in this thread?