Revealing study about scientific research not getting its required double-checking

Dear V-8 Buick dissatisfied investors in the institutions of science,

The Christian Science Monitor has a very interesting article on an increasing concern over an essential aspect if scientific practice: the requirement than results be reproduced before being accepted as fact:

http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2015/0828/An-emerging-challenge-to-science-s-credibility

The article mentions a study where researchers intentionally went back to replicate 100 social- and cognitive-psychology experiments whose results appeared in three prestigious psychology journals. While 97 percent of the original studies showed statistically significant results, only 36 percent of the replicated studies did. Of the successful replications, 83 percent showed a much smaller effects than the original studies showed.

In other words more than 2/3s of the supposedly "proven" results were in fact not proven. Of the remaining 1/3 that were "proven," the vast majority claimed exaggerated effects.

As the article points out, researchers built on each others results. So these sorts of errors can rapidly get magnified. This all bites me especially hard because my first PhD project was based on a particular Cognitive Science approach and basically I was attempting to reproduce what was taken as truth. Better still (I thought,) I was trying to take pure science and turn it into a useful teaching tool. My research completely invalidated the particular notion of Cognitive Science that human learning is a kind of "rule acquisition" similar to artificial intelligence expert systems.

Increasingly human societies are being forced to make very hard decisions based on science that we do not understand. Sometimes the public balks as in the case of nuclear power, but even this is ultimately not helpful. Decisions like this should be founded on reason, not fear and impulse. Since science has become an increasingly self-sustaining industry, it can no longer be expected to police itself. We all have a stake in forcing change so that science can once more be not only relied upon, but expected to make its results intelligible to the voting public who are after all the ultimate decision makers in a democracy.

Edouard

 

Re: Revealing study about scientific research not getting its required double-checkin

Global warming/climate change "science" comes to mind
(Oh, but the science is settled) ha!

 

Re: Revealing study about scientific research not getting its required double-checkin

There is very limited accountability when news and media are considered entertainment business models. I always get a kick out of documentaries who list people as experts in their field,and you later find out they have no real credibility. We as a culture love to buy stories,not necessarily the actual reality of a situation. Hence the terms, barn find,rat rod,patina,surface rust,easy project,over 20k "invested".......we often buy the story instead of the product. I think a real scientist assumes he/she is wrong until they prove themselves wrong about that. Proving a scientific hypothesis has taken on new meaning in recent times and we could all benefit from less of this type of knowledge.

 

Real science and "real sausages." (Re: Revealing study about scientific research)

Dear James, schlepcar, and V-8 Buick science observers,

Unfortunately arguments over climate change are much more messy than most people realize, but your skepticism is well founded. The physics associated with green house gases is well understood. We should be seeing global warming. However, the atmosphere is one of the most complex systems humans deal with. Just check the weakness in weather forecasting as a proof. Worse still, the "science" of climate change has a horrible millstone: radically different sources of data about different periods. In the past 100-200 years, we have very exact data on meteorological conditions. Before that, we hardly have anything that is a direct measurement. We know for a fact that in the past, the climate was much more variable. So without any human intervention, what we are observing could be normal, we don't have the hard data from the past to rule it out. More likely the mess is - a mess. Human activity has effected the climate, but we don't understand precisely how.

That's were my frustrations come in. The climate is changing and people are suffering. For example, summers are hotter in Europe and most of Europe doesn't have air conditioning. How should we spend our money? There are those who insist with much investment and work we can reverse the effects human activity. However, already people are literally dying from the heat. Do such activists have the right to insist Europe not invest in air conditioners that would save lives and instead put all that money into green technology? The gamble on green technology is already costing people's lives. What if the drought in California lasts another year? Where will we put the millions of refugees who don't have any more water? I don't think we can afford to gamble that climate change is reversible.

Sorry, I've been in research groups at the University of California, Berkeley, supposedly the top public university in the world. I've also been in groups at the U.C. San Diego, another top institution. There is no such scientific discipline. Science is an industry and a cold and vicious one. Professors will typically produce between 10 and 50 PhDs, some even more. There isn't a 50 fold growth in universities. So Professors are experts in making PhD burnouts. They must produce PhDs for their own reputation. They couldn't care less what happens to their "products" after a few years. Sure, it isn't completely a game. But, it is much more of a livelihood than anything resembling passionate people seeking knowledge. Science started out as a "hobby" among people rich enough to explore the natural world because the wanted to understand it. Such people had no reason to lie and a very difficult audience. That strongly encouraged honestly and a vigorous pursuit of more rigorous methodologies that the skeptics couldn't deny. Professors are no better than any other sort of human being. They'll be good when they have the luxury to do so. When survival is at stake they take care of #1, and they will gladly destroy the truth if that avoids ruining their careers.

The old saying goes that anyone who loves sausages should never find out how they are actually made. I'm sorry to say the same is true of science.

Edouard

 

Re: Revealing study about scientific research not getting its required double-checkin

Interesting take on things; and finally someone has enough cojones to actually say what most of us uneducated unwashed have surmised for years. Thanks for that Edouard.

The more I learn, the less I know...it's getting tiresome now.

The one that really rankled me was climate change, so how is that the Farmer's Almanac has about an 80 % right track record using a formula supposedly dreamed up back in 1792 when the finest brains in modern society still run from thunder storms? What most of the climate models looked at was straight chemistry, they ignored the relationship between the Sun and Sunspots or solar activity and our climate. Also, no one has yet offered a viable explanation as to why some obscure Icelandic volcano that blasted over 2 days more CO2 than all of mankind emitted in 2000 years hasn't driven the temperature up tenfold.

It all seems a cynical money grab, designed to keep ignorant people in a state of fear and therefore more socially cooperative. It's the same thing that we had prior to Global Warming and climate change, which was The Bomb. The moment the Cold War evaporated, people started thinking about themselves and wondering why we weren't getting any value out of our governments and where the money went, particularly since the threat was no where near as bad as the public was lead to believe. Now we have "climate change". All of a sudden we're on the edge of destruction again, and again, gullible people have no problem paying money and "doing the right thing" because their politicians told them to. And it's all backed up by faulty half baked and unproven stats and misinterpreted histories. Worse yet, is the huge amount of taxpayer dollars that go to any one of these groups to prove or debunk just about anything they want to. For instance; the jury is still out on the harmful effects of cigarettes, and they're still for sale. Soda pop, even though it contains incredible amounts of sugar and tends to be as acidic as the battery in your Buick is sold as a child's drink. Yet, we're expected to believe that our old Buicks are destroying the environment.

No, I'm not a conspiracy theorist. If anything, I can be considered a die-hard cynic and a pessimist that has completely lost any faith in the human species. I've actually got a personal library of over 400 credible books on history. History is my passion, and my life. In a better world I would have been a history professor, but that's another story, and not a good one. And I've read all kinds of history, from ancient to modern. Included in this lot is a lot of political science, here again, written by reputable people, you won't find one revisionist book in my library. (Ok, there is one; it's a WWII book by David Irving which is actually funny to read.) The long and the short of this is that through reading all of these books (and I'm still reading more) I was able to get a quite well rounded understanding of human nature. What I've seen is not good. I see it time and time again; the Seven Deadly Sins are the norm and not the exception, bad behaviour abounds and good work is always stifled. Mankind is inherently an evil and dangerous species, we have to be taught to be "good", and it almost never sticks. Whoever said that money is the root of all evil uttered the only truism known in human history. He has never been proven wrong.

So then why do I continue to read more after coming to these conclusions? Well, I keep hoping that I'll get proven wrong, and that I'll learn something that will reaffirm my faith in mankind. So far, well, that ain't happening. If anything, every successive book I read is like watching another train wreck. Can't believe what these people did and can't put it down. One keeps asking "why?"...there is no logical answer except that this is what is called "human nature" and it is by the nature of the beast illogical and not easily explained and even less understood. I find the people who understand it the least are those that in the end get hurt the most by it; - those in the social services field. They haven't learned or experienced the depravity of the human animal; by the time they do it's all too late and they're ruined as productive members of society.

The fact that even something as supposedly procedure and proof driven as science is up for interpretation and result-skewing comes as no surprise. It all comes down to who is financing the whole rotten lot. Same old saw...Sorry about the rant.

 

Re: Revealing study about scientific research not getting its required double-checkin

The Old Farmer's Almanac claims "many longtime Almanac followers claim that our forecasts are 80% to 85% accurate." This is simply a claim and not the actual accuracy. John Walsh, University of Illinois Atmospheric Sciences professor emeritus, reviewed the accuracy of five years of monthly forecasts from 32 weather stations around the county and found 50.7% of the monthly temperature forecasts and 51.9% of precipitation forecasts to correctly predict a deviation from averages.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Farmer's_Almanac


If the issue of climate change had not been politicized, few would be still debating this issue. Even the scientists paid by the fossil fuel industry originally to debate this issue have joined in the recognition of the changes occurring before our very eyes.

http://m.livescience.com/19466-climate-change-myths-busted.html

 

Re: Revealing study about scientific research not getting its required double-checkin

LOL.

When Galileo was prosecuted by the Church, there was a great consensus that the earth was the center of the universe too.

If the science is settled, please explain why we can't make short or long term weather/climate forecasts worth a damn. Heck, we can't predict what our economy will do, and WE built that :laugh:

Are you aware of the emails leaked from the University of East Anglia (the main center in climate change research) in which the the climate change researchers openly spoke about data manipulation, exclusion of data that contradicted their ideas and pushing out researchers who thought differently? They also spoke about destroying data so that it wouldn't be divulged in Freedom of Information Act requests... The Inquisition that tried Galileo was far more honest.

 

Re: Revealing study about scientific research not getting its required double-checkin

I spose it's too difficult to compute, but all the volcanic activity with those massive 'blows' coupled with those that are erupting more of less continously=not much in the discussion. Maybe because there's nothing that we could do, but I'd be interested in knowing more on that.

 

Re: Revealing study about scientific research not getting its required double-checkin

I was told that we were in an ICE AGE at one time. The earth came through that, what makes you think that what ever caused the WARM UP hasn't just kept on.
Nothing can be done to stop it if we don't know why it started, LONG BEFORE our Buicks were even dreamed about. JMO

Johnny

 

Case and point (Re: Scientific research not getting its required double-checking)

Dear Marc, Jim, bw1339, Dan, Johnny, and V-8 Buick science observers,

Thanks for all your thoughts. I do think that there is a reasonable way to think about all these issues and sadly the state of science associated with climate change is a very good example of researchers jumping on a bandwagon prematurely.

There is a way to make good argument for human activity affecting the climate. The amount of CO[SUB]2[/SUB] humans have put into the atmosphere is comparable to a very unusual cluster of volcanic eruptions. Looking in the historical record when there is a lot of vulcanism, we can observe evidence of the climate being warmed by the effect of greenhouse gases. Therefore it is reasonable to assume that the same effect is happening now. This sort of argument is effective because it avoids the major stumbling block of most climate science. It provides a uniform "yardstick" in order to compare with. Comparing climate measured with modern instruments is difficult to compare against climate inferred by things like tree rings. However, there is an important caveat to note in this. We are simply observing an association, we haven't provided a causal explanation.

As Johnny points out, we are in an interglacial period. The climate was expected to change even if humans hadn't released the CO[SUB]2 [/SUB]that we have. Climate scientists have been aware of the fact that the climate for the last 10,000 years or so has been unusually stable. Some researchers have pondered if this unusual stability isn't the reason why human civilizations were able to establish themselves and continue. Even so, climate change is now blamed for the destruction of civilizations like the Maya. That climate change cannot be blamed on human produced CO[SUB]2[/SUB].

So much of what the climate researchers are claiming depends on their computer simulations to try to connect the natural phenomena to human activity. The "inconvenient truth" is that these models simply don't make very accurate forecasts. If you doubt this, start monitoring the forecasts made the National Weather Service Climate Prediction Center:

http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/

I've been doing this for years and it is difficult to overestimate my disappointment.

Sadly, there is room for both points of view and it is important to understand the accommodation. Yes we should respond to the problem of putting too much CO[SUB]2[/SUB] into the atmosphere. But academics have also been making a fine living on our taxpayers dollars and not providing the information the public needs to cope with climate change. There is no nationwide program to develop better climate forecasting models. Instead each university has their own professions and they live to publish papers, create PhDs, and have a very pleasant life by most standards. The very crisis they insist we should deal with, isn't something they personally feel requires their lifestyle to change. The first concerns over global warming date back over 20 years. In that time have the universities and professors done their part to deal with the problem they feel is so serious?

Sadly, the bottom line is that the public is being asked to take global warming more serious than those who claim to have discovered it. That is proof enough that the academics aren't as serious about their work as they would like us to believe. The western world needs to very harshly call academics and researchers to task for making an easy life out of the very serious business of being the scientific eyes of society. If we end up reacting too slowly to climate change, it is every bit the academics fault as much as anyone else.

Edouard

 

Re: Revealing study about scientific research not getting its required double-checkin

Need to do a cash for clunkers then. Bye bye classic cars forever.

BTW it's been another pleasant August here in west Chester PA. Not like the dog days of August of yesteryear.

Man made global warming is a theory to me, I havent experienced it first hand. I'm a complete "doubting Thomas" on the subject. Al Gore is a charlatan!

 

Re: Revealing study about scientific research not getting its required double-checkin

I think any person with a decent grasp or the situation realizes that Human activity is a small piece of the puzzle here.

As Ed stated, what is disturbing is the growing number of individuals profiting greatly from the hysteria that has been created by questionable scientific findings. From the researchers, right on thru to the carbon credit brokers and politicians, everyone has their hand out on this.

It's never a bad idea to be a good steward of our environment, but common sense should dictate how that is carried out. As Jim said, politicizing this issue was the worst thing any true environmental group could have done.

I am of the strong opinion that the only reason to do that is because someone was looking to get paid. Had nothing to do with the greater good of our planet.

Bet on it.


JW

 

Re: Real science and "real sausages." (Re: Revealing study about scientific research)

This whole statement is exactly how I see/seen it. The bolded statements are the outcomes of the change from passionate curiosity to perpetual funding. You don't solve a problem or come to conclusions because it will result in no more work and money. Global warming is the most awesome example of that. There isn't enough data to conclusively say what direction its going in the short or long term. We've watched global temperatures for a century and a half, which is a shade over 1% of the time warming has been occurring, which isn't much actual data. Complicate the data by the "Urbanization" effect concrete, asphalt and air conditioners have in local areas (Las Vegas will be 115F during the day and 100F at night, but go 20 miles out into the desert from there and it'll only be 105F during the day and 70F at night), and there is a mess of statistics to work through. Fortunately for professors and scientists searching for funding, they can make the stat's stay ANYTHING they want.

Which is exactly what they do, THEN the work isn't double checked or repeated because as the article stated, there is rarely money to be made in duplicating someone else's work.

The only indisputable fact is industrialization has and is currently pumping CO2 into the atmosphere at rates that are likely unprecedented in geologic history. The effect of that is significantly debatable since CO2 is still far below geologic historic levels, plants love CO2, and CO2 dissolved in sea water ALWAYS outgases when temperatures rise (and conversely go back into the sea when it cools down), so does CO2 rise them temperature or does temperature then coincidently CO2? Ice cores show correlations both ways, and ancient geologic records are not precise enough to say which happens first.

 

Separating science from politics (Re: Science not getting required double-checking)

Dear Kevin, Jim, Randal, and V-8 Buick social observers,

It turns out to be surprisingly easy to untangle the true intentions of the vast majority of "the sky is falling" types with respect to global warming. A recent acquisition by Google is a handy counter-example to use against anyone who insists global warming is a crisis. As you may know, Google has come on record as stating that global warming is a very serious worldwide problem. However, Google also entered into a 100 year lease of Moffett Federal Airfield on San Francisco Bay. That airfield is essentially at - sea level. Of course one of the predictions is that sea levels are going to rise. So why is Google investing in a facility that is very likely going to be among the first needing to be abandoned if their own predictions come true?

There is a more general litmus test that can be applied to separate the truly concerned about greenhouse gas emissions and those who have a political agenda: nuclear power. There are some respected environmentalists who have spoken forcefully that we need to return to nuclear power to make a serious dent in greenhouse gas emissions. The point is simple and critical: nuclear power is the only proven technology that can replace a sizable fraction of our power needs without forcing massive changes in our society's infrastructure. Given that concerns over global warming go back over 25 years, there was ample time to make the change. Moreover, nuclear power doesn't come in just one design. There are different approaches with significant safety advantages. The helium cooled reactors designed by General Atomics are much less vulnerable to core meltdown because of the nature of the cooling system. Here is an article describing of General Atomics latest designs:

http://www.zdnet.com/article/a-nuclear-reactor-with-a-difference/

Anyone serious about reducing global warming should be willing to look into the science of nuclear power and decide for themselves based on science and reason whether such new designs are now safe enough for common use.

When confronted with options like nuclear power, many will insist that we still have the effective "luxury" of time and resources to develop the green technologies they prefer. The contradiction cannot be more plain. If greenhouse gas emissions are at the crisis level that the proponents insist we are, then nothing should be off the table to avert the crisis. Since only "politically correct" technologies need apply, this is no crisis that requires drastic measures.

Sadly, people like myself (and many on this board) are probably more honest in their concerns about climate change than the many looking for a leftist utopia and a quick paycheck.

Edouard

 

Re: Revealing study about scientific research not getting its required double-checkin

I love nuclear power. The modern reactor designs all have passive safety systems that rely on the laws of physics to work instead of pumps, power, human intervention, etc. If the laws of physics start failing, we likely have waaaay bigger issues! They generate way more power than other types of power plants and use a small fraction of the land space for it. Modern designs allow for mostly loss-less cooling for the turbine steam (aka doesn't need an ocean or river for cooling supply). And if we'd frigg'in recycle the fuel like most nuclear powered countries do, then we wouldn't have nearly the "waste" issue that we have today. If we started now to greatly expand our nuclear power resources, and recycled/reprocessed the current "waste" on hand, it would probably knock out 75% or more of the current "waste" on hand.

I say the same thing for cruise ships and other container and shipping vessels. If there could be a systematic licensing and inspection system set up for actual commercial use of nuclear propulsion like the military uses, it would create a nice demand for well paid nuclear technicians (which would be easily supported from not having to buy significant volumes of fuel), it'd cut carbon emissions, and in theory should lower shipping costs even further. Build enough of these things commercially and the price should fall. They'd probably have to develop/use a very low grade of fuel with half lives of a few years to keep someone from stockpiling the material for mis-use, but I could see it still being fairly cost effective given crude price volatility, and eventual supply volatility.

 

Re: Revealing study about scientific research not getting its required double-checkin

"FOLLOW THE MONEY"

Is all I'm gonna say....

Mikey

 

Re: Revealing study about scientific research not getting its required double-checkin

 

Re: Revealing study about scientific research not getting its required double-checkin

https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com...ud-with-nasa-surface-temperatures-since-2001/

 

Re: Revealing study about scientific research not getting its required double-checkin

Yeah, it pretty much seems we all agree here, "climate change" is for the most part bunk. The science behind it is not conclusive, and like Ed says, there's no system in place to verify or check the results. Anyone with an agenda can print what they want, and because they have a PhD behind their name they are taken seriously, regardless if the PhD came out of a cracker-jack box or was awarded by a fly-by-night institution.

So we're left with what is real? What is there left?

Follow the money...there's the answer, follow the greed. People need to eat, and if claiming that the sky will fall in pays the bills so be it. Even the most integral individuals have a price. If someone says they don't, they haven't suffered enough. Everyone has a price.

The funny thing is, if you give everyone all the money they need and provide them with all of the basics society stagnates and stops. Look at the Communist experiments in Europe; "we pretend to work and you pretend to pay us". Sure, they had all of the basic needs met. Things were cheap. A doctor earned as much as the street-sweeper did. And there was the problem; why become a doctor when doing diddly squat earned you the same amount of money? It took out any human competition. So there's your proof; we need this Darwinian nightmare to continue in order to progress as a society, as a species.

Heaven has to wait.

 

Re: Revealing study about scientific research not getting its required double-checkin

You sound like you are more of a "real" scientist like my previous post describes. When you mix educated idiots,corporate desires, and endless political agenda....you obtain modern intellectuals. We used to get results by proving the negative consequences of our mistakes as wrong. Now,we look at how intelligent our ideas are until two weeks later there has been catastrophic damage. I remember when Smokey Yunick built an 84 Fiero that got 52 mpg.Nobody was interested because the gas shortage of the mid 70's was over. We bought it then,and we still are. I really do miss the scientists though....."The Worlds Fastest Indian" was a good movie. That guy was almost as smart as Al Gore.