Not Just Climate Change: Fake Science

[Kathianne]

Finally, some truth telling. Let's be honest, it IS false presentation of results, otherwise replication would be possible:

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-39054778?SThisFB

[pete311]

There is bad science of course. Science is a tool, not an authority. Trust studies that are peer reviewed from credible sources. Be careful not to categorically distrust science because of a few bad studies. Just remind yourself what life was like just 100 years ago.

[Kathianne]

There is bad science of course. Science is a tool, not an authority. Trust studies that are peer reviewed from credible sources. Be careful not to categorically distrust science because of a few bad studies. Just remind yourself what life was like just 100 years ago.

Problem comes is that it's not 'just a few,' and it's rampant in the journals, reminding us of how the autism/vaccination nonsense began with Lancet.

[pete311]

Problem comes is that it's not 'just a few,' and it's rampant in the journals, reminding us of how the autism/vaccination nonsense began with Lancet.

What makes you think it's rampant? The Lancet debacle was 19 years ago. Certainly there are some problems and not all journals are created equal. But there are tens of thousands of credible research papers published every year and each year technology, medicine and our general understanding progresses because of them. Yes there are problems, but be careful not to set fire to a crop field because of a few mole hills.

IMO its title of your linked article should have been "Most claims that were said to be scientific actually weren't." The replication issue is not new, the media has been confused about it for years, because they don't understand that much of what is being told to them as Scientific Fact, isn't.

[Kathianne]

What makes you think it's rampant? The Lancet debacle was 19 years ago. Certainly there are some problems and not all journals are created equal. But there are tens of thousands of credible research papers published every year and each year technology, medicine and our general understanding progresses because of them. Yes there are problems, but be careful not to set fire to a crop field because of a few mole hills.

IMO its title of your linked article should have been "Most claims that were said to be scientific actually weren't." The replication issue is not new, the media has been confused about it for years, because they don't understand that much of what is being told to them as Scientific Fact, isn't.

and yet,it's the media and others that want to claim 'facts' because it's 'published' and therefore must be 'settled.' Not so and not the basis on focusing funding all on one side of any issue.

[pete311]

and yet,it's the media and others that want to claim 'facts' because it's 'published' and therefore must be 'settled.' Not so and not the basis on focusing funding all on one side of any issue.

If you are speaking generally, then I agree. The act of publishing doesn't equate to scientific fact.