Click here to support the Daily Grail for as little as $US1 per month on Patreon

News Briefs 25-11-2010

Save me the neck, will ya? 🙂

Thanks Rick, Greg & Kat.

Quote of the Day:

“There is increasing concern that in modern research, false findings may be the majority or even the vast majority of published research claims.”

John Ioannidis, epidemiologist (“Why Most Published Research Findings Are False”)

  1. statistics, science and déjà vu
    The article correctly points out that statistics are often used incorrectly.

    The article also says that is is a general problem in science.

    To support this, the article then gives samples of this problem, ALL of them from the science of medicine.

    This seems very familiar, I seem to remember this sort of thing.

    1. Medicine
      When you explain a problem, the most logical choice to give an example for your audience/readers is to show one where your point is more clear.

      I think that’s why the article chose to show examples of medical studies, instead of studies in particle physics or climatology.

      It may also have to do with John P. A. Ioannidis’s paper (mentioned in the article) about the several corollaries he presents:

      Corollary 1: The smaller the studies conducted in a scientific field, the less likely the research findings are to be true.

      Corollary 2: The smaller the effect sizes in a scientific field, the less likely the research findings are to be true.

      Corollary 3: The greater the number and the lesser the selection of tested relationships in a scientific field, the less likely the research findings are to be true.

      Corollary 4: The greater the flexibility in designs, definitions, outcomes, and analytical modes in a scientific field, the less likely the research findings are to be true.

      Corollary 5: The greater the financial and other interests and prejudices in a scientific field, the less likely the research findings are to be true.

      Corollary 6: The hotter a scientific field (with more scientific teams involved), the less likely the research findings are to be true.

      When it comes to medicine, the last two are the most influential IMO.

      Anyway, the reason I chose this link was because it supported past discussions made at TDG, regarding scientific studies conducted on PSI phenomena, and the usual debunking arguments used by the skeptics.

      1. relevant
        Of course it is relevant. Statistics must be used carefully, and lots of times they are not. The field of medicine is a good example of that, as are claims and counter claims in any field where things cannot be measured directly.

        But the article’s conclusion (at the beginning) that science in general is not trustworthy is simply false. It is an attention-getting device to get people read the examples about statistics, so that they understand it better. That’s all good.

        Except that most people won’t read the article, they will only read the first few lines and conclude that all science is faking it.

        There are many sciences where statistics do not play such a dominant role. In physics or chemistry, or in engineering, things can be measured much more objectively. For those things more reliable ways of testing exist.

        I think the article chose to show examples from medicine because the problem with statistics abuse is most prevelant there. That’s ok, but the article basically says that the problem is the same everywhere. And it isn’t.

          1. right
            Right.

            The article is a good example of how to mislead with statistics and “creative” sampling, while at the same time correctly pointing out that this is a problem in many scientific fields.

          2. misleading Statistics
            [quote=earthling]Right.

            The article is a good example of how to mislead with statistics and “creative” sampling, while at the same time correctly pointing out that this is a problem in many scientific fields.[/quote]

            As in “lies, damned lies, and statistics”…….

          3. Heh…..
            [quote=red pill junkie]Nothing like checking out TDG to help digest that big-ass turkey, right? ;)[/quote]

            Actually, I skipped the turkey this year and made some lovely barbecued pork. Long-grain rice, squash, and beer added to the day, as did the NFL’s 3 football games. 🙂

            And yeah, I’m a TDG Junkie. Gotta get my daily fix, or I start jonesing.

            V/R

  2. RE: D=u*H(!)
    On that Edge article, it probably would have been more interesting to hear their thoughts on what mainstream science could be getting wrong now.
    I guess Shermer’s PhD is in history of science, but he seems pretty happy to tell people where they’re wrong today.
    Hindsight is 20/20, unless we’ve worked it all out now. Otherwise, maybe the should change the name of the magazine to Trailing Edge.

  3. A rare delight

    “Save me the neck, will ya?”

    I did try but… when the bird emerged from the oven, the neck jumped from the roasting pan and shouted, like Tommy Lee Jones in MIB… EAT ME!

    I complied. (Neck meat is very tasty!)

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Mobile menu - fractal