The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Why isn’t more research reproducible? > Comments

Why isn’t more research reproducible? : Comments

By Don Aitkin, published 30/4/2018

At the heart of the problem is a failure both to follow good research design practices and to understand statistics properly.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. 5
  7. All
"Do you agree, or otherwise with the quote, Hasbeen?"

Careful Hasbeen, he's playing the old shell game with you. ;)

_____________________________________________________________________

The major problem with science these days is that its became a career rather than a calling. And that game is played by getting published.

Researchers are pushed to find results and especially surprising, news worthy or lucrative results. So the temptation to play fast and loose with the data is enormous.

Whatismore, these days the results are often arrived at first and the data second. So again the search to find the appropriate data to fulfil the desired results is stark. Its why so much of what is 'found' in social science and especially psychology is not reproducible.

Additionally, the level of innumeracy in the community and even among scientists means that statistics are often used to generate publishable results. The Chocolate Diet hoax was essentially a manipulation of statistics to achieve publicity.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/how-the-chocolate-diet-hoax-fooled-millions/

Finally, much of science is now political either through ideology or through the need to chase and satisfy the government dollar. Since the science is seeking to remake the world (be it on climate or social issues like same-sex child raising) the data is often forced to support the politically correct answer.

Bad behaviour is only fixed if there are consequences for it. IF a scientist sees colleagues playing with the ethics and succeeding, the temptation to follow suit is enormous.

I dream of a system where scientists are not only evaluated on the number of their publications but also on whether their results are reproduced and whether their data is found to be suspect.

I can't believe I'm saying it, but that probably means government oversight. A government body that is tasked with trying to reproduce results and verify data. Paid for out of the current science budget.

_______________________________________________________________

BTW the shell game is a game of fraud.
Posted by mhaze, Wednesday, 2 May 2018 2:22:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
In response to your comment about your comment about serious research, Hasbeen.

Shell put out a Report on climate change in relation to fossil fuels in 1988.

http://www.climatefiles.com/shell/1988-shell-report-greenhouse/

A number of quotes from Shell 1988 Report:

http://www.desmogblog.com/2018/04/04/here-what-shellknew-about-climate-change-way-back-1980s?utm_source=dsb%20newsletter

In 1968, the American Petroleum Institute was warned about about the impact of fossil fuels on climate:

http://theconversation.com/us-firms-knew-about-global-warming-in-1968-what-about-australia-57878

http://www.ciel.org/news/smoke-and-fumes/

Series of slides, including quotes from 1968 Report:

http://congreso.medicos.cr/documentos/CambioClimatico/M/climatechangeawarenessdenialandprogress.pdf

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/oil-cover-up-climate_us_570e98bbe4b0ffa5937df6ce

Series of documents displaying that fossil fuel companies knew about the issues surrounding their products:

http://www.sheredling.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/SMC-Endorsed7_2017-07-17-SMCO-Complaint-5bFINAL-ENDORSED5d.pdf
Posted by ant, Wednesday, 2 May 2018 3:21:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The foundation of science is that it has to be reproducible. By formulating a testable hypothesis we create an experiment that should be reproducible by nature. If not, the conclusions drawn from the experiment may not be credible.
You can read more about it here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
Posted by Marshall Mosley, Thursday, 3 May 2018 4:53:04 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
You never learn, do you ant?

Over two years ago you were touting the ExxonKnew rubbish as a game changer while at the same time hilariously refusing to read the actual source documents. It took a while (due to the vagaries of the US court system) for my prediction that the whole case against Exxon would collapse to be proven correct, but collapse it has.

But despite what should have been a salutatory lesson, you plunge in again. Read the Shell documents. They aren't saying they know what will happen. They are canvassing the various options, showing caution where it needs to be shown and suggesting responses if things go the way the some of the alarmists asserted.

But they aren't saying they know that climate change is real or really bad. They are keeping their management appraised of current thinking.

It should be noted that Shell more than any other oil company tried to buy off the greens by going forcefully into so-called clean energy and making all the sort of noises the greens demand to hear from those they target. This episode shows how futile that strategy is/was.
Posted by mhaze, Thursday, 3 May 2018 1:34:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Not too much new from Don Aitkin here. Cherry-picking examples of research failures so he can maintain his preferred view of climate change.

I did enjoy Don Aitkin suggesting the National Association of Scholars shares his intellectual values. The NAS is in favour of racism, sexism and homophobia in education and wants to get rid of those pesky liberals at Universities so that its own version of conservative values and American history can be taught. Of course they are climate change deniers. Who could have guessed.

This particular article mixes up a host of issues in an attempt to paint academia as a basket case. Some people will love it no doubt, but it is beholden on me to point out that Don Aitkin has either not read or not understood Ioannidis seminal paper.
Posted by Agronomist, Thursday, 3 May 2018 1:37:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
mhaze ... I referenced a number of sources that showed how fossil fuel companies were made aware of the damage fossil fuel emissions on the atmosphere decades ago.

Did you not read the Shell Report summary presented by:

http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4411090-Document3.html#document/p4/a415539

We have reached the minimum increase in global temperature of 1.3C predicted by the Shell's own Report.

Another reference provided states:

"Shell lists a number of areas that could be specifically affected by climate change, including":

sea level rise, rise in sea temperature,acidification of sea water, agriculture, area of forest, changing air temperature and water supply.*

* My abréviation.

Currently, Trump government is being taken to Court through pushing for stopping emission reductions in new vehicles from being introduced:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2018/05/01/california-17-other-states-sue-trump-administration-to-defend-obama-era-vehicle-efficiency-rules/?utm_term=.0fce29ac2ba2&wpisrc=nl_green&wpmm=1

A further reference:

http://www.sustainablesanantonio.com/companies-knew-about-the-link-between-fossil-fuel-and-global-warming-as-far-back-as-the-1980s/

"One confidential 1988 report from Shell was titled “The Greenhouse Effect.” It read, “Although CO2 is emitted to the atmosphere through several natural processes … the main cause of increasing CO2 concentrations is considered to be fossil fuel burning.”

You made lots of comments about the inaccuracy of science in your last post, though provided no evidence. Where are your references?
Posted by ant, Friday, 4 May 2018 9:19:58 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. 5
  7. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy