Believe It Or Not, Most Published Research Findings Are Probably False

[rangerrebew]

Believe It Or Not, Most Published Research Findings Are Probably False

Ten years ago, a researcher claimed most published research findings are false; now a decade later, his claim is stronger than ever before. How can this be?
Simon Oxenham
 

The rise of the Internet has worked wonders for the public's access to science, but this has come with the side effect of a toxic combination of confirmation bias and Google, enabling us to easily find a study to support whatever it is that we already believe, without bothering to so much as look at research that might challenge our position — or the research that supports our position for that matter. I'm certainly not immune myself from credulously accepting research that has later been called into question, even on this blog where I take great effort to take a skeptical approach and highlight false claims arising from research. Could it be the case that studies with incorrect findings are not just rare anomalies, but are actually representative of the majority of published research?

https://bigthink.com/neurobonkers/believe-it-or-not-most-published-research-findings-are-probably-false

[Smokin Joe]

Believe It Or Not, Most Published Research Findings Are Probably False

Ten years ago, a researcher claimed most published research findings are false; now a decade later, his claim is stronger than ever before. How can this be?
Simon Oxenham
 

The rise of the Internet has worked wonders for the public's access to science, but this has come with the side effect of a toxic combination of confirmation bias and Google, enabling us to easily find a study to support whatever it is that we already believe, without bothering to so much as look at research that might challenge our position — or the research that supports our position for that matter.
https://bigthink.com/neurobonkers/believe-it-or-not-most-published-research-findings-are-probably-false

Well, unless you disagree with the Globalist orthodoxy, then Google moves it down in the rankings, facebook labels it as "false", and people get the boot from twitter for posting it.

[Joe Wooten]

Except in the nuclear power field. Fraudelent research and documents are a criminal matter and the NRC does not hesitate one millisecond to prosecute.

[roamer_1]

Could it be the case that studies with incorrect findings are not just rare anomalies, but are actually representative of the majority of published research?

YES. And it has been so for a very very long time. Piltdown Man, anyone?

[bigheadfred]

Well, unless you disagree with the Globalist orthodoxy, then Google moves it down in the rankings, facebook labels it as "false", and people get the boot from twitter for posting it.

Right. The politicization of science.

Here is some ridiculous carp for ya.

13 Academics Sign Letter Claiming Term “Quantum Supremacy” is Racist


13 academics have signed a letter asserting that the scientific term “quantum supremacy” is racist and shouldn’t be used.

Yes, this actually happened and it’s not the Onion.

A Google computer recently achieved quantum supremacy by managing to perform a calculation in 200 seconds that would have taken the world’s most powerful supercomputer 10,000 years.

However, instead of celebrating this accomplishment, some academics were instead triggered by the use of the term “quantum supremacy”.

They signed a letter, which was subsequently published by Nature, claiming the term was racist.

“In our view, ‘supremacy’ has overtones of violence, neocolonialism and racism through its association with ‘white supremacy,’” the letter states. “We call for the community to use ‘quantum advantage’ instead.”

https://summit.news/2019/12/16/13-academics-sign-letter-claiming-term-quantum-supremacy-is-racist/