Topic awaiting preservation: Is science all it's cracked up to be?

Lies, Damned Lies, and Medical Science

It's worth a read in its entirety but for those looking to save time meta-researchers have found a very significant amount of medical research is misleading, exaggerated, or flat-out wrong. A study into the most cited studies in peer reviewed journals from the past 13 years showed deep flaws and the doctor leading this research, Dr. Ioannidis, estimates upwards of 90% of published medical information is flawed. A number of reasons are given to explain this.

This is a pretty sobering look on medical research and health care in particular and the scientific community in general. The article doesn't go into specific detail but expressly states similar flaws are abundant in other areas of scientific research. I've question the objectivity of scientists for years concerning God, climate, etc. and it looks like there's very good reason to do so.

It seemed interesting to me. Any thoughts?

(Edited by Jestah on 12-08-2010 21:59)

Science is a process and does not produce all the answers, or even the right ones.
It invalidates old models and comes up with new ones, which in turn
are invalided themselves eventually.
And every single model is a lie.
Some of them are useful for a while.

In other news, as opposed to every other methodology tried for the ages:
http://xkcd.com/54/

I've always viewed science as rather fluid - constantly changing and religions carved in stone.

___________________________________________________________________________
"It's not the pale moon that excites me.... It's the nearness of you."

It's not science that is invalidating old models here, TP.

There's an inherent conflict of interest when scientists needing to be objective directly rely on finding certain results. We're not talking about new science proving old science wrong but rather scientists looking for provable conclusions that aren't true.

Looks like one of the most influential studies in one of the most prestigious medical journals might have been a hoax.

Medical Journal Says Autism Study Was a 'Fraud'

Medical journal: Study linking autism, vaccines is 'elaborate fraud'

The fact that the Wakeman autism study is a fraud is very old news.
The official finding that has just been announced is new, of course, but the knowledge of his work being fraudulent/unethical/sloppy/inconclusive/etc. has existed since the time of the study.

Calling it "one of the most influential studies" is a bit misleading perhaps.
It was influential on sections of the public in general, which is a tragedy.
It was not influential in scientific circles, where it was dismissed as completely flawed almost immediately.

It was not influential on the majority of the public, as best as I can infer.

That it was published in the Lancet is embarrassing for them, and severely disappointing for the rest of us.

Arguing whether "one of the most influential studies" is the proper phrase seems to be nit picking for the same of nit picking. It's a study published in one of the most prestigious medical journals, has been cited numerous times by others in the same and similar journals, and has affected how countless children were raised. It clearly was influential but whether you want to call it fairly influential, super-duper influential, etc. is entirely up to you.

Accusations of misconduct, etc. came out several years after the study but I believe these current reports by Deer are the first to detail how Wakefield and his partner sought to shakedown vaccine companies using his junk science to hold over their heads.

It's just another high profile study in a prestigious peer reviewed journal to be shown as junk science.

My point is that you both overstated the scope of the influence of this study, and understated the fast and vehement condemnation ofthe study by the scientific community.

On everything else it seems we agree.

quote:

---

Is science all it's cracked up to be?

---

There is nothing wrong with the scientific method. It is the best tool that humans have invented to allow use to objectively examine and explain the universe around us to date.

I think what you are confusing here, Jester, is the difference between a tool, and how it is put to use.

Wherever one has humans, there is bound to be politics, ego, money, power, and the sense of advantage to be gained (real or imagined). Science is no different. What is interesting is the safeguards built into the scientific method that allows for correcting of "coloring", for lack of a better word, or the slanting of results.

The fact that science changes and is changeable is more a sign of it's reliability than anything else. As more understanding of things comes to the forefront, older models are corrected to match this.

No other system is as reliable and as objective as this.

Or perhaps you have a different model that you would like to suggest take science' place?

WebShaman | The keenest sorrow (and greatest truth) is to recognize ourselves as the sole cause of all our adversities.
- Sophocles