22 hours ago, bluesofa said:

An excellent basis for for research then.

 

A lot of these 'studies' suggest what's good or bad. In six months a similar 'study' could probably 'suggest' the opposite.

 

Just like waiting for a bus - there will be another along in a minute.

 

And  more  chance the bus  will finish you off!

11 hours ago, Pilotman said:

I would guess that nobody takes any notice because virtually everything we consume, every environment we are in. every chemical we come into contact with, including in toothpaste, toilet cleaner, washing up liquid, has some carcinogenic properties. As the scientific world still has no real idea how many cancers are triggered, it's rather useless to worry about every little thing, such as the odd glass of wine. 

I read an article a while ago (sorry I don't have the link) that said the results in a majority of peer-reviewed studies in scientific journals fail to be recreated by reviewers. And that while regular folks have about an 80% confidence in the results of scientific studies, experts in the field often have about a 30% confidence. The problem is that the goal of studies is more often to ensure more funding than it is to conduct pure science. The scientific journals are heavily biased and eager to publish results that fit their agenda. And only scientists that can get important publications, attract the big funding and get to do the sexy science. Most university science departments are under heavy pressure to produce publications and the departments have quotas to fill.

1 hour ago, canuckamuck said:

I read an article a while ago (sorry I don't have the link) that said the results in a majority of peer-reviewed studies in scientific journals fail to be recreated by reviewers. And that while regular folks have about an 80% confidence in the results of scientific studies, experts in the field often have about a 30% confidence. The problem is that the goal of studies is more often to ensure more funding than it is to conduct pure science. The scientific journals are heavily biased and eager to publish results that fit their agenda. And only scientists that can get important publications, attract the big funding and get to do the sexy science. Most university science departments are under heavy pressure to produce publications and the departments have quotas to fill.

As one commenter noted:

 

"Once the public has accepted the scientific establishment’s truths, narratives, and designated “experts”, then researchers whose research yields results deviating from the accepted norm can be immediately branded as crackpots, lunatics, fringe nuts, pseudo-scientists and so on, regardless of how meticulous their methods, and irrefutable their results. The media is crucial in this control dynamic because it sells the establishment’s reality. Thus is the politically correct status quo maintained."

1 hour ago, canuckamuck said:

The problem is that the goal of studies is more often to ensure more funding than it is to conduct pure science. The scientific journals are heavily biased and eager to publish results that fit their agenda.

 

While this is a tempting conspiracy to embrace, it simply isn't true on the large scale that people might think. That's why climate change research funded by oil companies consistently comes out against their financial interests.

 

There are some occasional exceptions, such as the corrupt & tort-driven research of the IARC, but by large the majority of the irreproducible studies are in the areas of psychology, marketing, economics, education and other social sciences.  Some are in medicine, which is concerning, but very few are due to outright fraud.  I can't believe many serious scientists would risk their careers this way, à la Wakefield.  While there is a problem with the "publish or perish" mindset in academia, I don't think there is any one problem or any one solution that will bring about a "fix".

 

 

Nobody should ever trust just one study, since it might be an outlier or woefully underpowered.  If studies are found to be unreproducible junk, then good - throw them out or attempt triage to see what went wrong.  Retraction Watch keeps an eye on studies that get pulled due to fraud or other misconduct.  So at least we are trying to shine some light on the issue.

 

Lots of studies are underpowered, and some exploratory research gets reported by the media as actual science.  Any time you see the phrase "linked to", that was most likely an incidental finding from research that wasn't looking for anything specific (IOW it contained no hypothesis to test).  Yet people run wild with these "X is linked to Y" announcements all the time.

 

This is why it's so important to look at the scientific consensus, rather than just one (or even a few) studies, and I reject the implication that the value all of science can be discounted because of the actions of a few.

14 minutes ago, attrayant said:

 

While this is a tempting conspiracy to embrace, it simply isn't true on the large scale that people might think. That's why climate change research funded by oil companies consistently comes out against their financial interests.

 

There are some occasional exceptions, such as the corrupt & tort-driven research of the IARC, but by large the majority of the irreproducible studies are in the areas of psychology, marketing, economics, education and other social sciences.  Some are in medicine, which is concerning, but very few are due to outright fraud.  I can't believe many serious scientists would risk their careers this way, à la Wakefield.  While there is a problem with the "publish or perish" mindset in academia, I don't think there is any one problem or any one solution that will bring about a "fix".

 

 

Nobody should ever trust just one study, since it might be an outlier or woefully underpowered.  If studies are found to be unreproducible junk, then good - throw them out or attempt triage to see what went wrong.  Retraction Watch keeps an eye on studies that get pulled due to fraud or other misconduct.  So at least we are trying to shine some light on the issue.

 

Lots of studies are underpowered, and some exploratory research gets reported by the media as actual science.  Any time you see the phrase "linked to", that was most likely an incidental finding from research that wasn't looking for anything specific (IOW it contained no hypothesis to test).  Yet people run wild with these "X is linked to Y" announcements all the time.

 

This is why it's so important to look at the scientific consensus, rather than just one (or even a few) studies, and I reject the implication that the value all of science can be discounted because of the actions of a few.

Maybe yes to all that, but I can't but recall my geography lessons when I was at school, many moons ago.  There was then universal agreement among the World's scientific community that the Earths crust was solid and unmoving.  Until of course plate tectonics was discovered and embraced as the true position. It is surely a universal truth in science of any kind that something agreed is true, until it isn't.