Fraudulent research has become an active topic over the past couple of decades. That interest notably gave rise to a "MacArthur Genius Grant" to establish the excellent website Retraction Watch. Now the issue has been taken up in Reason magazine. The topic is sure to spark controversy. How Much Scientific Research Is Actually Fraudulent? Ronald Bailey, Reason ". . . The possibility that fraud may well be responsible for a significant proportion of the false positives reported in the scientific literature is suggested by a couple of new Dutch studies. Both studies are preprints that report the results of surveys of thousands of scientists in the Netherlands aiming to probe the prevalence of questionable research practices and scientific misconduct. Summarizing their results, an article in Science notes, "More than half of Dutch scientists regularly engage in questionable research practices, such as hiding flaws in their research design or selectively citing literature. And one in 12 [8 percent] admitted to committing a more serious form of research misconduct within the past 3 years: the fabrication or falsification of research results." Daniele Fanelli, a research ethicist at the London School of Economics, tells Science that 51 percent of researchers admitting to questionable research practices "could still be an underestimate." In June, a meta-analysis of prior studies on questionable research practices and misconduct published in the journal Science and Engineering Ethics reported that more than 15 percent of researchers had witnessed others who had committed at least one instance of research misconduct (falsification, fabrication, plagiarism), while nearly 40 percent were aware of others who had engaged in at least one questionable research practice. . . ."
Yikes! A bad day for science publications. Elsevier says “integrity and rigor” of peer review for 400 papers fell “beneath the high standards expected”
The answer is simple. Any science you disagree with is false. Anything you agree with is gospel. See, problem solved.
Thats the innevitable result of science being skewed to advance political agenda- it undermines trust in science itself. Its like cheating on your spouse. In a healthy relationship, you're trusted not to cheat until its proven that you cheated. Once you cheat though, you will always be assumed to be cheating unless you can prove you're not. Usually divorce is just a lot easier. Many people have now divorced themselves from the scientific community because they're tired of being suspicious of it all the time. ...and no one blames the spouse of a cheater for getting a divorce.
I wouldn't necessarily say the research is false. It's more the final report is slanted toward how they want to control the narrative. This is why stats are useless. They are just ways for people to manipulate data to push a certain narrative. I had a business law professor in college who told us that it's basically to say whatever you want to say and let the judge ding you. You've already planted the information in the listeners' heads and the judge's reaction makes it stick there.
So what do you suggest we just reject science? Or cherry pick what we want to hear? Or is the OP just trying to cast doubt in people's minds? Why would someone want to cast doubt on the scientific community..... unless they were pushing an agenda?
I hope you're not trying to suggest that science has never been skewed to support political agenda...
I am suggesting that there are credible sources for scientific information and sources that skew science for their own agenda by casting doubt and replacing it with poison propaganda.
The point of the linked article is precisely that the research itself is false or fraudulent: cannot be replicated.
OK, but my point is people do this because it works. Everybody hears the report (on whatever subject). Very few people do the backtracking to verify the details of such reports. Those that do push the "liar researcher" into printing or releasing a retraction but the FIRST <disinformation> is already in their heads. Maybe some hard-core deep professionals that need to know the nuts and bolts and validity would care but the average person wouldn't. This is why Trump's mind games work so well. All he has to do is make that first <piece of disinformation> to get people worked up. He doesn't care if the truth comes out because his target audience is already standing at the ready to crack some skulls for what they believe is the truth. These people were attempting to take our leaders hostage and probably hang Mike Pence (solely based on a piece of disinformation - Pence had the control to not certify the election results). Have you ever had a conversation with anybody about anything ever in your entire life that wasn't related to whatever work you do (people have to pay attention at their jobs if they want to stay employed)? If so, you already know that MOST people don't care about much of anything but themselves. Look at Trump again. He was elected President of the United States and it's a well-known fact that he DOES NOT LIKE READING. That's just absolutely outrageous.
We disagree about most of that. Take a look here. Retraction Watch – Tracking retractions as a window into the ... https://retractionwatch.com Tracking retractions as a window into the scientific process. ... A “systematic error” in a mental health database has led to the retraction of a 2017 paper ...
Inclusive of Environmental Impact and drug studies, easily over 90% SCIENCE is bought science! Moi
Did Trump say it? To put it another way WWDD? What Would Donald Do? Source: The Tome of Total Truth for Trumpers
“Questionable practice” is not the same as fraud Someone who only believes in Quantitative research would view the whole field of qualitative research as “questionable” But this is why all students with advance degrees learn to do “critical analysis” which teaches you how to evaluate the research fo flaws and it is this that I have been trying to teach you how to do. This is also why systematic reviews with a meta-analysis of literature are considered to be the pinnacle of research
A paper? A paper? Do you have ANY idea and I will double down on ANY idea how many mental health papers are published in any given year?
So true though cognitive bias is alive and well which is why so many rely on opinion blogs rather than well conducted research.
Yes but you have to prove that is so - and usually those that do it get caught out - a classic example The pro gun lobbyist John Lott. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Lott He has tried to pass off non peer reviewed “research” as valid, mysteriously “lost” the data supporting another research paper been accused of bribing editors to publish his work over others…….and been caught out so many times no one should listen to him but because he is a pro gun lobbyist…….
Because that is why there is such a thing as a peer review process, why impact factors are published online to show how “good” a journal is, why people like me are taught how to do critical analysis so we can sniff the rats in the pantry. It is why there are so many systematic reviews published. THIS IS HOW SCIENCE WORKS! someone posits a theory usually in the form of a question eg “Do people who put thier toes in icy water feel a cold sensation? Then they go on to prove yes or no but someone else might come along and say, “well they only tested two people and they were both under twenty so let’s do a bigger study with people of all ages” then the next person comes along and says “they only did this study with a yes/no response option let’s run it again with a scale of one to ten” etc etc etc EVERY study has limits and that is why we look at multiple studies and combine, where possible, the results