Jan 21, 2011

The Truth Wears Off

NewYorker This excellent article was originally written to describe "declining results" in scientific studies and offer a possible explanation or two. Especially notice it is applicable to virtually all scientific disciplines. What it should do is make everyone far more skeptical of studies that rely on statistics.

As Nobel-laureate Richard Feynman said: "Statistics are not proof." Ron P. http://comiccoverage.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8345158e369e200e554f7e9078834-piExcerpt: The test of replicability, as it's known, is the foundation of modern research. Replicability is how the community enforces itself. It's a safeguard for the creep of subjectivity. Most of the time, scientists know what results they want, and that can influence the results they get. The premise of replicability is that the scientific community can correct for these flaws. But now all sorts of well-established, multiply confirmed findings have started to look increasingly uncertain.

HTML clipboardIt's as if our facts were losing their truth: claims that have been enshrined in textbooks are suddenly unprovable. This phenomenon doesn't yet have an official name, but it's occurring across a wide range of fields, from psychology to ecology. In the field of medicine, the phenomenon seems extremely widespread, affecting not only antipsychotics but also therapies ranging from cardiac stents to Vitamin E and antidepressants: Davis has a forthcoming analysis demonstrating that the efficacy of antidepressants has gone down as much as threefold in recent decades. For many scientists, the effect is especially troubling because of what it exposes about the scientific process.
If replication is what separates the rigor of science from the squishiness of pseudoscience, where do we put all these rigorously validated findings that can no longer be proved? Which results should we believe? Francis Bacon, the early-modern philosopher and pioneer of the scientific method, once declared that experiments were essential, because they allowed us to "put nature to the question." But it appears that nature often gives us different answers. (…) Leigh Simmons, a biologist at the University of Western Australia, suggested one explanation when he told me about his initial enthusiasm for the theory….

http://youarebeingdeceived.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/climate-gate-cartoon-2.jpgHe decided to conduct a few experiments of his own, investigating symmetry in male horned beetles. "Unfortunately, I couldn't find the effect," he said. "But the worst part was that when I submitted these null results I had difficulty getting them published. The journals only wanted confirming data.

It was too exciting an idea to disprove, at least back then." For Simmons, the steep rise and slow fall of fluctuating asymmetry is a clear example of a scientific paradigm, one of those intellectual fads that both guide and constrain research: after a new paradigm is proposed, the peer-review process is tilted toward positive results. But then, after a few years, the academic incentives shift—the paradigm has become entrenched—so that the most notable results are now those that disprove the theory.

Comment: Well, 43.78% of statistics are made up....including this one. ~Bob


Related??? 
An online news service sponsored by the world's premier scientific association unwittingly promoted a study making the false claim that catastrophic global warming would occur within nine years, the Guardian has learned.