Most Published Research Findings Are False (2005) • Hacker News Board

Re: Most Published Research Findings Are False (2005)

#11

Post by buboard » Mon, Jan 28, 2019, 11:35 AM UTC

chrisseaton wrote: post #4

Including this one?

Generally, no. The article was published in PLoS Med, and concerns generally medical research studies. It has been more than 10 years and i think most people still don't disagree with it. Here is the authors response to criticisms:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1297555/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1896210/

Re: Most Published Research Findings Are False (2005)

#12

Post by simplystats2 » Mon, Jan 28, 2019, 12:18 PM UTC

A couple of other articles of interest:

An empirical estimate: https://academic.oup.com/biostatistics/article/15/1/1/244509

And a review with some context: https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/050575v1

Re: Most Published Research Findings Are False (2005)

#13

Post by YorkshireSeason » Mon, Jan 28, 2019, 12:52 PM UTC

vertline3 wrote: post #6

chrisseaton wrote: post #4

Including this one?

Can you elaborate as to why? Snark is not really the goal here.

It's a perfectly valid, and indeed important question.

Self-application is an important form of scientific methodology. Think e.g. of programming languages development: one of the first things you do is bootstrap a compiler.

Re: Most Published Research Findings Are False (2005)

#14

Post by lifeformed » Mon, Jan 28, 2019, 12:59 PM UTC

asianthrowaway wrote: post #7

chrisseaton wrote: post #4

Including this one?

If this publication is false, its premise is true, which would mean the publication is true?

This sentence is false.

Re: Most Published Research Findings Are False (2005)

#15

Post by chmike » Mon, Jan 28, 2019, 1:04 PM UTC

As stated, this research finding my be false too ! ;)

Re: Most Published Research Findings Are False (2005)

#16

Post by samuell » Mon, Jan 28, 2019, 1:04 PM UTC

A nature survey from 2016 among 1500 scientists, revealing a widespread consensus that there exists a reproducibility crisis in science:

https://www.nature.com/news/1-500-scientists-lift-the-lid-on...

Re: Most Published Research Findings Are False (2005)

#17

Post by johannesbeil » Mon, Jan 28, 2019, 1:37 PM UTC

Do you think a Github for science would help?

Re: Most Published Research Findings Are False (2005)

#18

Post by jsaldes » Mon, Jan 28, 2019, 1:46 PM UTC

buboard wrote: post #11

chrisseaton wrote: post #4

Including this one?

Generally, no. The article was published in PLoS Med, and concerns generally medical research studies. It has been more than 10 years and i think most people still don't disagree with it. Here is the authors response to criticisms: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1297555/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1896210/

Just for clarification, am I correct to assume that this mainly applies to research conducted in the medical field then?

Re: Most Published Research Findings Are False (2005)

#19

Post by mensetmanusman » Mon, Jan 28, 2019, 1:58 PM UTC

lifeformed wrote: post #14

asianthrowaway wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If this publication is false, its premise is true, which would mean the publication is true?

This sentence is false.

Only Gödel can save us now.

Re: Most Published Research Findings Are False (2005)

#20

Post by jshowa3 » Mon, Jan 28, 2019, 1:59 PM UTC

samuell wrote: post #16

A nature survey from 2016 among 1500 scientists, revealing a widespread consensus that there exists a reproducibility crisis in science: https://www.nature.com/news/1-500-scientists-lift-the-lid-on...

I generally agree with this. The publication game tends to focus on exciting new discoveries way more than reproduced ones. I think this is because universities push you to focus on "original ideas" when publishing theses instead of reproducing other ideas because the former is "harder" than the latter.