Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Irreproducibility Crisis of Modern Science

nas.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 265 posts

Re: The Irreproducibility Crisis of Modern Science

#31

Post by quantumwoke »

emodendroket wrote: post #16
quantumwoke wrote: post #13

Recently I have been beginning to question university education. It seems that today's education system has mismatched priorities which may have an impact on the reproducibility crisis. You see, to come up with a fantastic new alloy, you don't have to be a genius. Or even very good. You have to be persistent, and clever enough to realize when you've found something interesting. You will need to understand your field…

> Recently I have been beginning to question university education. Why are we bothering to educate anyone except the very, very best students in physics, maths and engineering? In fact, why aren't we identifying these students and sending them straight to Caltech? It seems intuitive that this would solve one half of the reproducibility crisis. That doesn't seem intuitive at all.

Please read the comment again. I address this in the very next sentence.

Re: The Irreproducibility Crisis of Modern Science

#32

Post by emodendroket »

jellicle wrote: post #19
rplst8 wrote: post #4

This is the exact reason I don't believe science should be used blindly to affect government policy. It flies in the face of democracy and is subject to falsehoods just like any other human endeavor.

Well, you're in luck. Science has zero effect on government policy in all nations that I'm familiar with.

That's obviously false.

Re: The Irreproducibility Crisis of Modern Science

#33

Post by thaumaturgy »

rplst8 wrote: post #4

This is the exact reason I don't believe science should be used blindly to affect government policy. It flies in the face of democracy and is subject to falsehoods just like any other human endeavor.

Acknowledging that you included the word "blindly", but still: the alternative is what we're using now, which is ideology, and it sucks.

Re: The Irreproducibility Crisis of Modern Science

#34

Post by m-watson »

rplst8 wrote: post #4

This is the exact reason I don't believe science should be used blindly to affect government policy. It flies in the face of democracy and is subject to falsehoods just like any other human endeavor.

I agree it shouldn't be used blindly but that seems like the extreme. In fact the science side of things would say don't use anything blindly. Science isn't some infallible entity it is a process that is supposed to be self correcting over periods of time. That includes falsehoods from human bias and input. It doesn't always work and it is a slow process but in science's essence it is supposed to be minimizing those errors.

But again, getting back to agreeing, scientific findings should not be used blindly, they should be used to inform. And as reproduction of findings occurs, the the topic that is being informed gets re-enforced or course corrected. It is very similar to policy, you have to try things. Some times the policy does what you want, other times it doesn't, and the process should continue and be correcting.

Re: The Irreproducibility Crisis of Modern Science

#35

Post by emodendroket »

quantumwoke wrote: post #31
emodendroket wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Recently I have been beginning to question university education. Why are we bothering to educate anyone except the very, very best students in physics, maths and engineering? In fact, why aren't we identifying these students and sending them straight to Caltech? It seems intuitive that this would solve one half of the reproducibility crisis. That doesn't seem intuitive at all.

Please read the comment again. I address this in the very next sentence.

Well, not really.

Re: The Irreproducibility Crisis of Modern Science

#36

Post by lotsofpulp »

rplst8 wrote: post #7
Retric wrote: post #3

Being reproducible is only critically important if people treat individual studies as meaningful. That IMO is a far more dangerous stance. Any study can have hidden flaws, none should be trusted without some form of replication.

How often is a study even repeated in the course of normal scientific research? I think most studies are focused on expanding the research and therefore knowledge about the science being studied. Accepting previous studies as fact is dangerous and could easily lead to a house of cards scenario. I think this is especially true in the very specific, niche studies that are common in today's highly competitive graduate s…

That is why, as a (global) society, we should spend our resources in making sure the data we have is accurate by funding research and repeated studies, and that data should be open to all to verify and build upon.

Re: The Irreproducibility Crisis of Modern Science

#37

Post by SubiculumCode »

rplst8 wrote: post #7
Retric wrote: post #3

Being reproducible is only critically important if people treat individual studies as meaningful. That IMO is a far more dangerous stance. Any study can have hidden flaws, none should be trusted without some form of replication.

How often is a study even repeated in the course of normal scientific research? I think most studies are focused on expanding the research and therefore knowledge about the science being studied. Accepting previous studies as fact is dangerous and could easily lead to a house of cards scenario. I think this is especially true in the very specific, niche studies that are common in today's highly competitive graduate s…

Most scientists in my profession look for converging evidence from multiple lines. While the same study is rarely repeated, the same concept does get tested multiple times with different approaches.

Re: The Irreproducibility Crisis of Modern Science

#38

Post by merpnderp »

lmm wrote: post #12
rplst8 wrote: post #4

This is the exact reason I don't believe science should be used blindly to affect government policy. It flies in the face of democracy and is subject to falsehoods just like any other human endeavor.

If we don't use science to make decisions, what are we supposed to use? Gut instinct? Of course science is imperfect, but it tends towards truth over time, whereas dogma and populism have no way of correcting mistakes that isn't just as likely to introduce new ones.

How long ago was it that science was controverting centuries of populist knowledge that carbs are what made you fat, not eating fat?

Talk about science creating a mind boggling ongoing health crisis by telling people to limit their fat intake and replace it with cereals and bread.

Re: The Irreproducibility Crisis of Modern Science

#39

Post by quantumwoke »

emodendroket wrote: post #35
quantumwoke wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please read the comment again. I address this in the very next sentence.

Well, not really.

From the HN guidelines:

>Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something.

Re: The Irreproducibility Crisis of Modern Science

#40

Post by leereeves »

Retric wrote: post #3

Being reproducible is only critically important if people treat individual studies as meaningful. That IMO is a far more dangerous stance. Any study can have hidden flaws, none should be trusted without some form of replication.

The issues mentioned in the introduction affect entire fields, not just individual studies:

> Improper use of statistics, arbitrary research techniques, lack of accountability, political groupthink, and a scientific culture biased toward producing positive results

Post reply on HN