How much research is fraudulent?

Discussion in 'Science' started by Jack Hays, Jul 11, 2021.

  1. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    27,379
    Likes Received:
    17,373
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    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. . . ."
     
    Last edited: Jul 11, 2021
  2. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    27,379
    Likes Received:
    17,373
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
  3. politicalcenter

    politicalcenter Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2011
    Messages:
    11,101
    Likes Received:
    6,786
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The answer is simple. Any science you disagree with is false. Anything you agree with is gospel. See, problem solved.
     
  4. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    27,379
    Likes Received:
    17,373
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    That's a silly answer.
     
    Irie, robini123, Bullseye and 4 others like this.
  5. modernpaladin

    modernpaladin Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2017
    Messages:
    27,703
    Likes Received:
    21,102
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    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.
     
    Irie, Fallen, zer0lis and 3 others like this.
  6. politicalcenter

    politicalcenter Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2011
    Messages:
    11,101
    Likes Received:
    6,786
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    But true, so true.
     
    1stvermont, Montegriffo and Bowerbird like this.
  7. MJ Davies

    MJ Davies Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2020
    Messages:
    21,120
    Likes Received:
    20,246
    Trophy Points:
    113
    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.
     
    Last edited: Jul 18, 2021
  8. politicalcenter

    politicalcenter Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2011
    Messages:
    11,101
    Likes Received:
    6,786
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    And some folks think the spouse is cheating when it isn't happening and no cause for divorce.
     
    Bowerbird likes this.
  9. politicalcenter

    politicalcenter Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2011
    Messages:
    11,101
    Likes Received:
    6,786
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    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?
     
    Last edited: Jul 18, 2021
    Montegriffo, Bowerbird and Cosmo like this.
  10. modernpaladin

    modernpaladin Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2017
    Messages:
    27,703
    Likes Received:
    21,102
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I hope you're not trying to suggest that science has never been skewed to support political agenda...
     
    UntilNextTime likes this.
  11. politicalcenter

    politicalcenter Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2011
    Messages:
    11,101
    Likes Received:
    6,786
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    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.
     
    Cosmo likes this.
  12. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    27,379
    Likes Received:
    17,373
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Actually, it's false, but that's another topic.
     
    Ddyad likes this.
  13. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    27,379
    Likes Received:
    17,373
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The point of the linked article is precisely that the research itself is false or fraudulent: cannot be replicated.
     
    Ddyad and Polydectes like this.
  14. MJ Davies

    MJ Davies Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2020
    Messages:
    21,120
    Likes Received:
    20,246
    Trophy Points:
    113
    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.
     
  15. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    27,379
    Likes Received:
    17,373
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    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 ...
     
    Ddyad likes this.
  16. Moi621

    Moi621 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2013
    Messages:
    19,292
    Likes Received:
    7,606
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male

    Inclusive of Environmental Impact :blahblah:
    and drug studies, easily over 90% SCIENCE :worship: is bought

    science!

    Moi :oldman:


    anti-Canada-b.jpg
     
    Last edited: Jul 18, 2021
    Ddyad likes this.
  17. Aleksander Ulyanov

    Aleksander Ulyanov Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2013
    Messages:
    41,184
    Likes Received:
    16,180
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Did Trump say it? To put it another way WWDD? What Would Donald Do?

    Source: The Tome of Total Truth for Trumpers
     
    Last edited: Jul 19, 2021
    Cosmo and Bowerbird like this.
  18. Bowerbird

    Bowerbird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    91,873
    Likes Received:
    73,626
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    “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

    upload_2021-7-19_21-37-44.png
    upload_2021-7-19_21-39-9.jpeg
     
  19. Bowerbird

    Bowerbird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    91,873
    Likes Received:
    73,626
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    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?
     
    Cosmo likes this.
  20. Bowerbird

    Bowerbird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    91,873
    Likes Received:
    73,626
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    So true though cognitive bias is alive and well which is why so many rely on opinion blogs rather than well conducted research.
     
    Cosmo and politicalcenter like this.
  21. Bowerbird

    Bowerbird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    91,873
    Likes Received:
    73,626
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    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…….
     
    Cosmo likes this.
  22. Montegriffo

    Montegriffo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2017
    Messages:
    10,672
    Likes Received:
    8,941
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    If you torture statistics enough you can get them to say whatever you want them to say.
     
    Ddyad and politicalcenter like this.
  23. Bowerbird

    Bowerbird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    91,873
    Likes Received:
    73,626
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    upload_2021-7-19_21-56-50.jpeg

    Mind you that has now morphed into

    upload_2021-7-19_21-57-20.jpeg
     
  24. modernpaladin

    modernpaladin Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2017
    Messages:
    27,703
    Likes Received:
    21,102
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Lol, how do you know they usually get caught?
     
    Ddyad likes this.
  25. Bowerbird

    Bowerbird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    91,873
    Likes Received:
    73,626
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    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
     

Share This Page