RE: Peer reviewed study published in Science Journal turns out to be fraud.
May 23, 2015 at 1:54 pm
(May 23, 2015 at 12:36 pm)YGninja Wrote:(May 23, 2015 at 12:34 pm)SteelCurtain Wrote: Pure chance? Did you even read the article you buffoon?
A separate group tried unsuccessfully to replicate the results. They then asked for the raw data from the original study, which didn't exist. That's exactly how it's supposed to work. If you do a study with fantastic (and I'm not using that term colloquially) results, people are going to look at it closely and try to disprove or confirm the experiment.
It is pure chance that a separate group tried to replicate the results. The results and the conclusion taken from those results should have been exposed during peer-review. Peer reviews are meant to anaylse the veracity of the source data. Once a paper has passed peer-review, it is widely acknowledged to be reliable, with no further investigation necessary.
No, it's not. You are exactly wrong. Every "landmark" result is going to have a replication attempt. That is the risk of publishing. It is somewhat easy to fake results that would pass peer review. When the results are seemingly obvious, people's filters are down because of bias. This is recognized and not easily avoided. So there are replication studies done literally all the time. Check the citations on many meta-studies. You will find that most experiments have been done before, and the confirmation is in using a different method and confirming, but equally as important is using a different method and getting a contradictory result or failing to confirm the result.
Yes, people have agendas. Science doesn't, and will correct itself when people with agendas publish.
Your hypocrisy is astounding. If you don't trust scientists, you should never go to a hospital or take a pharmacological drug. The peer-review process is the only method doctors and medical research scientists use to get their procedures and drugs approved. If you don't think there is a monetary bias there that bad research gets through in order to make a buck, you are as stupid as you are making yourself sound here. The good thing is that when the research doubles back on itself, then you get proper testing done, and the real results are shown. It's a built in self correcting device.
"There remain four irreducible objections to religious faith: that it wholly misrepresents the origins of man and the cosmos, that because of this original error it manages to combine the maximum servility with the maximum of solipsism, that it is both the result and the cause of dangerous sexual repression, and that it is ultimately grounded on wish-thinking." ~Christopher Hitchens, god is not Great
PM me your email address to join the Slack chat! I'll give you a taco(or five) if you join! --->There's an app and everything!<---
PM me your email address to join the Slack chat! I'll give you a taco(or five) if you join! --->There's an app and everything!<---
