Peer reviewed study published in Science Journal turns out to be fraud.

[Cyberman]

Isn't it hilarious when a fundie tries to use an example of what makes science work as an example of why science doesn't work?

[Longhorn]

Troll...

You sure?

---

Yep, that's a troll

---

[abaris]

It is pure chance that a separate group tried to replicate the results.

That sentence shows that you understand nothing of the scientific process. Pure chance applies to your circles not to science.

[Cyberman]

No no no, you have to take everything the scientists say on faith, just because they say it. You're not supposed to test it. Every idiot knows that.

[Iroscato]

Is this the best that the Warriors of Christ have these days? Reduced to throwing pebbles from the sidewalk over minor discrepancies in scientific literature that get corrected after a couple years.
I mean really, the mighty truly are fallen xD

[abaris]

I mean really, the mighty truly are fallen xD

Mighty as in taking a mighty dump? I fail to make any other connection between warriors of faith and the word mighty.

[Cyberman]

Mighty annoying. Mighty childish.

[Tonus]

It is pure chance that a separate group tried to replicate the results.

Not really, that's what researchers do.  They seek to either validate or overturn the work that others have done, whether peer-reviewed or not.  It's notable that it took less than half-a-year to go from a published report that was being hailed to a disgraced report that will be retracted.  That's pretty fast, and it shows one of the strengths of the scientific method: bad science can be exposed.  And since this is scientific research, the author of the original report can't claim "new light via divine revelation" to change his interpretation and salvage his bad work.  That's a good thing.

[SteelCurtain]

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.

[Aoi Magi]

I seriously don't understand why it is so hard to believe in evolution, it happens all around us, and the general process is so damn obvious. Even bible-thumpers are acknowledging "micro-evolution". Sure our understanding of evolution isn't perfect yet, as in, we cannot precisely predict each and every evolutionary branch or future changes, and we do scratch our heads a bit from time to time when nature surprises us with unpredicted fossils and records, and yes these new findings will force us to alter our definition of evolution, and maybe even lead to a different theory altogether, but that just means we are improving our understanding of things and NOT figuring out a conspiracy.

When a study is published, what do you think people do with it? Put it on the local newspaper and forget about it? Or use those results as a base to build upon? And if people are going to work with fraudulent data, is it really so hard to imagine that someone will figure out the fraud eventually?