Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: March 28, 2024, 4:11 pm

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
What testing do science based facts get through to be validated?
#21
RE: What testing do science based facts get through to be validated?
I can sell you a tabletop fusion device, if you're interested.
[Image: images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRcT0aOT7n5xgMG8fSIPLV...ZInvYnk4&s]

Wink
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
Reply
#22
RE: What testing do science based facts get through to be validated?
Given that the claims include the ability to actually use it both of you fall short. Tsk tsk.
Reply
#23
RE: What testing do science based facts get through to be validated?
You can throw them at cats.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
Reply
#24
RE: What testing do science based facts get through to be validated?
(November 15, 2019 at 7:19 am)Alex K Wrote: Your impression is maybe true for individual studies no-one bothers to redo for a while, but things which enter the scientific consensus of a field are usually vetted. I can certainly say that with confidence for my own field. Social psychology has had some troubles with some studies regarded as classics being problematic, but I'm not the person to defend social psychology here, I'll gladly defend physics and related areas which are extremely rigorous.

But being vetted is not the same as being replicated, correct? Most journals do require a reviewing process before publication. But my understanding of that process is that regardless of how rigorous (and sometimes flawed) that process is, the reviewers are doing everything except replicating the experiment, right?
Reply
#25
RE: What testing do science based facts get through to be validated?
(November 15, 2019 at 11:12 am)John 6IX Breezy Wrote:
(November 15, 2019 at 7:19 am)Alex K Wrote: Your impression is maybe true for individual studies no-one bothers to redo for a while, but things which enter the scientific consensus of a field are usually vetted. I can certainly say that with confidence for my own field. Social psychology has had some troubles with some studies regarded as classics being problematic, but I'm not the person to defend social psychology here, I'll gladly defend physics and related areas which are extremely rigorous.

But being vetted is not the same as being replicated, correct? Most journals do require a reviewing process before publication. But my understanding of that process is that regardless of how rigorous (and sometimes flawed) that process is, the reviewers are doing everything except replicating the experiment, right?

Yes, having something peer reviewed before publication is really just a minimal quality check, not replication. But results which have merely been peer reviewed but not replicated will usually not be universally viewed as canonically accepted results by the community. When other groups try to use a result as a basis for their further work, they will notice whether it works. For example, if Charpentier and Doudna had messed up their CRISPR Cas9 research, thousands of people would have noticed by now.because the method is used daily.
The fool hath said in his heart, There is a God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.
Psalm 14, KJV revised edition

Reply
#26
RE: What testing do science based facts get through to be validated?
(November 15, 2019 at 11:25 am)Alex K Wrote: Yes, having something peer reviewed before publication is really just a minimal quality check, not replication. But results which have merely been peer reviewed but not replicated will usually not be universally viewed as canonically accepted results by the community. When other groups try to use a result as a basis for their further work, they will notice whether it works. For example, if Charpentier and Dudna had messed up their CRISPR Cas9 research, thousands of people would have noticed by now.because the method is used daily.

I agree there could be an indirect form of testing when attempting to use the results to further other research. But I can see two problems that arise if we lean too much on this. First, is that a paper's reliability becomes a measure of its popularity; meaning that papers that have been cited the most are the only ones that give us some confidence that they are reliable, whereas the vast majority of papers that have only been cited a handful of times cannot be seen as reliable. And I don't think scientists look to see how popular a paper is before they use it. Secondly, future research rarely hinges entirely on a single piece of previous work; they often review the entire literature on a subject and gather all the relevant papers in support of their own research project. This means that if their experiment is unsuccessful, you have as many variables to blame for the failure as you do papers in your reference section, and it is not immediately obvious which one is responsible (not to mention the fault could be with your own experiment design).
Reply
#27
RE: What testing do science based facts get through to be validated?
There's alot of good work in determining why something we expected to work fails, and in assessing a given experiments design, as well.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
Reply
#28
RE: What testing do science based facts get through to be validated?
(November 15, 2019 at 12:13 pm)John 6IX Breezy Wrote:
(November 15, 2019 at 11:25 am)Alex K Wrote: Yes, having something peer reviewed before publication is really just a minimal quality check, not replication. But results which have merely been peer reviewed but not replicated will usually not be universally viewed as canonically accepted results by the community. When other groups try to use a result as a basis for their further work, they will notice whether it works. For example, if Charpentier and Dudna had messed up their CRISPR Cas9 research, thousands of people would have noticed by now.because the method is used daily.

I agree there could be an indirect form of testing when attempting to use the results to further other research. But I can see two problems that arise if we lean too much on this. First, is that a paper's reliability becomes a measure of its popularity; meaning that papers that have been cited the most are the only ones that give us some confidence that they are reliable, whereas the vast majority of papers that have only been cited a handful of times cannot be seen as reliable. And I don't think scientists look to see how popular a paper is before they use it. Secondly, future research rarely hinges entirely on a single piece of previous work; they often review the entire literature on a subject and gather all the relevant papers in support of their own research project. This means that if their experiment is unsuccessful, you have as many variables to blame for the failure as you do papers in your reference section, and it is not immediately obvious which one is responsible (not to mention the fault could be with your own experiment design).

Well, finding out why, that is exactly what doing research is all about. Many a grad student will spend years wading through all relevant factors to determine where something goes awry. The only problem is that there is a bias against publishing negative studies which can bias the significance of published literature. That's why there are efforts to make pre-registration of studies mandatory.
The fool hath said in his heart, There is a God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.
Psalm 14, KJV revised edition

Reply



Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Abortion based on disability is eugenics - Here's why Dystopia 15 2154 April 13, 2015 at 9:50 pm
Last Post: Aractus
  More Facts For Creatards to Choke On Minimalist 11 3916 January 17, 2015 at 8:37 pm
Last Post: vorlon13
  Facts about Darwin: psychological and mental illnesses king krish 48 7109 January 13, 2015 at 6:41 pm
Last Post: Cyberman
  Evolution Facts Mystical 168 29773 August 31, 2014 at 1:48 pm
Last Post: popeyespappy
  Global warming, facts pls Natachan 31 4497 August 13, 2014 at 1:06 am
Last Post: KichigaiNeko
  Science Facts Thread Rayaan 2 1177 July 15, 2013 at 9:27 pm
Last Post: Tea Earl Grey Hot
  The Science of Why We Don’t Believe Science FifthElement 23 7635 June 25, 2013 at 10:54 am
Last Post: Rahul
  I need facts for evolution. manno 26 5948 October 4, 2012 at 10:17 pm
Last Post: Whateverist
  CREATARDS BEWARE - THIS THREAD CONTAINS FACTS Minimalist 3 3565 July 16, 2012 at 11:13 pm
Last Post: Angrboda
  Science Laughs: Science Comedian Brian Malow orogenicman 4 4240 December 10, 2010 at 12:06 pm
Last Post: Lethe



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)