You must log in or register to comment.
If you challenge my findings, it will hurt my profits
FTFY.
I found this publication in the British Medical Journal interesting about how evidence-based medicine is undermined by financial incentives. Science is the best institution we have for understanding the truth, but it’s far from incorruptible. It’s especially disappointing that the companies profiting from a product are in many instances the ones doing the studies to prove their safety and effectiveness. The corporate capture of the governmental agencies tasked with regulating them is also quite concerning, as is the state of academia.
All my homies love meta science
“boy i wish anyone bothered to even skim my paper to make sure i didn’t make an obvious math error”
I like to export the failing onto other people, though.
gravity doesn’t really care who tries to disprove it, they still go splat.
Unfortunately negative results don’t get published as much as they should
Everyone in science I’ve ever met agrees there should be a Journal of Stuff That Didn’t Work
Ideally? Yes
But a modern scientific environment puts a lot of pressure to present your results better than they really are.
It damages good science a great deal
In my opinion, the obsession with being able to measure everything with numbers is the cause. And those numbers are inevitably converting d to units of money, because capitalism.
Yup, metrics kill it all
There was a rule of sorts. All metrics become goals or something like that.
over fitting, but people
“When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure.”
This is why p-hacking and searching huge databases for anything with a correlation to a desirable (or undesirable) trait are simultaneously so prevalent, and so damaging.
Very true
Having your findings disproven isn’t failing though right? You still added to the body of knowledge because we know more stuff. I’m not a scientist though so I could be wrong. Pseudoscientists add nothing and just do harm though.
No work is wasted if it gives a clearer picture of something. Even if you get disproven, it just means that you found one of the dark parts of the picture. Now sure, people mostly remember the ones that discover the brighter parts of the image. But the whole picture is still made of both the dark and bright parts. We don’t just need to know what works, we also need to know for sure what DOESN’T work. Or else we’ll never know the real bounds of something.
Now if you don’t mind, i’ll go back to slamming my head against analysis.
Slammed! Also cool metaphor.
It’s not a failure in the usual sense we think about it, no. You were still “technically wrong” in whatever hypothesis you had that was disproven. But the end result is different because theoretically everyone involved cares more about the answer being found, not necessarily that they are the one to do it.
Hell, in cases where whatever you did was later proven incorrect it’s usually that whatever you did was the most correct answer for the information we had at the time. Then new information is discovered and often someone else builds off what you did to get this new answer.
Theoretically yes, but in practice, negative results don’t usually get published. People don’t want to fund negative results. Every fu ding agency is always chasing novelty, and impact. Our scientific community is actually kind of bad with actually doing science. We are lucky if we get negative results widely known these days.
I’ll keep saying it. Let’s have a journal system for negative results and replication studies. Give partial credits for it relative to journal papers with novelty.
So if you have an idea you can search there, see if someone has tried it and failed, and how they failed. You can also search a certain paper and see if people have replicated the study.
It’ll help everyone immensely.
If all is being done on the up and up, nobody’s got an agenda to push, they’re actually doing science: no. Doing an experiment, publishing results, and then having your peers replicate your experiment and be unable to reproduce your results is not failure. In the words of Adam Savage, “It’s not ‘my experiment failed,’ it’s ‘my experiment yielded data.’” But also, if one scientist gets a result and no one else does, the real thing we learn might be in finding out why.
REPEAT is a part of the scientific process.
I found god, disprove that betas!
That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
Have you read the bible?? Absolute proof 😎
<mic drop>
Proof for what is the question.
Proof that high resolutions do not exist? Huh, did not see that one coming.
You can tell that this image did not actually come from God because it is not 640x480x16.
God works in mysterious ways…
Elves, trolls, orcs, dwarves, ents and hobbits are real! It says so on the holy book: The Lord Of The Rings.
You have the right energy but the wrong book, join my book club, the one and only true book club!
Do you guys have a new true book per week or is it more of a true book a month club?
It’s not a set schedule, every now and again someone from the club decides that we don’t know how to read correctly and opens up a new book club with his own version of the book, which is of course not the one true book.
I don’t know.
The whole thing sounds like it will lead into fights amongst true book clubs because the members of each will think theirs is the true book, not the other ones, and the fights might even be worse between the true book clubs that were originally the same. I all sounds kinda dangerous.
Plus, how would I know if the book of your true book club is in fact the one and only true book if there are other true book clubs which like you book also claim to have the one and only true book and its a different book?
if someone cared enough about my research to even replicate it let alone disprove it I’d be losing my shit
I’ll find it and put it on your doorstep.
What’s it about?
silly lil algae :3
(tbh it’s been a good decade since i was working on projects leading to publication. I’ve been stuck in manufacturing/industry hell. send help)
I really don’t like this “no true scotsman” flavored meme, the profit incentive destroys valuable research by limiting resources to replications of past experiments (as soon as something is profitable, you must not disprove it for a fear of retaliation from companies promoting said something), this is systemic, not an individual level problem, get rid of “bad scientists” and more will be propped up.
I do like the sentiment of the meme though, more more replication is needed.
Meanwhile, Higher Education research be like:
- publishes good quality research on the efficacy of an advising methodology
- immediately gets ripped to shreds by professors from schools using other advising methods
- only research that gets unchallenged is stuff like “some advising is much better than no advising” or "people have different learning styles
- academic advising will never be a career due to the lack of consensus
Mistress has failed more times than the student has had chances
To make this meme work I am assuming pseudoscience are your flat eathers, anti-vaxxers, anyone who publishes bogus papers to push an agenda. Their experiments are replicated, produce completely different results to contradict their hypothesis and these pseudoscientists simply refuse to accept the data produced after sound methods are used and verified. They end up becoming zealots about it too.A hypothesis being wrong is not bad at all but their own personalities prevent them from accepting it.
We need to push more for good science because a lot of times there is a ton of pressure to produce research and go along with the current established theories instead of being able to challenge them.
Don’t forget about the third category: “Your research results are hurting my feelings and therefore wrong! Cancel you!”
Or “your research results will hurt my profits, this media campaign will slander your credibility. We’ll do our own research, with blackjack and hookers, and bribed results”
For example, a friend of mine ran a study that disproved a company’s study that they used to push a product. Then my friend’s company got blacklisted by the first company for all future products.
Or “my research is true because of conspiracy theories”
Fans of conspiracy theories do researches? :)
I mean that pseudoscientists often back their claims via conspiracy theories
