Politics, influence peddling, nothing to do with the subject.gegyx wrote:https://www.welt.de/politik/deutschland/article225864597/Interner-E-Mail-Verkehr-Innenministerium-spannte-Wissenschaftler-ein.html
Scientific reliability and levels of scientific evidence
-
- Econologue expert
- posts: 13715
- Registration: 17/03/14, 23:42
- Location: picardie
- x 1524
- Contact :
Re: Scientific reliability and levels of scientific evidence
0 x
Re: Scientific reliability and levels of scientific evidence
fart.
Reread the first page and others still contradict you on your preconceptions
Reread the first page and others still contradict you on your preconceptions
0 x
- Exnihiloest
- Econologue expert
- posts: 5365
- Registration: 21/04/15, 17:57
- x 660
Re: Scientific reliability and levels of scientific evidence
Janic wrote:Exnihiloest »08/02/21, 22:05Of course not! Its role is not to decide on the words of experts ...Janic wrote:
... Justice does not judge on scientific evidence since it does not have the competence ...
Of course, yes, it is common knowledge: it calls on experts, scientific police, doctors, psychologists ...
There is no point in wriggling argutie. To the extent that a judgment is rendered after the words of experts have been taken into account, it is because they have been decided.
0 x
Re: Scientific reliability and levels of scientific evidence
Oh no, once again, otherwise there would be no appeal and even recourse to cassation! If all the invited experts are unanimous, the judgment will follow this majority opinion, including condemning the innocent following the insufficient means of knowledge of the experts at the time of the judgment as before the DNA. and therefore committing a manifest injustice linked to human subjectivity. The only thing that is virtually uncontested are the facts recognized...and even!There is no point in wriggling argutie. To the extent that a judgment is rendered after the words of experts have been taken into account, it is because they have been decided.
0 x
"We make science with facts, like making a house with stones: but an accumulation of facts is no more a science than a pile of stones is a house" Henri Poincaré
- BaudouinLabrique
- Éconologue good!
- posts: 318
- Registration: 11/02/18, 18:17
- Location: Hainaut (Belgium)
- x 54
Re: Scientific reliability and levels of scientific evidence
"MOST OF THE CONCLUSIONS OF THE PUBLISHED SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH ARE FALSE" ?!
It is not me who affirms it but a very scientific source and relayed by the bible of scientific publications (Pub Med) which makes the following observation:
"Why Most of the Findings in Published Scientific Research Are Wrong"
("Why Most Published Research Findings Are False")
This scientific article, beyond any suspicion of suspicion, has a content that is all the less suspicious, since it was not only published on Plos Medecine which enjoys a solid reputation for seriousness, but in addition it was endorsed by the bible of reference in medical scientific publications PubMed
(the latter provides the world's leading bibliographic database and is produced by the National Library of Medicine USA)
www.journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/arti...ed.0020124
Of course, isolated studies give an indication of the reality of things, but remember, the map they are studying does not correspond to the territory it represents!
NB The conclusions of the meta-analyzes, in which they bring together a large number of studies to draw a synthesis from them, are then the closest to reality.
It is not me who affirms it but a very scientific source and relayed by the bible of scientific publications (Pub Med) which makes the following observation:
"Why Most of the Findings in Published Scientific Research Are Wrong"
("Why Most Published Research Findings Are False")
This scientific article, beyond any suspicion of suspicion, has a content that is all the less suspicious, since it was not only published on Plos Medecine which enjoys a solid reputation for seriousness, but in addition it was endorsed by the bible of reference in medical scientific publications PubMed
(the latter provides the world's leading bibliographic database and is produced by the National Library of Medicine USA)
www.journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/arti...ed.0020124
Of course, isolated studies give an indication of the reality of things, but remember, the map they are studying does not correspond to the territory it represents!
NB The conclusions of the meta-analyzes, in which they bring together a large number of studies to draw a synthesis from them, are then the closest to reality.
1 x
«There are those who see things as they are and wonder why. Me, I see them as they could be and I say to myself: why not! (Sir Bernard Shaw)
« The future belongs to those who see the possibilities before they become obvious. (Theodore Levitt).
« The future belongs to those who see the possibilities before they become obvious. (Theodore Levitt).
- BaudouinLabrique
- Éconologue good!
- posts: 318
- Registration: 11/02/18, 18:17
- Location: Hainaut (Belgium)
- x 54
Re: Scientific reliability and levels of scientific evidence
Another dismaying observation which already confirmed it:
Prof. Robert Rosenthal has shown that experimenters in psychology, education, medicine and material sciences can unconsciously affect the results of any study, in the sense of what they expected, by contamination of hypotheses issued.
(Jo Godefroid, Psychology, human and cognitive science, Ed. De Boeck University, Brussels, 2008, p. 105).
This is in contradiction with one of the immutable principles of the so-called exact sciences which requires that the experimenter never put himself in a position to influence what he tests.
Under such conditions, we can measure the fragility of what is the basis of all scientific research: we shudder at the idea of what happens to the credibility still to be given to this part of Science with a rationalist and materialist aim and to the validity of his "findings".
Prof. Robert Rosenthal has shown that experimenters in psychology, education, medicine and material sciences can unconsciously affect the results of any study, in the sense of what they expected, by contamination of hypotheses issued.
(Jo Godefroid, Psychology, human and cognitive science, Ed. De Boeck University, Brussels, 2008, p. 105).
This is in contradiction with one of the immutable principles of the so-called exact sciences which requires that the experimenter never put himself in a position to influence what he tests.
Under such conditions, we can measure the fragility of what is the basis of all scientific research: we shudder at the idea of what happens to the credibility still to be given to this part of Science with a rationalist and materialist aim and to the validity of his "findings".
0 x
«There are those who see things as they are and wonder why. Me, I see them as they could be and I say to myself: why not! (Sir Bernard Shaw)
« The future belongs to those who see the possibilities before they become obvious. (Theodore Levitt).
« The future belongs to those who see the possibilities before they become obvious. (Theodore Levitt).
-
- Moderator
- posts: 79360
- Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
- Location: Greenhouse planet
- x 11060
Re: Scientific reliability and levels of scientific evidence
BaudouinLabrique wrote:"MOST OF THE CONCLUSIONS OF THE PUBLISHED SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH ARE FALSE" ?!
(...)
This scientific article, beyond any suspicion of suspicion, has a content that is all the less suspicious, since it was not only published on Plos Medecine which enjoys a solid reputation for seriousness, but in addition it was endorsed by the bible of reference in medical scientific publications PubMed
It is also scientific research ... suddenly are its conclusions correct ... they?
1 x
Do a image search or an text search - Netiquette of forum
-
- Econologue expert
- posts: 13715
- Registration: 17/03/14, 23:42
- Location: picardie
- x 1524
- Contact :
Re: Scientific reliability and levels of scientific evidence
Classic bias of certain studies that do not pass the "preprint" course, hence the usefulness of randomized peer-reviewed studies that are consensus.BaudouinLabrique wrote:Prof. Robert Rosenthal has shown that experimenters in psychology, education, medicine and material sciences can unconsciously affect the results of any study, in the sense of what they expected, by contamination of hypotheses issued.
(Jo Godefroid, Psychology, human and cognitive science, Ed. De Boeck University, Brussels, 2008, p. 105).
This does not prevent the accepted conclusions from being revised or refuted, following new findings.
0 x
Re: Scientific reliability and levels of scientific evidence
this is quite correct since all of them are tainted with subjectivity. Even math is no exception! science is a process, not an end in itself.It is also scientific research ... suddenly are its conclusions correct ... they?
studies in quantum physics eluded randomized peer-reviewed studies in Newtonian physics.Classic bias of certain studies that do not pass the "preprint" course, hence the usefulness of randomized peer-reviewed studies that are consensus.
Flat earth, in its day, was the most prevalent form in physics and obtaining peer consensus in conventional physics.
0 x
"We make science with facts, like making a house with stones: but an accumulation of facts is no more a science than a pile of stones is a house" Henri Poincaré
- Exnihiloest
- Econologue expert
- posts: 5365
- Registration: 21/04/15, 17:57
- x 660
Re: Scientific reliability and levels of scientific evidence
BaudouinLabrique wrote:"MOST OF THE CONCLUSIONS OF THE PUBLISHED SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH ARE FALSE" ?!
It is not me who affirms it but a very scientific source and relayed by the bible of scientific publications (Pub Med) which makes the following observation:
"Why Most of the Findings in Published Scientific Research Are Wrong"
("Why Most Published Research Findings Are False")
...
And why should we have more faith in this publication than in scientific publications ?!
In the field I know well, physics and electronics, scientific publications are rarely wrong. And it is easily verifiable: the resulting technologies work. The only concern is that more than 80% are ultimately just plagiarism and repetitions that are not innovative. The fault of scientific publication is above all the fact that researchers are noted on their references (the more they are cited the more they will be able to "rise in rank" and obtain notoriety and funds from or for their organization), the consequence is that 'they produce a lot of uninteresting and that they have friends ("you quote me, I quote you").
As for psychology, I don't even consider it a science. Only his method is, but the knowledge is so rudimentary that psychologists are unable in a trial where they are called as experts, to say whether a child is lying or telling the truth, which is however binary).
Medicine is indeed a science and therefore knowledge, but here I have no experience to say whether the publications are mostly false.
0 x
Back to "Science and Technology"
Who is online ?
Users browsing this forum : No registered users and 154 guests