Scientific reliability and levels of scientific evidence

General scientific debates. Presentations of new technologies (not directly related to renewable energies or biofuels or other themes developed in other sub-sectors) forums).
izentrop
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 10721
Registration: 17/03/14, 23:42
Location: picardie
x 944
Contact :

Re: Scientific reliability and levels of scientific evidence




by izentrop » 09/02/21, 20:15

gegyx wrote:https://www.welt.de/politik/deutschland/article225864597/Interner-E-Mail-Verkehr-Innenministerium-spannte-Wissenschaftler-ein.html
Politics, influence peddling, nothing to do with the subject.
0 x

User avatar
gegyx
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 5153
Registration: 21/01/05, 11:59
x 1426

Re: Scientific reliability and levels of scientific evidence




by gegyx » 10/02/21, 00:13

fart.

Reread the first page and others still contradict you on your preconceptions
0 x
User avatar
Exnihiloest
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 4701
Registration: 21/04/15, 17:57
x 419

Re: Scientific reliability and levels of scientific evidence




by Exnihiloest » 10/02/21, 18:56

Janic wrote:Exnihiloest »08/02/21, 22:05
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 ...
Of course not! Its role is not to decide on the words of experts ...


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
Janic
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 16864
Registration: 29/10/10, 13:27
Location: bourgogne
x 2297

Re: Scientific reliability and levels of scientific evidence




by Janic » 10/02/21, 20:01

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.
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!
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
I understand econologic
I understand econologic
posts: 165
Registration: 11/02/18, 18:17
Location: Hainaut (Belgium)
x 18

Re: Scientific reliability and levels of scientific evidence




by BaudouinLabrique » 11/02/21, 10:51

"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.
1 x
God laughs at men who complain of the consequences while they cherish their causes (Bossuet)

BaudouinLabrique
I understand econologic
I understand econologic
posts: 165
Registration: 11/02/18, 18:17
Location: Hainaut (Belgium)
x 18

Re: Scientific reliability and levels of scientific evidence




by BaudouinLabrique » 11/02/21, 10:53

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".
0 x
God laughs at men who complain of the consequences while they cherish their causes (Bossuet)
Christophe
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 71672
Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
Location: Greenhouse planet
x 7517

Re: Scientific reliability and levels of scientific evidence




by Christophe » 11/02/21, 11:26

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? : Cheesy:
1 x
Do a image search or an text search - Netiquette of forum - Support the forum doing Useful shopping
izentrop
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 10721
Registration: 17/03/14, 23:42
Location: picardie
x 944
Contact :

Re: Scientific reliability and levels of scientific evidence




by izentrop » 11/02/21, 12:05

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).
Classic bias of certain studies that do not pass the "preprint" course, hence the usefulness of randomized peer-reviewed studies that are consensus.
This does not prevent the accepted conclusions from being revised or refuted, following new findings.
0 x
Janic
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 16864
Registration: 29/10/10, 13:27
Location: bourgogne
x 2297

Re: Scientific reliability and levels of scientific evidence




by Janic » 11/02/21, 12:13

It is also scientific research ... suddenly are its conclusions correct ... they?
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.

Classic bias of certain studies that do not pass the "preprint" course, hence the usefulness of randomized peer-reviewed studies that are consensus.
studies in quantum physics eluded randomized peer-reviewed studies in Newtonian physics.
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
User avatar
Exnihiloest
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 4701
Registration: 21/04/15, 17:57
x 419

Re: Scientific reliability and levels of scientific evidence




by Exnihiloest » 11/02/21, 22:52

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 12 guests