
Most Scientific research papers are probably wrong - vlad
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7915&feedId=online-news_rss20
======
rfrey
Nowhere did this article say that 50% of research papers were not "factually
accurate". It says faulty research methods mean 50% of conclusions are not
true.

Which is itself a ridiculous thing for New Scientist to repeat. The basis of
the scientific method is that we don't ever try to prove things are true. We
just show that there's a good chance (1 in 20 is standard) that a model fits.
Statistical methods are used and statistics is another area that has no truck
with "truth" -- it is the mathematics of making your way in a probabilistic
universe.

Having papers come out with promising claims and having "only" 50% of them
stand up to professional scrutiny is a wondrous miracle. The entire scientific
establishment is set up to disprove hypotheses as they emerge. If half of them
stand, the scientific establishment is not doing its job.

A sensationalist article that plays into the "nobody really knows how things
work, so I'll believe what I want" meme.

------
dfranke
Of course, we're being told this by a research paper.

------
vlad
You have a higher chance of becoming rich with YCombinator than writing a
factually accurate research paper.

Paul Graham: "So about 50% of the founders from that first summer, less than
two years ago, are now rich, at least by their standards. "

New Scientist Magazine: Most scientific research papers are wrong (
[http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7915&feedId;=online-
news_rss20](http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7915&feedId=online-
news_rss20) )

------
ced
An anonymous study at the institute where I am revealed that 10% (IIRC) of
scientists confessed to perpetrating a "serious misdemeanor".

My feeling is that the situation is not much different now from, say, in the
18th century. Some day, we'll be able to do formal reasoning on the data and
findings of researchers, and we'll spot [some] mistakes and contradictions
automatically. Until then, peer-review is the best we can do, and its emphasis
is much more on form than content.

