> No scientist treats published studies as gospel.
Unfortunately that is a problem. Imagine yourself trying to create a simulation of a biological system, which has to rely on experiments. You may come up with a plan, but every little line on the plan will be either very doubtful or outright false. The problem is that many of these doubts could be dispelled if the experiment was a lot more stringent (much larger sample size, much more controlled conditions etc). That would cost a hell lot more, but it would give you one answer you can rely on.
I don't think making experiments more stringent is the answer here (btw, I've spent a lot of time trying to build simulations of biological systems). Usually, we aren't doing the right experiment in the first place; this is hard to figure out ahead of time. Again, read the ACSB that I linked to below... it's probably the most nuanced and interesting discussion on the subject
Yes, thanks that was a good read. It seems we need a "Map" of biological sciences, in which every study could be a 'pin' in a particular location , signifying that 'this study studies this very particular problem here'. Maybe that would help figure out where are the biggest gaps. Unfortunately, most studies broaden the impact of their results too much to the point that reading the paper abstract can be misleading. Maybe people should just publish their results, but not be allowed to make any claims about them; let others and the community make those claims.
Unfortunately that is a problem. Imagine yourself trying to create a simulation of a biological system, which has to rely on experiments. You may come up with a plan, but every little line on the plan will be either very doubtful or outright false. The problem is that many of these doubts could be dispelled if the experiment was a lot more stringent (much larger sample size, much more controlled conditions etc). That would cost a hell lot more, but it would give you one answer you can rely on.