Scientific replication or not?

 The issue of replication of results in the social sciences is huge and pretty widely known.  This result in the biological/medical area is worrisome ( https://www.sciencenews.org/article/cancer-biology-studies-research-replication-reproducibility ).   When widely used, referenced, and relied upon studies can't be replicated, it is dangerous.  Replication is the key to having confidence in the scientific process and deserves much more attention that it gets.  The media is quick to celebrate any result they think is important, but rare (never?) ask about replication.  It gives folks the wrong impression of how science works - especially when (generally years later) it is determined that the "accepted science" was wrong all along.  "Accepted science" is a term that flags a problem it me, unless it has been replicated numerous times in experiments - not computer models.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Education and Achievement

 Lots of recent discussion about "elite" schools that require rigorous tests for admittance.  The complaints center around the "under-representation" of certain racial/cultural groups - typically Black and Hispanic - and the "over-representation" of others - mostly Asians.  The most common "fix" seems to be to lower that standards to assure a "representative" mix. I have so many problems with this that it's hard to know where to start.  First, Over and Under representation based on race is a distorted measure.  It assumes that there are differences in racial scholarship that are based upon race itself.  So the very beginning assumption is racist.   Second, the culture of the individuals towards learning and academics is disregarded completely.  Anyone of any race that is raised to value learning and academics has an advantage over anyone of any race who is not raised to value learning and academics.  The tales you can hear about Bla...
Read more

Settled Science

 Read this article ( https://www.science20.com/hontas_farmer/transgender_science_is_settled_science_it_does_not_support_your_ideology_or_bans_on_care-256467 ) on "Real Clear Science" and strongly disagree with it. First, any article that claims that an area of science is "settled" is almost surely wrong.  Science isn't "settled" - it's evolving as more information becomes available. Second, the area of "transgender science" is hardly settled, when the research is fragmentary and contradictory in many instances.  This article does not make any effort to present contradictory data, when such data does exist ( https://areomagazine.com/2022/01/05/race-is-a-spectrum-sex-is-pretty-damn-binary/#f+876674+2+2 , https://www.bbc.com/news/health-56601386 , https://www.thefp.com/p/i-thought-i-was-saving-trans-kids ). Finally, Nations have been pulling back from treatment of minors with any drugs and (especially) surgery ( https://www.tabletmag.com/sec...
Read more