NewScientist: Most scientific papers are probably wrong

AI Thread Summary
A recent analysis published by NewScientist suggests that most scientific papers may be incorrect, with less than a 50% chance that the results of any randomly selected paper are true, assuming the analysis itself is accurate. This raises concerns particularly in the social sciences, where the reliability of research has often been questioned. Participants in the discussion express skepticism about the validity of findings, especially when considering anecdotal experiences, such as questionable data collection methods. The conversation highlights the paradox of the analysis, where the assertion of widespread inaccuracy could itself be flawed, leading to a confusing cycle of doubt regarding the truth of scientific conclusions.
Telos
Messages
128
Reaction score
0
NewScientist: "Most scientific papers are probably wrong"

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7915

Most published scientific research papers are wrong, according to a new analysis. Assuming that the new paper is itself correct, problems with experimental and statistical methods mean that there is less than a 50% chance that the results of any randomly chosen scientific paper are true.

This is no surprise to me if we are considering papers in the social sciences. But I wonder what those of you in the other sciences think about this?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Somewhere out there, there is a paper that uses figures on the strength of a certain dental material that were obtained by me in my garage. I find that to be rather scary! :biggrin:
 
Ivan Seeking said:
Somewhere out there, there is a paper that uses figures on the strength of a certain dental material that were obtained by me in my garage. I find that to be rather scary! :biggrin:

:mad: :mad: :mad: And I built my garage with that dental material!
 
Pengwuino said:
:mad: :mad: :mad: And I built my garage with that dental material!

As long as you don't bite it you'll be fine. :biggrin:
 
mmm... that might be hard. I didn't have a lot of plaster... so i used cookie dough.
 
Telos said:
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7915

Most published scientific research papers are wrong, according to a new analysis. Assuming that the new paper is itself correct, problems with experimental and statistical methods mean that there is less than a 50% chance that the results of any randomly chosen scientific paper are true.

This is no surprise to me if we are considering papers in the social sciences. But I wonder what those of you in the other sciences think about this?
This result was obtained in a scientific research paper. The results of scientific research papers have a greater than 50% chance of being wrong. Therefore, there is a greater than 50% chance that the conclusion is wrong. This implies that there is actually not a greater than 50% chance that it is wrong. Since it is probably not wrong, then the conslusion is probably true, which means it is probably wrong... :confused:
 
Yeah, emphasis on the "assuming that the new paper is itself correct" in the original article.
 

Similar threads

MHB Brokenness of Scientific Method: Up to Half of Papers May Be Wrong
Replies
4
Views
2K
An XKCD comic—and the absurdity of academic research/publishing
Replies
11
Views
4K
Is the Scientific Paper Still Effective?
Replies
9
Views
2K
Most scientific papers are probably wrong?
Replies
14
Views
4K
News Post-Scientific Technocratic Methodologies
Replies
12
Views
3K
I AI Predicting Physics Research Results
Replies
1
Views
1K
Are Rising Paywall Costs Undermining Scientific Progress?
Replies
18
Views
8K
Fact checking - Scientific method
Replies
14
Views
3K
Has anyone read "Willful Ignorance" by Herbert Weisberg?
Replies
4
Views
3K
A Is "Equal a priori Probabilities" the correct scientific approach?
Replies
10
Views
3K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top