Guest guest Posted August 31, 2006 Report Share Posted August 31, 2006 On 8/31/06, haecklers <haecklers@...> wrote: > Merely being able to believe each other would be a leap! I know > someone who worked in a world-reknown research center who told me > the doctor he worked under wrote grants for the money, then did such > poor research that he often made up whole records. In many cases he > decided the outcome before he started then had his underlings figure > out a way to conduct the research so they would get the desired > conclusions. I can't remember the fellow's name but he had speaking > engagements all over the place and was one of the VA's top > researchers. Makes you wonder about the rest of them! Fraud is reportedly a widespread problem, but fortunately there is a mechanism to protect against it: replication. If scientists repeatedly try to replicate an experiment and it does not work, then we revise the incorrect understanding we had acquired based on the fraudulent, erroneous, or misinterpreted research. Chris -- The Truth About Cholesterol Find Out What Your Doctor Isn't Telling You: http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 31, 2006 Report Share Posted August 31, 2006 On 8/31/06, haecklers <haecklers@...> wrote: > Have you seen how many tried to " replicate " Linus ing's work > with vitamin C? They use too little or for too short a period of > time, then publish that it doesn't work. If you aren't familiar > with the whole theory, you might believe them. And when they publish, that data is available for you to criticize. It should be noted that this is a completely different phenomenon than fraudulent data, and you have inversed the situation. I didn't say that every replication is valid; I said that there is an opportunity to replicate every fraudulent report and thereby invalidate it and a tendency for this to occur. > My new friend, the chemist whose book Sally wouldn't publish because > he says microwaves aren't dangerous, says he started actually > reading studies instead of just the abstracts and found that many of > them did not prove what the abstract claimed. This occurs all the time. The abstract is not meant to draw conclusions from. It is meant to make searching for studies and efficient process. If someone wants to abuse that by substituting reading abstracts for doing research, the result is natural. > I guess it's not a > problem with " Scientific Method " as much as the way it's applied or > not applied. Liberties are being taken. Well reading an abstract and assuming it is fully represents the data within the paper and emphasizes the most important points and deemphasizes the least important points is not a part of the scientific method, so I think you're right. Chris -- The Truth About Cholesterol Find Out What Your Doctor Isn't Telling You: http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.