Nostr Web Client

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Why_Most_Published_Research_Findings_Are_False

In addition to the main result, Ioannidis lists six corollaries for factors that can influence the reliability of published research.

Research findings in a scientific field are less likely to be true,

the smaller the studies conducted.

the smaller the effect sizes.

the greater the number and the lesser the selection of tested relationships.

the greater the flexibility in designs, definitions, outcomes, and analytical modes.

the greater the financial and other interests and prejudices.

the hotter the scientific field (with more scientific teams involved).

Now with that in mind, think about climate science. I'm not denying anthropogenic global warming, I'm just saying that most reserach over the last 10-20 years, in a field where you cannot have case controlled studies, probably comes to false conclusions.

CB 2y ago

Garbage in and garbage out.

Reminded me of the DEFCON 26 track: “Svea, Suggy, Till - Inside the Fake Science Factory” that uncovered the predatory publishing process back in 2018.

Excellent investigative journalism although they somehow threw in some climate change opinion toward the end of their formal presentation (50 minutes). Literally took a stance (as an aside) without giving a balanced examination. Virtue signaling and sort of guilty of doing what they’re trying to protect against. Funny I never noticed it the first time I saw the track.

I’d like to use their methods to pull climate change research from all sides and see how many publish through less-reputable processes vs. established, and what universities/grants/businesses/lobbyists are associated with each. That’s a lot of data to parse.

I’m thinking they’re missing the angle from which the peer reviewers, grants, university funding etc… affect the selection process from the top as well. Just curious if politically unpopular evidence is unable to get through peer review. 🤔

Reply to this note

Discussion