ADD Forums - Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder Support and Information Resources Community  

Go Back   ADD Forums - Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder Support and Information Resources Community > SCIENTIFIC DISCUSSIONS, RESEARCH, NEWS AND EVENTS > Scientific, Philosophical & Theoretical Discussions > Open Science & Philosophical Discussion
Register Blogs FAQ Chat Members List Calendar Donate Gallery Arcade Mark Forums Read

Open Science & Philosophical Discussion This forum is for open discussion, encouraging new and unconventional ways of thinking, welcoming posts in any format

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31  
Old 06-16-16, 02:12 AM
SB_UK SB_UK is offline
 
 

Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: -
Posts: 20,150
Blog Entries: 20
Thanks: 6,099
Thanked 6,421 Times in 4,675 Posts
SB_UK has disabled reputation
Re: Why Most Published Research Findings Are False

why most published research is false ?

Because no scientist with a speciality wants to solve a problem.

If you solve a problem that you're a specialist in - then you make yourself redundant.
__________________
'IGNORE' FUNCTION BEING USED - 11 entries
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to SB_UK For This Useful Post:
C15H25N3O (12-07-16), Unmanagable (06-16-16)
  #32  
Old 06-16-16, 02:19 AM
SB_UK SB_UK is offline
 
 

Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: -
Posts: 20,150
Blog Entries: 20
Thanks: 6,099
Thanked 6,421 Times in 4,675 Posts
SB_UK has disabled reputation
Re: Why Most Published Research Findings Are False

What is the solution to all of our problems ?

To develop a mode of education which teaches individuals to nurture a reward system which allows the individual to feel rewarded/happy when they do something positive for some aspect of the world (be it animal, vegetable or mineral) around.

-*-

That's all - and represents a definition of love - within context of phrase - 'love conquers all' ... ...


-*-

Is that what love is ?
No - love represents a dissemination of resonant synchrony with fundamental substance into polar forces holding together phenomenological world constructs.

More simply - love is a 'force' which gains traction from fundamental substance (unknowable) and then 'ports' itself it via 3 polar interactions to maintain structural rigidity of phenomenological world constructs ie real things.

It's a social cohesive force from the bottom (1st event post-Big Bang) upwards.

OK - so how does the definition you've offered in 'love conquers all' match the overarching definition you've supplied of lOve ?
Simple - it's a specific instantiation ie 'love' rediscovers itself on each evolutionary abstraction layer.

__________________
'IGNORE' FUNCTION BEING USED - 11 entries
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to SB_UK For This Useful Post:
mildadhd (06-21-16)
  #33  
Old 06-22-16, 09:46 PM
mildadhd mildadhd is offline
ADDvanced Forum ADDvocate
 

Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Floating around on a melting iceberg, north North America Canada
Posts: 10,751
Thanks: 1,165
Thanked 779 Times in 581 Posts
mildadhd has a reputation beyond reputemildadhd has a reputation beyond reputemildadhd has a reputation beyond reputemildadhd has a reputation beyond reputemildadhd has a reputation beyond reputemildadhd has a reputation beyond reputemildadhd has a reputation beyond reputemildadhd has a reputation beyond reputemildadhd has a reputation beyond reputemildadhd has a reputation beyond reputemildadhd has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Why Most Published Research Findings Are False

Love and Friendship.




m
__________________
"In the history of the human race, those periods which later appeared as great have been the periods when the men and the women belonging to them had transcended the differences that divided them and had recognized in their membership in the human race a common bond" -Haile Selassie I
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #34  
Old 12-07-16, 06:30 AM
Kunga Dorji's Avatar
Kunga Dorji Kunga Dorji is offline
ADDvanced Forum ADDvocate
 

Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,353
Blog Entries: 2
Thanks: 1,544
Thanked 5,891 Times in 2,749 Posts
Kunga Dorji has a reputation beyond reputeKunga Dorji has a reputation beyond reputeKunga Dorji has a reputation beyond reputeKunga Dorji has a reputation beyond reputeKunga Dorji has a reputation beyond reputeKunga Dorji has a reputation beyond reputeKunga Dorji has a reputation beyond reputeKunga Dorji has a reputation beyond reputeKunga Dorji has a reputation beyond reputeKunga Dorji has a reputation beyond reputeKunga Dorji has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Why Most Published Research Findings Are False

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuzzy12 View Post
Yes, but I think that's the beauty of science (and I don't doubt that there are a lot of rubbish papers out there making false claims). Science never claims to hold the absolute truth or to be irrefutable. As it grows it corrects itself again and again and hopefully slowly we will inch closer towards the truth. If research couldn't be refuted it wouldn't be scientific.
As a preliminary, Fuzzy, let me say that I am not singling you out in making my response. Your comment is only an example of a very serious syntactic error that is made by the proponents of "science"

Now the problem with this comment is that there is actually no such entity as "science" that can make claims or not make claims, and we are all at risk of anthropomorphising "science" and making yet another false god.

The whole point of my comments in opening this thread was to say that there are a hell of a lot of papers published every year that claim to be "scientific" (ie they claim to adhere to the scientific method) but that a very large proportion of these papers really are rubbish.

We see this play out many times on ADDF where a paper is referenced in the "scientific" section and the assumption is often that if it is a published paper it must be science and it must be true.

In fact, nothing could be further from the truth.
This concern about the validity of published "science" is far worse in the biomedical area than in any other area of science.

The reason for that is very simple-- that the purveyors of pharmaceutical remedies make a fortune from their trade and they sponsor most of the published science in this area.

Regardless of this, it is just not possible to regard "science" as some sort of quasi living being that is possessed of all truth.

Really all we can do is respect scientific method as a reasonably reliable means of answering various narrow and precisely formulated questions relating to very specific questions about tiny slivers of reality.


Let me pose here a question that is amenable to scientific analysis:

Given individuals shown to be suffering with bacterial sinusitis, is the recovery rate better in adults treated with amoxycillin, cephalexin, or simple supportive measures (decongestants and 2 days off work).

Now "science" ( or, more realistically "scientific method") can handle that sort of equation rather well, but it is not possible to make bold or broad sweeping comments about what "science" claims it can or cannot do.

In the end, the individuals who claim to be the mouthpieces of science, all have a very major issue with undeclared interest.

The important thrust of my initial post though, was to emphasise that very many supposedly "scientific" published papers have serious methodological flaws, and that we should not accept their content without very close scrutiny and cross referencing--- over a number of years.
__________________
Science advances --one funeral at a time.

I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness.

both by:
Max Planck: Nobel Prize 1918 for inventing quantum physics.

Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 12-07-16, 09:17 PM
Kunga Dorji's Avatar
Kunga Dorji Kunga Dorji is offline
ADDvanced Forum ADDvocate
 

Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,353
Blog Entries: 2
Thanks: 1,544
Thanked 5,891 Times in 2,749 Posts
Kunga Dorji has a reputation beyond reputeKunga Dorji has a reputation beyond reputeKunga Dorji has a reputation beyond reputeKunga Dorji has a reputation beyond reputeKunga Dorji has a reputation beyond reputeKunga Dorji has a reputation beyond reputeKunga Dorji has a reputation beyond reputeKunga Dorji has a reputation beyond reputeKunga Dorji has a reputation beyond reputeKunga Dorji has a reputation beyond reputeKunga Dorji has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Why Most Published Research Findings Are False

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kunga Dorji View Post

Let me pose here a question that is amenable to scientific analysis:

Given individuals shown to be suffering with bacterial sinusitis, is the recovery rate better in adults treated with amoxycillin, cephalexin, or simple supportive measures (decongestants and 2 days off work).

Now "science" ( or, more realistically "scientific method") can handle that sort of equation rather well, but it is not possible to make bold or broad sweeping comments about what "science" claims it can or cannot do.

In the end, the individuals who claim to be the mouthpieces of science, all have a very major issue with undeclared interest.

The important thrust of my initial post though, was to emphasise that very many supposedly "scientific" published papers have serious methodological flaws, and that we should not accept their content without very close scrutiny and cross referencing--- over a number of years.

What I should have said to finish this one off is that scientific method is good at answering very narrow and specific questions, but that some vaguely defined entity called "science" is very much weaker at answering broad questions.
__________________
Science advances --one funeral at a time.

I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness.

both by:
Max Planck: Nobel Prize 1918 for inventing quantum physics.

Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Kunga Dorji For This Useful Post:
mildadhd (12-09-16)
  #36  
Old 08-11-17, 11:11 PM
wonderboy's Avatar
wonderboy wonderboy is offline
Contributor
 

Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: USA
Posts: 276
Blog Entries: 2
Thanks: 120
Thanked 163 Times in 111 Posts
wonderboy has a spectacular aura aboutwonderboy has a spectacular aura about
Re: Why Most Published Research Findings Are False

For every hypothesis in a scholarly research journal article, I guarantee you ycan find a thesis that states the exact opposite, and quite cogently
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 08-11-17, 11:12 PM
wonderboy's Avatar
wonderboy wonderboy is offline
Contributor
 

Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: USA
Posts: 276
Blog Entries: 2
Thanks: 120
Thanked 163 Times in 111 Posts
wonderboy has a spectacular aura aboutwonderboy has a spectacular aura about
Re: Why Most Published Research Findings Are False

For every hypothesis in a scholarly research journal article, I guarantee that another exists stating the exact opposite, and quite cogently

Sorry for the repost. I do not know how to edit the last post
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 08-12-17, 05:19 AM
sarahsweets's Avatar
sarahsweets sarahsweets is offline
Mod-A-holic
 

Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: nj, usa
Posts: 24,129
Thanks: 5,515
Thanked 28,355 Times in 12,788 Posts
sarahsweets has a reputation beyond reputesarahsweets has a reputation beyond reputesarahsweets has a reputation beyond reputesarahsweets has a reputation beyond reputesarahsweets has a reputation beyond reputesarahsweets has a reputation beyond reputesarahsweets has a reputation beyond reputesarahsweets has a reputation beyond reputesarahsweets has a reputation beyond reputesarahsweets has a reputation beyond reputesarahsweets has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Why Most Published Research Findings Are False

But that doesnt mean that the research isnt relevant.
__________________
President of the No F's given society.

I carried a watermelon?

I've always been one of a kind. It just hasnt always been positive.
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 08-12-17, 06:38 AM
Fuzzy12's Avatar
Fuzzy12 Fuzzy12 is offline
ADDvanced Forum ADDvocate
 

Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 17,947
Blog Entries: 1
Thanks: 30,013
Thanked 26,816 Times in 12,484 Posts
Fuzzy12 has a reputation beyond reputeFuzzy12 has a reputation beyond reputeFuzzy12 has a reputation beyond reputeFuzzy12 has a reputation beyond reputeFuzzy12 has a reputation beyond reputeFuzzy12 has a reputation beyond reputeFuzzy12 has a reputation beyond reputeFuzzy12 has a reputation beyond reputeFuzzy12 has a reputation beyond reputeFuzzy12 has a reputation beyond reputeFuzzy12 has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Why Most Published Research Findings Are False

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kunga Dorji View Post
As a preliminary, Fuzzy, let me say that I am not singling you out in making my response. Your comment is only an example of a very serious syntactic error that is made by the proponents of "science"

Now the problem with this comment is that there is actually no such entity as "science" that can make claims or not make claims, and we are all at risk of anthropomorphising "science" and making yet another false god.

The whole point of my comments in opening this thread was to say that there are a hell of a lot of papers published every year that claim to be "scientific" (ie they claim to adhere to the scientific method) but that a very large proportion of these papers really are rubbish.

We see this play out many times on ADDF where a paper is referenced in the "scientific" section and the assumption is often that if it is a published paper it must be science and it must be true.

In fact, nothing could be further from the truth.
This concern about the validity of published "science" is far worse in the biomedical area than in any other area of science.

The reason for that is very simple-- that the purveyors of pharmaceutical remedies make a fortune from their trade and they sponsor most of the published science in this area.

Regardless of this, it is just not possible to regard "science" as some sort of quasi living being that is possessed of all truth.

Really all we can do is respect scientific method as a reasonably reliable means of answering various narrow and precisely formulated questions relating to very specific questions about tiny slivers of reality.


Let me pose here a question that is amenable to scientific analysis:

Given individuals shown to be suffering with bacterial sinusitis, is the recovery rate better in adults treated with amoxycillin, cephalexin, or simple supportive measures (decongestants and 2 days off work).

Now "science" ( or, more realistically "scientific method") can handle that sort of equation rather well, but it is not possible to make bold or broad sweeping comments about what "science" claims it can or cannot do.

In the end, the individuals who claim to be the mouthpieces of science, all have a very major issue with undeclared interest.

The important thrust of my initial post though, was to emphasise that very many supposedly "scientific" published papers have serious methodological flaws, and that we should not accept their content without very close scrutiny and cross referencing--- over a number of years.
If you think there is any conflict between what you and I have said then you have misunderstood my post. My whole point about science is that it's not an entity. It's not an authority. It's not a container of the absolute truth. It's a method. A good method. Or like you said a reasonably reliable method.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Fuzzy12 For This Useful Post:
mctavish23 (08-12-17)
  #40  
Old 08-12-17, 04:38 PM
mctavish23 mctavish23 is offline
 

Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: USA
Posts: 6,021
Thanks: 13,631
Thanked 10,030 Times in 3,157 Posts
mctavish23 has disabled reputation
Re: Why Most Published Research Findings Are False

I know this is old, but I respectfully disagree with regards to ADHD.

Nothing is ever "perfect," research included. Fuzzy is correct in pointing out that the

Scientific Method is exactly that; a method. However, in my 30+ years of studying the

research behind the disorder, I believe that those data meeting the "gold standard" of

longitudinal validity & reliability remain as such; valid & reliable.

As for the rest of the published scientific research out there, I can't say without reading

them, one article at a time, which is impossible. I can say though that at least I know

how to make a reasonable judgment of those data, assuming I'm interested.

tc

mctavish23

(Robert)
Reply With Quote
  #41  
Old 08-12-17, 07:33 PM
mildadhd mildadhd is offline
ADDvanced Forum ADDvocate
 

Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Floating around on a melting iceberg, north North America Canada
Posts: 10,751
Thanks: 1,165
Thanked 779 Times in 581 Posts
mildadhd has a reputation beyond reputemildadhd has a reputation beyond reputemildadhd has a reputation beyond reputemildadhd has a reputation beyond reputemildadhd has a reputation beyond reputemildadhd has a reputation beyond reputemildadhd has a reputation beyond reputemildadhd has a reputation beyond reputemildadhd has a reputation beyond reputemildadhd has a reputation beyond reputemildadhd has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Why Most Published Research Findings Are False

I think differences of opinions are partly because how the brain works in bottom up and top down loops.

Some Neurological circuits loop up from the midbrain to tertiary neocortex.

Then tertiary thoughts loop down into the limbic middle involved in learning in memory, before looping down back to the midbrain or back up to the neocortex.

Like apple seed to becomes a apple tree, the produces apples, our brain's becomes more and more complex as we mature,

In short perspective, depends on the subjective context of a already circular discussion.

(Layman, simple example to get the drift) (more in depth examples also appreciated)

Also, as long as bottom up primary instinctual raw affective behaviour are not consider in the original loop, half the story or less will ever be known.




M
__________________
"In the history of the human race, those periods which later appeared as great have been the periods when the men and the women belonging to them had transcended the differences that divided them and had recognized in their membership in the human race a common bond" -Haile Selassie I

Last edited by mildadhd; 08-12-17 at 07:55 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 08-12-17, 07:42 PM
mildadhd mildadhd is offline
ADDvanced Forum ADDvocate
 

Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Floating around on a melting iceberg, north North America Canada
Posts: 10,751
Thanks: 1,165
Thanked 779 Times in 581 Posts
mildadhd has a reputation beyond reputemildadhd has a reputation beyond reputemildadhd has a reputation beyond reputemildadhd has a reputation beyond reputemildadhd has a reputation beyond reputemildadhd has a reputation beyond reputemildadhd has a reputation beyond reputemildadhd has a reputation beyond reputemildadhd has a reputation beyond reputemildadhd has a reputation beyond reputemildadhd has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Why Most Published Research Findings Are False

There is always, at least, two factors involved.

There is usually a lot more factors than two.




M
__________________
"In the history of the human race, those periods which later appeared as great have been the periods when the men and the women belonging to them had transcended the differences that divided them and had recognized in their membership in the human race a common bond" -Haile Selassie I
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 08-13-17, 02:42 PM
mctavish23 mctavish23 is offline
 

Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: USA
Posts: 6,021
Thanks: 13,631
Thanked 10,030 Times in 3,157 Posts
mctavish23 has disabled reputation
Re: Why Most Published Research Findings Are False

The "Gold Standard" for ALL scientific research is Longitudinal Validity and Reliability - Does your research measure what it

claims, and can other (non-affiliated) researchers replicate those same (or similar) findings over time, using the exact same

methods.

Hope that helps.

tc

Robert
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to mctavish23 For This Useful Post:
mildadhd (08-13-17)
  #44  
Old 08-13-17, 06:45 PM
mildadhd mildadhd is offline
ADDvanced Forum ADDvocate
 

Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Floating around on a melting iceberg, north North America Canada
Posts: 10,751
Thanks: 1,165
Thanked 779 Times in 581 Posts
mildadhd has a reputation beyond reputemildadhd has a reputation beyond reputemildadhd has a reputation beyond reputemildadhd has a reputation beyond reputemildadhd has a reputation beyond reputemildadhd has a reputation beyond reputemildadhd has a reputation beyond reputemildadhd has a reputation beyond reputemildadhd has a reputation beyond reputemildadhd has a reputation beyond reputemildadhd has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Why Most Published Research Findings Are False

Quote:
Originally Posted by mctavish23 View Post
The "Gold Standard" for ALL scientific research is Longitudinal Validity and Reliability - Does your research measure what it

claims, and can other (non-affiliated) researchers replicate those same (or similar) findings over time, using the exact same

methods.

Hope that helps.

tc

Robert
Is there some AD(H)D research, that I could look up that meets this gold standard?

I've never been able to rule out adoption distresses, in adoption twin studies?






M
__________________
"In the history of the human race, those periods which later appeared as great have been the periods when the men and the women belonging to them had transcended the differences that divided them and had recognized in their membership in the human race a common bond" -Haile Selassie I
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to mildadhd For This Useful Post:
mctavish23 (08-15-17)
  #45  
Old 08-13-17, 08:11 PM
mctavish23 mctavish23 is offline
 

Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: USA
Posts: 6,021
Thanks: 13,631
Thanked 10,030 Times in 3,157 Posts
mctavish23 has disabled reputation
Re: Why Most Published Research Findings Are False

Check out any of Russ Barkley's books. They're loaded with examples.

tc

Robert
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Excellent Research Publication (lots of pieces to the puzzle) abre los ojos ADD News 5 02-15-05 01:58 AM
Long-Chain Polyunsaturated Fatty Acids SubtleMuttle Nutrition 0 01-10-04 12:40 AM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:58 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
(c) 2003 - 2015 ADD Forums