Re: Most scientific papers are probably wrong

[Guest guest]

-

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

>

> * 02:00 30 August 2005

> * NewScientist.com news service

> * Kurt Kleiner

>

>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.

Wasn't there a recent paper or article which actually examined papers on a

factual basis and discovered that many of them are wrong or have been

disproved? I don't know why I didn't pay more attention to it at the time;

I must've been busy.

-

[Guest guest]

And many more than that are misinterpreted or misrepresented by the media. I've

been appalled recently reading some papers and then seeing how the media messed

it up royally. Shameful, really.

KerryAnn

----- Original Message -----

From:

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.

[Guest guest]

> And many more than that are misinterpreted or misrepresented by the media.

I have yet to see something come out of the media as-is. Whether by

fault of the writer, the newscaster or the individual's reading and

comprehension ability.

I can't tell you how many times I have had someone throwing around

some article from the New York times only for me to read it and

realize they only understood 2 sentences out of the whole article and

completely missed the point while they were at it.

It is not just the media, its the perception of the individual as

well... which could account for quite a bit of the media in the first

place.

Sincerely,

Lana M. Gibbons