Robert Zimmerman notes that yet another study, this one of social science research, reveals that only half could be replicated. He includes this quote:
Researchers from a variety of universities looked at “164 quantitative papers published from 2009 to 2018 in 54 journals in the social and behavioural sciences,” according to the summary in the Nature article. The team “attempted replications of 274 claims of positive results” but found only about half could be replicated. The researchers found that many published findings did not consistently hold up when tested again, although the exact replication rate varied depending on how success was measured.
Zimmerman comments:
This result jives with other reports over the years that found most science research difficult if not impossible to replicate or confirm.
In fact, every study in the past two decades that attempted to replicate earlier work has consistently found that about half the papers published in the scientific literature in the soft sciences (psychology, social sciences, biology, medicine, pharmaceuticals) could not be confirmed.
It is not just the soft sciences, though. As long time readers know, one of my particular interests has been in the theory of a Younger Dryas Impact Event. There have been a clique of influential scientists that are die hard opponents to the theory, yet their "research" to debunk an impact event has been fast and loose such that it would appropriately be included as part of the replication crises. What we need to realize is that science is driven by money, envy, politics, and ego as much or more than any other human endeavor. And it will only get worse as the scientists that have passed through the DEI screening process become more influential in their fields.
No comments:
Post a Comment