Is Most Published Research Wrong?

Please do an updated version of this

The best way of explaining truth that we have *(Adam Smiths hand has been shown not that it Kanye have rolled in its grave).

i beleve that it is because unlike math we dont know the absolute answers or correctly check them and believe just what most of the people follow.

also, not all research uses p values, though it is common

This background music is literally brutal I can’t watch this

All research is done by human beings.
Foolish, fallible people. The truth is that we stumble forward and blind luck has great deal to do with it.

Imagine doing a research of that field and also trying to p-hack it.

I wonder all this studies that are done about climate change, are they biased for real or not real change caused by us?

Most “research” is fake !

Good thing this doesn’t affect climate science. That could lead to some really poor policy.

When you do R&D work, do you want the researchers to create new jobs, advance and change humanity or do you want them to just publish papers?
All this depends on the governments and/or independent funding bodies themselves on how you judge the output of the researchers' work.

Most studies are owned by the products being study so if they don't like them then throw them away.

Science seems deeply infected with dogmatic assumptions that keep honest exploration captive, imprisoned or ostricized.

Yes, but they don't care. Because they just want their basis and personal agenda to be right.

Wait... If 10% of the true negative papers are accepted... That would make about 90 true negative results, not 20

Corporations with extreme influence in the publication process will never cease no matter how much they claim and claim they are purely scientific. We simply need to change one thing. A p value of .005 will almost eliminate this issue. It will also force scientists to design far better studies with more samples.

The definition of p value used is wrong. .01 p value means there is a chance of 1 % fluke results that are correct from the same prob distribution.

Hab ich das schomal gesehen?

Does this apply to the 2020 hysteria?

This touches on something I found lately, a disturbing percentage of science theories are simply wrong. Now realize as this video points out that other theories are then built on the flawed theory. You'd be shocked to find how many theories have exceptions. I prefer models to theories and in my models I don;t allow exceptions, ever. If there's an exception I throw out the theory/model. Now wrap your head around this one, what if most of what you were told is wrong? Most science theories from continental drift to ice ages are less than 200 years old and I'm older than continental drift, it dates to the 60s. Something I did notice is when standards got higher a lot of theories were proven to be wrong. Believe it or not the theory of ice ages goes back to the 1880s and was based on glaciers in Switzerland melting. ALL of the rest of the "evidence" to support them was built off this theory. It's stated as fact about this giant fresh water lake in Canada 8000 years ago that emptied into the Atlantic and caused all sorts of problems. Want to know the evidence for this lake? Zero, none, nada. A sudden rise in oceans levels and fresh water being released in to the Atlantic around the same time was "proof". No other options are or were considered. Evolution is a prime example. I dare anyone to question Darwinism. Darwin was working with a limited dataset and many of his predicts turned out to not be true like the speed evolution happens. Darwinism is as close to religion as science comes so you can;t even question it. I found survival of the fittest only amounted to 5% to 10% of evolution but that means 90% are other factors. Theories tend to be opinion based while models are evidence based. I think I'll stick with models.

Simple - lack of hypothesis testing to confirm results, pruning datapoints that are "OuTlIeRs" just to fit the data to R_squared = 0.95 (without like 20% of the data), and more that i don't even care to mention... So yeah, sorry but he is right. I was in Uni doing chemistry so this was common sense of the old chemists to never use statistics because "we have couple experiments that worked out!" LOL

@MatthiasWandel send me here

Here after some guy tried to cancel Sabine.

\/1rology is 100% false and the climate story is a lie. Science is a false god and a religion for fools

It makes me happy to see that his polo shirt collars do the same asymmetrical curl as mine.

People can predict the future... At one point in time I briefly did. I constantly had dreams about the coming days (the next day specifically). However I eventually shut all that down within myself. My thought process was I'd rather be surprised by what the next day brings.

Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

This is a great video! Everyone watch

Nope.

Almost 90% of the research published is false 😢

Statistics to explain the logical fallacy in statistics. Interesting!

Would you mind to provide the links you mentioned that "online repository about negative results not published"? Is it arxiv?

Honestly I have not heard of this paper before so I have not read it Yet when I have read and understand it then I'll give you an answer hopefully that helps I have seen an image on X. It was drone shot footage or so the post sed I hear mexico is a great place for hospitality with beautiful scenery and the food is amazing when purchased from a restaurant making food is hard work and they get their supplies from the farmers which is also hard work and so is paperwork when taken seriously

I laughed way too hard at this thumbnail

Very good summary of where we are. The only thing l would add is that ‘science’ is also used for reasons of status so we have the absurdity of Business and Management schools claiming to be scientific. The knowledge requirements of real businesses are overwhelmingly non scientific. They require knowledge which provides the basis for actions. The pretence with ‘science’ in universities means they produce endless research with no practical application.

I learned about this in statistical analysis my freshman year of college. Data is almost always manipulated in some way.

Thank you for explaining in a simple and attainable way all the reasons I left scientific research.

Is Most Published Research Wrong? According to a lot of new research, the answer is YES.

What you report is exactly true. Too many redundant things take place in the educational field, sacrificing the time needed for nurturing humanistic characters and practical skills that is the most relevant in life. This would need much reformation, especially government policies. For example, in Taiwan, professors are required to publish a lot in Q1 Q2 journals, and maintain such publication every year in order to stay. Basically they're just publishing for the sake of publication itself. Apart from the statistical credibility, a more serious issue is health management. It's heartbreaking 💔We are all humans, and cannot be working 20 hours a day. Many professors are busy from morning to night, lecturing and doing administrative work. The publication work is adding extra burden, and they have to allocate more time-effort into such facades instead of the teaching and research for their true interests which have real influences.
Publication is a good thing, but shouldn't be mandatory and such strict. Governments need better indicators to show the effectiveness of educational outcome. They need to know about the real settings of educational field, and increase the relevance of education toward daily life. We might think, why, despite having published so many papers and putting so much efforts, the world still doesn't get that much better 🤔Besides statistical reliability, too few people are actually reading them. Effectively bringing all people into practical learning needs dramatic change in how things are managed. It's a long way ahead. Maybe having collective telepathy is an effective way 😌Eventually science has to acknowledge that everything is not just physical, but there are magical and meaningful things in reality. This saves lots of empaths.

adhd is kicking in, please don't make me stay, the obscene use of the alphabet, as a topic is triggering...😮

So called " Foundation of evidence based medicine" is mere a chance!!

Yes. No need extra explanation.

What's the reason behind this? Why are journals biased against negative results and replication studies?

What if…………..

This video is wrong,

DUN DUN DUNNNNNNN!!!

One has to point out, this only holds for empirical, statistical research, and there only for fields that largely use these low p values and where experiments are accepted without independent replication. If you look and math or theoretical computer science, theoretical physics and so on, this is pure reasoning. And experimental physics uses much small p values and usually requires independent replication. So most published singular empirical, statistical results are wrong is the correct statement. This affects psychology and to lesser extends medicine and biology, mostly. It is a problem as long as you rely on very few results of this kind. Once you have a solid theoretical model confirmed by countless studies, this problem disappears. Biology and medicine has this in many areas, psychology not so much. Physics and chemistry are of course rock solid in this respect.

I once heard a great definition of science research: "keeping error up to date."