Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

“Most Scientific Papers Are Probably Wrong”

arroba Email

Lehigh University biologists have, just shy of a consensus, condemned intelligent design (the lone dissenter — surprise, surprise — is Michael Behe). The various anti-ID blogs (go here and here) are crowing about this, as though this vindicates their criticism of ID and, to boot, must somehow be disconcerting to us.

Quite the contrary. Check out the following paper in the New Scientist: “Most Scientists Are Probably Wrong.” According to the article: “John Ioannidis, an epidemiologist at the University of Ioannina School of Medicine in Greece, says that small sample sizes, poor study design, researcher bias, and selective reporting and other problems combine to make most research findings false.”

Evolutionary biology has turned “selective reporting” into a science. In fact, that’s about the only way evolutionary theory is a science.

How could so many researchers simply turn a deaf ear to the evidence!???
Could you please provide references for some of this evidence? What experiments have been performed to demonstrate ID? arensb
It's hard to not be discouraged by persecution like this. I bet it's very challenging for Dr. Behe to have to work in an atmosphere like that. How could so many researchers simply turn a deaf ear to the evidence!??? Bombadill
Another article about this study: Flaws are found in validating medical studies http://www.boston.com/yourlife/health/diseases/articles/2005/08/15/flaws_are_found_in_validating_medical_studies "Now, after a study that sent reverberations through the medical profession by finding that almost one-third of top research articles have been either contradicted or seriously questioned, some specialists are calling for radical changes in the system." carbuncleup
An opinion that seemed to get voice more often after the Sternberg affair: "But Solomon Snyder, senior editor at the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, and a neuroscientist at Johns Hopkins Medical School in Baltimore, US, says most working scientists understand the limitations of published research. "When I read the literature, I'm not reading it to find proof like a textbook. I'm reading to get ideas. So even if something is wrong with the paper, if they have the kernel of a novel idea, that's something to think about," he says."" If only the NCSE knew. Charlie

Leave a Reply