Intelligent Design Media Peer review

Is science “broken” or has it just accumulated a lot of baggage?

Spread the love
File:FileStack.jpg
What’s hot? What’s not?/Niklas Bildhauer, Wikimedia

The National Academies of Science is wading into the longstanding mess over the validity of research findings. It doesn’t, of course, agree that there is a “crisis.”

That said, the report also notes that the American public’s confidence in science hasn’t wavered at all in recent years, despite major news articles discussing the “crisis” in psychology and elsewhere. And it found that even scientists who have criticized the current state of things aren’t completely on-board with calling science broken.

“How extensive is the lack of reproducibility in research results in science and engineering in general? The easy answer is that we don’t know,” Brain Nosek, co-founder and director of the Center for Open Science, told the report committee during a panel last year. “I don’t like the term ‘crisis’ because it implies a lot of things that we don’t know are true.” Ed Cara, “Is Science Broken? Major New Report Outlines Problems in Research” at Gizmodo

Interesting approach, that: We don’t know how extensive the problem is but we are sure it can’t be a crisis?

That’s too bad. The term “crisis” means “turning point” or point at which decisions get made. Not to be confused with “apocalypse” (or, these days, mostly a-crock-a-lypse… )

The NAS report blames science journalists, which is a hoot:

The report also singles out journalists, citing a survey showing that 73 percent of Americans agree that the “biggest problem with news about scientific research findings is the way news reporters cover it.” Ed Cara, “Is Science Broken? Major New Report Outlines Problems in Research” at Gizmodo

Anyone familiar with the situation will know that most of the hype originates with media releases prepared by or for the researchers themselves.

Some of us think it’s the baggage caused by the built-in assumptions of naturalism (nature is all there is), often called “materialism.”

Note: The report is free if you register online, paywalled if you need paper.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

See also: Sabine Hossenfelder: Science publishing is too much like Facebook She introduces SciMeter.org where you can “Create your own custom metric and apply it to a list of authors.” And it is none of Mark Zuckerberg’s business or any science boffin’s either.

6 Replies to “Is science “broken” or has it just accumulated a lot of baggage?

  1. 1
    AaronS1978 says:

    “That said, the report also notes that the American public’s confidence in science hasn’t wavered at all in recent years, despite major news articles discussing the “crisis” in psychology and elsewhere.”

    I have seen no major articles about this on anyone online source short Of the ones posted here and the fact that you have to dig it up. I have read no articles at National Geographic about this or any other publicized magazine about science and is mostly Internet and blog sites

    It is not highly advertised nor is it discussed on TV

    And when it is discussed there are no specifics really shown other than a lot of studies can’t be replicated but what studies are they

    And I don’t believe it’s just psychology I think it’s also evo psychology, That’s part of the mess. I guess maybe Scientific studies shouldn’t be based on why men like particular butt sizes, Because of a picture of Kim Kardashian in a champagne bottle on her ass

    Yes that was a study that happened four years back because of that stupid Kim Kardashian picture

    But overall I don’t think the American public knows exactly the extent of the situation nor has it been truly advertised to the American public.

    I’m really surprised every science denier in the world
    Hasn’t jumped all over this. That is curious to me or maybe I’m just missing something

    And I wouldn’t call science broken. The method is perfectly fine. It’s the people in the organization’s that are implementing it incorrectly that are broken

  2. 2
    Brother Brian says:

    I’ve never really followed psychology research, and don’t really care, but non-reproducibility is not limited to this field. Not necessarily that the research is not reproducible, but more that there is very little incentive or desire to attempt to reproduce the research. Doing so simply does not advance your university career. This being said, there is a trend towards making the data that the research paper was based on available for anyone to review. This does not solve all of the problems, but it does make the process more transparent.

    In spite of all of this, I would not call this a crisis. The scientific community, like most other professions, has been undergoing growing pains with the advent of the internet and the pace of technology and communication. In the “good old days” there was little competition amongst the journals. They rejected far more papers than they published. Now, with the proliferation of predatory publishers, and the fact that anyone can set up an on-line journal, getting published somewhere is easy. And, sadly, the media often goes to these less than reputable journals to garner headlines.

  3. 3
    AaronS1978 says:

    Oh I really do think a lot of problems come from bad journalism

  4. 4
    Brother Brian says:

    AaronS1978

    Oh I really do think a lot of problems come from bad journalism.

    I don’t think there is any doubt about that.

  5. 5
    Nonlin.org says:

    Just open any old newspaper. There were no “good old days” ever. Just an uninterrupted stream of fake news and pseudoscience.

    What can “confidence in science” possibly mean? Science is the sum of our knowledge to date and is individualized (hence disagreements) and subject to change. You can be confident in a tiny knowledge area, but not in the whole “science”.

  6. 6
    jstanley01 says:

    The only way for science to be broken would be for the scientific method to be shown invalid, which has not happened and never will. For scientific institutions to be broken, that’s another matter entirely. Of course, it is in the institutions’ interest to conflate the two and make questioning their validity equal to questioning science. Don’t fall for it, it’s a scam.

Leave a Reply