From neuroscientist Simon Gandevia at The Conversation:
Spectacular failures to replicate key scientific findings have been documented of late, particularly in biology, psychology and medicine.
A report on the issue, published in Nature this May, found that about 90% of some 1,576 researchers surveyed now believe there is a reproducibility crisis in science.
…
One contributing factor is easily identified. It is the high rate of so-called false discoveries in the literature. They are false-positive findings and lead to the erroneous perception that a definitive scientific discovery has been made.
This high rate occurs because the studies that are published often have low statistical power to identify a genuine discovery when it is there, and the effects being sought are often small. More.
See also: Peer review unscientific: Tough words from Nature
Follow UD News at Twitter!
One possible cause is the pressure to be first publish a “result”.
as to this comment from the article:
and Karl Popper is smiling:
As Popper, (and apparently Bacon before him), held, science is much more about a theory surviving concerted attempts at falsifying it than it is about at finding examples that support your theory.
Darwinists are notorious for looking only at the evidence that seems to support their theory and basically just hand waving off, or simply ignoring, any evidence that runs counter to, and even falsifies, their theory.
To reiterate, ‘good’ science is based on testability and falsification
The main reason that Darwinian theory can offer nothing in comparison to quantum electrodynamics or general relativity is because it has no demarcation criteria based in mathematics to make it a testable theory like quantum electrodynamics and general relativity have a demarcation criteria based in math so as to make them testable and potentially falsifiable.
The primary reason why no scientist has been able ‘quantify its dictums’ is because there are no known laws of nature for Darwinists to appeal to to base their math on. In other words, there is no known ‘law of evolution’, such as there is a ‘law of gravity’, within the physical universe for Darwinists to base their math on:
In fact, not only does Darwinian Evolution not have any universal physical law to appeal to as other overarching theories of science have, Entropy, a law with great mathematical explanatory power in science, almost directly contradicts Darwinian claims that increases in functional information and/or complexity can be easily had.
Here is a lecture video based on Granville Sewell’s 2011 paper from the book Biocomplexity (A book, and paper, both of which some Darwinists, Nick Matzke in particular, had tried to prevent from ever being published)
With no rigid demarcation criteria based in math you simply can’t ever straight out refute Darwinian evolution by empirical observation! And as such, Darwinian evolution is more realistically classified as a pseudo-science, along the lines of tea leaf reading, rather than as a real science.
And whereas Darwinian evolution has no known law of nature to appeal to so as to establish itself as a proper, testable, science, (in fact the second law almost directly contradicts evolution), Intelligent Design does not suffer from such an embarrassing disconnect from physical reality.
In other words, Intelligent Design can appeal directly to ‘the laws of conservation of information’ in order to establish itself as a proper, testable, and rigorous science.
And this makes Intelligent Design highly testable and therefore very much ‘scientific’ in the Popperian sense of falsifiability