Evolutionary forces are causing a boom in bad science

[Revmitchell]

Call it a crisis. Researchers are finding it harder to replicate each other’s findings, while the rate of retractions of published studies is rapidly rising. But why is this happening?

It’s difficult to determine to what extent the retraction trend is caused by more studies reporting false findings, and how much is down to the fact false findings are now more likely to be identified. Some speculate that the internet has made it far easier for scientists to scrutinise each other’s work, and plagiarism can now be detected automatically.
However, new research supports the idea that, in fact, we are encouraging poor scientific practices by accident.

Paul Smaldino and Richard McElreath at the University of California Davis used an evolutionary theory-based computational model to analyse the problem of bad science. They found that “the most powerful incentives in contemporary science actively encourage, reward and propagate poor research methods and abuse of statistical procedures”. In short, it’s natural selection for shoddy science.



Read more: Evolutionary forces are causing a boom in bad science

 

[Revmitchell]

Study Warns That Science as We Know It Is Evolving Into Something Shoddy And Unreliable


There's no shortage of warnings from the scientific community that science as we know it is being drastically affected by the commercial and institutional pressure to publish papers in high-profile journals – and now a new simulation shows that deteroriation actually happening.

To draw attention to the way good scientists are pressured into publishing bad science (read: sensational and surprising results), researchers in the US developed a computer model to simulate what happens when scientists compete for academic prestige and jobs.

In the model, devised by researchers at the University of California, Merced, all the simulated lab groups they put in these scenarios were honest – they didn't intentionally cheat or fudge results.

But they received greater rewards if they published 'novel' findings – as happens in the real world. They also had to expend greater effort to be rigorous in their methods – which would improve the quality of their research, but lower their academic output.

"The result: Over time, effort decreased to its minimum value, and the rate of false discoveries skyrocketed," lead researcher Paul Smaldino explains in The Conversation.


Study Warns That Science as We Know It Is Evolving Into Something Shoddy And Unreliable

 

[church mouse guy]

When the Russians launched Sputnik satellite into orbit in October 1957, Ike began pouring money into the universities. The study of evolution was encouraged as scientific, following the Russian practice. Federal and corporate money entrenched the evolutionists in the university science departments. They remain in charge because they oversee the distribution of funds. Evolution is their atheistic religion.

It still is publish or perish so a lot of garbage is written. When a person goes for promotion or tenure, they do not read the published works but merely look on the resume to see the titles listed. With the National Endowment for the Arts, federal money dominated all other areas of study.

One of the more amusing stories involves the Lake Missoula Flood about 3500 years ago when a body of water twice the size of Lake Erie from the melting glaciers broke free in Montana and raced at high speeds to the Pacific Ocean. The Evolutionists denied that flood for 40 years until aerial photographs made their ideas laughable.

 

[BenWest]

. They remain in charge because they oversee the distribution of funds. Evolution is their atheistic religion.

Amen, and so is traditional religious teaching which implies that there is more than One Truth. Teaching that there is one truth for Scripture and another truth for Science is ridiculous. It reveals the unsupportable view of Genesis of those who teach such nonsense. God's Truth is the Truth in every way IF you have the proper interpretation.

 

[Phillip Diller]

Real science began to die with the enlightenment. Not only are scientists pressured to publish, but their articles must conform to evolutionary dogma. Along those same lines, climate researchers are often driven to find global warming to be true because they depend on research grants for their income. It should be remembered that climate scientists told us in 1970 that we were on the cusp of an ice age. So, what changed between 1970 and 1975? Not the scientific facts, that's for sure. Dr. Whitcomb's definition of science was, "The systematic analysis of observable, repeatable processes". To that definition I add the word "objective", because all researchers have biases. It's why medical research is often conducted through double-blind studies.