# Most Psychology Research Not Verifiable



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

I think most of us suspected that there was a lot of bias in psychology studies, but not to this extent. I've always thought that most of these types of studies got exactly the results the researchers hoped for.


> An international team of experts repeated 100 experiments published in top psychology journals and found that they *could reproduce only 36%* of original findings.
> 
> The study, which saw 270 scientists repeat experiments on five continents, was launched by psychologists in the US in response to rising concerns over the reliability of psychology research.





> In the investigation, a whopping *75% of the social psychology experiments were not replicated*, meaning that the originally reported findings vanished when other scientists repeated the experiments. *Half of the cognitive psychology studies failed the same test*. Details are published in the journal Science.





> *Even when scientists could replicate original findings, the sizes of the effects they found were on average half as big as reported first time around*. That could be due to scientists leaving out data that undermined their hypotheses, and by journals accepting only the strongest claims for publication.


Read more at The Guardian

With these types of errors, it means that there is less than a 50% chance that a psychology study is correct and produced accurate results. I wonder how many of these studies were paid for by government grants?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Psychology isn't a "hard science" like math or chemistry.
When humans are such a large part of it, there are too many variables


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Psychology isn't a "hard science" like math or chemistry.
> When humans are such a large part of it, there are too many variables


Without checking first, I think hard science probably has at least a 25% error rate.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

MoonRiver said:


> Without checking first, I think hard science probably has at least a 25% error rate.


I'm pretty sure 2 + 2 = 4 100% of the time.

Chemical reactions are highly predictable also, so I'm not sure what the " 25% error rate" refers to.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

Bearfootfarm said:


> I'm pretty sure 2 + 2 = 4 100% of the time.
> 
> Chemical reactions are highly predictable also, so I'm not sure what the " 25% error rate" refers to.


How about when pharmaceutical companies evaluate drugs? Study says has 60% effective rate and actual is 10.
How about global warming studies not matching actual temperatures?
How about medical studies that are disproven?

Scientists make mistakes, have biases, and occasionally are influenced by money and fame.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

Yea I'm not surprised by this. A lot of assumptions have to be made while setting up a psychology experiment, and you could spend half your life just testing those assumptions to predict the validity of your experiment. Most of those assumptions, at least as far as I can remember, were about how the experiments correlated to the results you were testing for. All you really have to do is listen to people talk, and one thing becomes 100% verifiable. The vast majority of people, educated or otherwise, are completely full of crap when they're talking about psychology...but everyone is convinced they have everyone figured out.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

MoonRiver said:


> How about when pharmaceutical companies evaluate drugs? Study says has 60% effective rate and actual is 10.
> How about global warming studies not matching actual temperatures?
> How about medical studies that are disproven?
> 
> *Scientists* make mistakes, have biases, and occasionally are influenced by money and fame.


"Drugs" and "medical" bring the human variable back into play.

"Global warming *studies*" aren't the science itself, but rather the conclusions of the humans who did the studies.

The thermometers don't lie, but scientists sometimes do.

That has nothing to do with the accuracy of the science itself


----------



## Trixie (Aug 25, 2006)

Just my opinion - As with polls, published science, medical, etc., is most likely to bring about the results desired by those paying for the testing, polls, etc. If not they will never see the light of day.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

Bearfootfarm said:


> "Drugs" and "medical" bring the human variable back into play.
> 
> "Global warming *studies*" aren't the science itself, but rather the conclusions of the humans who did the studies.
> 
> ...


You can't have a scientific study without at least 1 human involved. Even if we get to the point machines can do the study, they will have been made by humans.

Science has never been 100% accurate. It is usually our perception of the "real" world. Quantum physics tends to make what we believe to be true, to not be.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Bearfootfarm said:


> I'm pretty sure 2 + 2 = 4 100% of the time.
> 
> Are you sure
> 
> [ame]http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=DW0VxxoCrNo[/ame]


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Trixie said:


> Just my opinion - As with polls, *published *science, medical, etc., is most likely to bring about the results desired by *those paying* for the testing, polls, etc. If not they will never see the light of day.


Again, you're talking about the *reporting* of the results rather than the actual accuracy of the science involved.

Also the methodology of experiments can be flawed even when the science is foolproof. 

All these vague analogies really don't mean much, and they keep coming back to the human element as the actual problem, not the science itself.


----------



## kuriakos (Oct 7, 2005)

Read the book _Wrong: Why Experts Keep Failing Us&#8212;And How to Know When Not to Trust Them_ by David Freedman and this news will look like par for the course. I can't remember his specific claims, but it was something like half of ALL conclusions reached by scientific studies are wrong, not just psychology studies. He also tackles a lot of other "expert" knowledge that turns out to not be reliable.

ETA: Here's an article by Freedman that gives a little of what's in the book: http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/11/lies-damned-lies-and-medical-science/308269/. It is about the work of the Dr. Ioannidis cited in the OP article.


----------



## Trixie (Aug 25, 2006)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Again, you're talking about the *reporting* of the results rather than the actual accuracy of the science involved.
> 
> Also the methodology of experiments can be flawed even when the science is foolproof.
> 
> All these vague analogies really don't mean much, and they keep coming back to the human element as the actual problem, not the science itself.


I'm not really getting the 'vague analogies.

Yes, I realize human beings are doing the research, and I realize human beings make mistakes. I'm not sure how that negates my idea that research that doesn't get the results desired by those paying those human beings.

Of course science can be foolproof and the experiments can be flawed - again how does that negate the idea the buyer either gets the results he wants - or no one hears about it.

And - the *reports* is what we get - again, that enforces my belief in the *reports* being the information desired - rather than the actual information.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

kasilofhome said:


> Bearfootfarm said:
> 
> 
> > I'm pretty sure 2 + 2 = 4 100% of the time.
> ...


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> kasilofhome said:
> 
> 
> > Quote:
> ...


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Trixie said:


> I'm not really getting the 'vague analogies.
> 
> Yes, I realize human beings are doing the research, and I realize human beings make mistakes. I'm not sure how that negates my idea that research that doesn't get the results desired by those paying those human beings.
> 
> ...


The reports are not "the science".
Reports can be spun to mean different things, but that's not what I'm talking about.

The "vague analogies" come from saying "global warming studies" or "drug studies" without giving specific details.


----------



## Harry Chickpea (Dec 19, 2008)

2 cheetahs + 2 mice = 2 full cheetahs
2 male mice + 2 female mice = many mice
2 tons of enriched uranium = 2 tons of enriched uranium = a hot reactor and less uranium
On a spherical surface, 2 parallel lines going in one direction for infinity, and 2 parallel lines going in exactly the opposite directions for infinity = 2 parallel lines, since they end up being congruent

The concept of free-floating numbers with given properties only works within the framework of free-floating numbers. Once you attempt to integrate them with the real world, strange things can happen.

Psychological testing and conclusions is about like trying to quantify lumpy oatmeal into a standard set of parameters. People and lumps can be different.

Repeatability of results from testing is a hallmark of good science, but lack of repeatability doesn't always infer bad science as much as a limited cohort or bias. I can do a study that corn that I water with compost tea grows measurably better than corn that isn't watered, and then a year can come along where the corn field is flooded and the corn watered with compost tea is more subject to rot and failure.

Extrapolation of results beyond the stated data is a common failure in science.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Harry Chickpea said:


> 2 cheetahs + 2 mice = 2 full cheetahs
> 2 male mice + 2 female mice = many mice
> 2 tons of enriched uranium = 2 tons of enriched uranium = a hot reactor and less uranium
> On a spherical surface, 2 parallel lines going in one direction for infinity, and 2 parallel lines going in exactly the opposite directions for infinity = 2 parallel lines, since they end up being congruent
> ...


Ah, fuzzy math at it's best. That is usually the question that the media is too busy to ask- and what does that mean?


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

Harry Chickpea said:


> 2 cheetahs + 2 mice = 2 full cheetahs
> 2 male mice + 2 female mice = many mice
> 2 tons of enriched uranium = 2 tons of enriched uranium = a hot reactor and less uranium
> On a spherical surface, 2 parallel lines going in one direction for infinity, and 2 parallel lines going in exactly the opposite directions for infinity = 2 parallel lines, since they end up being congruent
> ...


In other words, you can't control for every single variable and every combination of variables.


----------



## Trixie (Aug 25, 2006)

Bearfootfarm said:


> The reports are not "the science".
> Reports can be spun to mean different things, but that's not what I'm talking about.
> 
> The "vague analogies" come from saying "global warming studies" or "drug studies" without giving specific details.


Still a little confused, but that's not unusual.

We were speaking of a report and my contention was a report can be produced to report whatever the one paying for it desires. 

Is that science? No, sometimes sadly, it's all the science we get - until someone else wants another scientific report to say something else.

Discussing what exactly 'science' is reminds me of a very long, boring class day we had in college of 'what exactly is a fact'.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

I'm pretty cynical but even I can't stretch to "all science is bought and paid for." Is there wiggle room? Certainly. Are there unethical researchers? Definitely. Are all researchers unethical? No. Just no. There are checks and balances, ie. peer review and others trying to replicate results. Is it perfect? Nope, but it's what we have.

Without scientific research there would be no advances in any field. I'll take the flawed system we have rather than stagnant.


----------



## JJ Grandits (Nov 10, 2002)

One way or the other, we can all be proved crazy. Especially those who test "normal". Being "normal" in itself is a little un-natural.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

JJ Grandits said:


> One way or the other, we can all be proved crazy. Especially those who test "normal". Being "normal" in itself is a little un-natural.


Beside "crazy" generates income for the professional. Sane does not. Kinda biases the research from the get go.


----------



## Trixie (Aug 25, 2006)

Is all science bought and paid for - someone has to finance it. 
Just because it is bought and paid for, doesn't mean it's inaccurate. Sometimes the truth is the desired answer. It certainly doesn't mean it should be stopped. I'm sure there are accurate findings - they just might not be released. I didn't imply that.

Does anyone believe Monsanto would actually pay for real/independent tests on the safety of their insecticides and pesticides - and release the findings to the public? Or that our government would fund such tests and release them?

Does anyone believe our government would actually pay for real, honest research into the effects of antibiotics, hormones, excess medications, other additives in our foods, and release the truth to the public? 

Does anyone believe, any researchers would release findings that proved these things were dangerous? Not if they wanted to continue being a scientist - or even breathing.

I am so cynical that I believe money is deciding 90% or more of what is happening in the world today and to that end, it's is folly to believe that money is not going to 'produce' the 'correct' research.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Trixie said:


> Is all science bought and paid for - someone has to finance it.
> Just because it is bought and paid for, doesn't mean it's inaccurate. Sometimes the truth is the desired answer. It certainly doesn't mean it should be stopped. I'm sure there are accurate findings - they just might not be released. I didn't imply that.
> 
> Does anyone believe Monsanto would actually pay for real/independent tests on the safety of their insecticides and pesticides - and release the findings to the public? Or that our government would fund such tests and release them?
> ...


How can research be done differently?


----------



## Trixie (Aug 25, 2006)

I'm not sure what you are asking?


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Trixie said:


> Is all science bought and paid for - someone has to finance it.
> Just because it is bought and paid for, doesn't mean it's inaccurate. Sometimes the truth is the desired answer. It certainly doesn't mean it should be stopped. I'm sure there are accurate findings - they just might not be released. I didn't imply that.
> 
> Does anyone believe Monsanto would actually pay for real/independent tests on the safety of their insecticides and pesticides - and release the findings to the public? Or that our government would fund such tests and release them?
> ...





Trixie said:


> I'm not sure what you are asking?


If research is done so poorly and the results so questionable how to you think it can be done differently?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Does anyone believe Monsanto would actually pay for real/independent tests on the safety of their insecticides and pesticides - and release the findings to the public? Or that our government would fund such tests and release them?


Why wouldn't they, when their families live in the same world as everyone else? 

Playing "Monsanto is the Devil" isn't science nor accurate.
You're showing the same sort of bias you complained about, which distorts reality


----------



## Trixie (Aug 25, 2006)

Irish Pixie said:


> If research is done so poorly and the results so questionable how to you think it can be done differently?


I didn't say it was poorly done. 

If the researchers come out with the desired results - it's probably done very well - maybe not so honorably. If you get what you are looking for, you have probably done it well. The sticky part is whether you are looking for the truth.

As to how it can be done differently. The answer is probably not possible, but it would be to have researchers not beholden to anyone.

I firmly believe our government is bought and paid for and the laws, actions of our government are designed to benefit those who contribute to the politicians. 

How to we change that? Probably don't. But it doesn't mean we should believe they 'have the best interests of this country and it's people at heart'. If we could convince ourselves that is true, we might sleep better - but I just can't.

I definitely do not believe because a 'research' paper is published and our government touts it as truths, we shouldn't question it and decide for ourselves if it makes sense.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Trixie said:


> I didn't say it was poorly done.
> 
> If the researchers come out with the desired results - it's probably done very well - maybe not so honorably. If you get what you are looking for, you have probably done it well. The sticky part is whether you are looking for the truth.
> 
> ...


Sure you did when you indicated, "I am so cynical that I believe money is deciding 90% or more of what is happening in the world today and to that end, it's is folly to believe that money is not going to 'produce' the 'correct' research." If money is the deciding factor in 90% of all research than it must be poorly done, yes? 

I don't completely trust the government and large companies either, but I can't come up with a better way to do research. I certainly don't want it to stop so I'll just have to deal with the system we have now.


----------



## Aozora (Jan 13, 2014)

There's a lot of issues involved in publishing research, particularly in psychology. 

Firstly, psychology is the study of human behavior. Humans are inherently unpredictable. In psychology, a P > .30 (the variable in question predicts the outcome > 30% of the time) is extremely high. In other fields of study, such as medicine and physics, P < .80 is considered unacceptably low. 

Secondly, there are a LOT of issues around ethics and permissions in studies. All psychology studies must have a consent form signed by the participants, and if there is any potential for negative outcomes, participants must be debriefed. Populations are different. In my own Master's thesis, one population (people applying at a temporary agency) were very much scared away by all the consent forms and the idea of being recorded for data analysis, whereas the other population (adjunct professors) often discussed my study with me afterward. So if you tried to replicate it without the exact same populations in the exact same areas at the exact same time frames, there will be differences.

Thirdly, this is the flaw in all research: non-significant results do not get published. Journals are only interested in publishing significance, even if a non-significant result actually means something more important (hypothetical example: a study indicating that the relationship between mental illness rate and gun crime is non-significant would not be published). Professors are only paid if they get published in journals. Publish or perish. So they go over "safe" materials and design studies to get significant results. 

Finally, so-called "significant" results are often not. When you set parameters for a psychological study, you establish significance at p < .05 (there is less than a 5% likelihood that the result is due to chance). What does this mean? It means that one time in 20, it is outright wrong and the result is due to chance. It also means that if someone found a p = .049999999 then it's significant, when that's really not a noticeable difference!

I really wish those of us with a psychology background, who have done studies and who know how to read statistical analyses, were the ones to interpret these things instead of the media. Then we'd get, "For population a, in this particular case m, action x has a significant outcome z 25% higher than the control." Instead, we get, "Action x cures z!" Sigh.


----------



## Harry Chickpea (Dec 19, 2008)

Psychology isn't the only science where P>.30 is acceptable. I question whether .80 is correct when dealing with drug trials. When a new drug comes along and 20% of those using it have a positive outcome there can be celebration. Selling 80 people out of 100 something worthless isn't considered a downside, since 100% of people pay.


----------



## gibbsgirl (May 1, 2013)

Irish Pixie said:


> How can research be done differently?


For my two cents, I think a lot could be gained by scientific researchers using peer pressure and shared oversight to pressure each other to release all their findings from all their studies whenever they submit papers for publishing in the journals or submit filings for a govt stamp of approval.

Similar to seeing the cmp group releasing their shortened videos then their full videos for people to review about the abortion investigations they're doing.

That I think would be very effective to a change that would be in the public's interest.

I'm not holding my breath for it to happen. But, that's my thoughts on it anyway.


----------



## Trixie (Aug 25, 2006)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Why wouldn't they, when their families live in the same world as everyone else?
> 
> Playing "Monsanto is the Devil" isn't science nor accurate.
> You're showing the same sort of bias you complained about, which distorts reality


This isn't baiting, but I suggested our government was capable of the same duplicity - why did you choose to defend Monsanto? 

Do you believe Monsanto would fund a totally honest research and publish the findings if they found them to be harmful? 

I am not 'bias' - just skeptical.


----------



## Trixie (Aug 25, 2006)

Irish Pixie said:


> Sure you did when you indicated, "I am so cynical that I believe money is deciding 90% or more of what is happening in the world today and to that end, it's is folly to believe that money is not going to 'produce' the 'correct' research." If money is the deciding factor in 90% of all research than it must be poorly done, yes?
> 
> I don't completely trust the government and large companies either, but I can't come up with a better way to do research. I certainly don't want it to stop so I'll just have to deal with the system we have now.


No, I don't think it is done poorly. I think of poorly as slipshod, etc. I think research is very well done - to come up with the desired results.

Certainly, I don't advocate stopping research. I just would like it to be more honest and independent and free from the pressure of money.

We have to deal with the system we have - but if it is producing results because of money influence - rather than accuracy, then that seems very dangerous to me. Not that we can do anything about it.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

Irish Pixie said:


> I'm pretty cynical but even I can't stretch to "all science is bought and paid for." Is there wiggle room? Certainly. Are there unethical researchers? Definitely. Are all researchers unethical? No. Just no. There are checks and balances, ie. peer review and others trying to replicate results. Is it perfect? Nope, but it's what we have.
> 
> Without scientific research there would be no advances in any field. I'll take the flawed system we have rather than stagnant.


Nah. I think I agree with them. Science is nothing but a bunch of crackpots. I don't think fetuses even exist until the contractions start. I think up to that point it's just a sack of fluid waiting for a soul. And don't tell me otherwise, because we all know you can't really trust doctors, the academic institutions that train them, or the scientists who say I'm wrong...pff...the religion of "science." All those body parts planned parenthood affiliates are collecting actually come from old Cabbage Patch dolls from the 80s.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Trixie said:


> No, I don't think it is done poorly. I think of poorly as slipshod, etc. I think research is very well done - to come up with the desired results.
> 
> Certainly, I don't advocate stopping research. I just would like it to be more honest and independent and free from the pressure of money.
> 
> We have to deal with the system we have - but if it is producing results because of money influence - rather than accuracy, then that seems very dangerous to me. Not that we can do anything about it.



You say this, "No, I don't think it is done poorly. I think of poorly as slipshod, etc." Everything is fine. But you add this, "I think research is very well done - *to come up with the desired results*." Based on this you think that most researchers (I believe it was 90%) will manipulate the data to get what the "money" wants it to say. If that's not poorly done research, I don't know what is. It's also fallacy. 

You're blackening the reputation of ethical researchers and that is never OK.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Trixie said:


> Still a little confused, but that's not unusual.
> 
> *We were speaking of a report* and my contention was a report can be produced to report whatever the one paying for it desires.
> 
> ...


You were speaking about reports
I was only talking about "science" itself


----------



## Trixie (Aug 25, 2006)

Bearfootfarm said:


> You were speaking about reports
> I was only talking about "science" itself


I'm not sure I understand the distinction - again, it's kinda like arguing 'what is a fact'.

I am not trying to be obtuse - 

Reports tend to become 'science' -


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

I remember one "study" on dogs that came to the conclusion that dogs put on that hangdog look solely in reaction to the human's look of ieeitation. That dogs did not feel guilty at all.
Which shows the defect in thinking that is so common. That because one thing is true- in this case dogs react with gestures of conciliation in response to human approval and didn't otherwise- that it proves they don't have an internal sense of guilt, which is nonsense. What the experiment showed is that dogs do not come born with a sense of guilt over what humans want them to have and will react with appeasement even though they don't see the reason for the human reaction in the first place. 
If a dog knows it is doing something selfish that either violates what is inherent dog behavior code or what they have been taught is dog courtesy, they certainly will express the hangdog look even if no one is watching. They keep checking to see if anyone is looking with the already in place suitable expression. And what else is guilt in a human but the same expectation that the behavior is not worthy of approval.


----------



## Trixie (Aug 25, 2006)

Irish Pixie said:


> You say this, "No, I don't think it is done poorly. I think of poorly as slipshod, etc." Everything is fine. But you add this, "I think research is very well done - *to come up with the desired results*." Based on this you think that most researchers (I believe it was 90%) will manipulate the data to get what the "money" wants it to say. If that's not poorly done research, I don't know what is. It's also fallacy.
> 
> You're blackening the reputation of ethical researchers and that is never OK.


Are you forgetting the second part of my comment -

OR the report will never see the light of day.

Yes, there are ethical researchers - 

Say XYZ - never Monsanto- commissions a study as to the health effects of some additive to their product. The ethical researchers do a straight up study and find out it causes a whole host of problems. 

Do you really think that data will ever be published? 

Twelve impossible things before breakfast - but not that.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Trixie said:


> Are you forgetting the second part of my comment -
> 
> OR the report will never see the light of day.
> 
> ...


No, I was ignoring it. I'm not arguing about Monsanto, GMOs, etc... It's pointless. 

My point was, and still is, that not all researchers are unethical. It's unfair to paint them all with the "they'll make the research show what the money wants" brush. 

I do like Jane Yolen tho.


----------



## Trixie (Aug 25, 2006)

Irish Pixie said:


> No, I was ignoring it. I'm not arguing about Monsanto, GMOs, etc... It's pointless.
> 
> My point was, and still is, that not all researchers are unethical. It's unfair to paint them all with the "they'll make the research show what the money wants" brush.
> 
> I do like Jane Yolen tho.


Sorry if you thought I was only talking about Monsanto or GMO - I did mention other entities. 

It is very naive to believe the funders of research - at least research that is going to affect their bank accounts, maybe put them on the wrong side of the law - are not going to be able to find researchers' who will get the desired results.

So, I believe when the research is positive, there's a good chance it's bought. When it is negative - it just gets 'filed'.

We really have to be realistic.

My apologies to all the ethical researchers who have had their results 'filed'.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Trixie said:


> Sorry if you thought I was only talking about Monsanto or GMO - I did mention other entities.
> 
> It is very naive to believe the funders of research - at least research that is going to affect their bank accounts, maybe put them on the wrong side of the law - are not going to be able to find researchers' who will get the desired results.
> 
> ...


If you say so.


----------



## Sumatra (Dec 5, 2013)

Trixie said:


> I'm not sure I understand the distinction - again, it's kinda like arguing 'what is a fact'.
> 
> I am not trying to be obtuse -
> 
> Reports tend to become 'science' -


Science is based on what happens. 
Reports are what's said by certain people on what happened. Whether or not those reports say the truth is still up for debate. 

To take an example, science may express that 3*4=12. 
But the reports could easily say that 3*4=11, as shown by Kasilofhome's video. 

Bearfoot's only saying that 3*4(science) stays stable no matter what.
You're debating the accuracy of the reports that it may be equal to 11. So yes, they're two different topics.


Your point that reports tend to become a sort of science is extremely valid though. All too often, people won't even think about a possibility unless they've seen reports that it is true. 

Very few consider the fact that those reports may be flawed(or that the lack of possibly flawed research says nothing to the contrary), unless of course, they already have a bias against them. 
This then causes tension in all sorts of subjects. But unfortunately the bias found on both sides is extremely hard to get rid of.

In any case, it's nice to see that this information that a few of us have already known for a while, is getting into news sources where it may then be known by even more people.


----------



## gibbsgirl (May 1, 2013)

There's also many things that scientists don't know how to study because of too many variables, and other reasons. Sometimes there just is no one wanting to finance it. Sometimes, they can't get the legal right to study it.

Many people and media, I think, seem to dismiss other possible causes, effects, cures blood cause they think the absence of a study researching it somehow indicates that there must be no cause, effect, cure related.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Trixie said:


> This isn't baiting, but I suggested our government was capable of the same duplicity - *why did you choose to defend Monsanto*?
> 
> *Do you believe Monsanto would fund a totally honest research and publish the findings if they found them to be harmful? *
> 
> I am not 'bias' - just skeptical.


Monsanto told the Dept of Defense that the 2-4-d in "Agent Orange" was contaminated with Dioxin as early as 1952, but most still blame them for the supposed ill effects

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agent_Orange


> Internal memoranda revealed that Monsanto (a major manufacturer of 2,4,5-T) had informed the U.S. government in 1952 that its 2,4,5-T was contaminated.[16]


I'm not "defending Monsanto". (It was you who brought them into this)

I'm defending sticking to facts instead of speculation

Being "skeptical" is fine, but falling for the hype isn't


----------



## Aozora (Jan 13, 2014)

Trixie said:


> Sorry if you thought I was only talking about Monsanto or GMO - I did mention other entities.
> 
> It is very naive to believe the funders of research - at least research that is going to affect their bank accounts, maybe put them on the wrong side of the law - are not going to be able to find researchers' who will get the desired results.
> 
> ...


You may be giving them too much credit... I have personally been a part of studies where the organizations demanded we do specific analyses that would absolutely ensure that they would not get significant results. We tried to convince them to let us do different analyses, but they insisted and started on the high-handed "it's our money you do what we want" thing.

But you're right in that the non-significant results meant that all our work was for nothing. They had to pay us for it, but the end result (a manual for Soldiers coming back from deployment and having reintegration issues) was shelved when it could have been a huge help to a lot of people.


----------



## Trixie (Aug 25, 2006)

If it is a argument that science is an absolute - I probably accept that.

It's just that we haven't discovered all the facts about science - only parts of it.

Sometimes the discovery of science is like the blind men and the elephant. 

How if research isn't led by money or hidden because of money - how in the world do we get such opposing results?

Yes, there is a lot of research not done because there is no money to do it because there is no money to be made by it.

Suppose there was some suspicion, reason to believe, etc., that eating bananas and peanut butter would be a positive treatment for most of the mental illnesses. (Substitute any common thing and any disease.)

Would any drug company pay for the research? No - there's no money it for them since anyone can buy it. Would the government pay for the research? No - because there is no money in it for drug companies, and the lobbyist would be all over Washington like ants - more so than now.


----------



## Trixie (Aug 25, 2006)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Monsanto told the Dept of Defense that the 2-4-d in "Agent Orange" was contaminated with Dioxin as early as 1952, but most still blame them for the supposed ill effects
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agent_Orange
> 
> ...


Facts are funny things - it pretty much depends on whose 'facts' 

I have always heard the government blamed for Agent Orange - 

But I will say that Monsanto certainly has some devoted defenders??


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Bearfootfarm said:


> I'm pretty sure 2 + 2 = 4 100% of the time.
> 
> Chemical reactions are highly predictable also, so I'm not sure what the " 25% error rate" refers to.


I dunno about that, two apples plus two oranges equals zero bananas. :rain:


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Trixie said:


> If it is a argument that science is an absolute - I probably accept that.
> 
> It's just that we haven't discovered all the facts about science - only parts of it.
> 
> ...


This could be why you will never hear your doctor tell you to put honey on open wounds. It works great and people heal twice as fast without infection, but they can't make any money off honey. We need those antibiotic creams made by big pharma.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

wiscto said:


> Nah. I think I agree with them. Science is nothing but a bunch of crackpots. I don't think fetuses even exist until the contractions start. I think up to that point it's just a sack of fluid waiting for a soul. And don't tell me otherwise, because we all know you can't really trust doctors, the academic institutions that train them, or the scientists who say I'm wrong...pff...the religion of "science." All those body parts planned parenthood affiliates are collecting actually come from old Cabbage Patch dolls from the 80s.


Not to create a lot of thread drift but I am curious..... What evidence is there that a "soul" exists at all, much less that a fetus has one?


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> This could be why you will never hear your doctor tell you to put honey on open wounds. It works great and people heal twice as fast without infection, but they can't make any money off honey. We need those antibiotic creams made by big pharma.


Well, some DO! We used it on nursing home patients who'd come to hosp w/open sores.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

An example of where science went wrong is detailed in _Neurotribes_. Asperger recognized and wrote about the broad spectrum of autism but not to the vast extent of the full spectrum. Kanner another Austrian "scientist" with a PhD in art who emigrated to this country defined autism but failed to recognize the spectrum. He failed to recognize autism in many of the patients he examined. He also claimed that autism was due to bad parenting. He set diagnosis and effective approaches back for decades.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

I guess the worst thing I ever saw directly in a lab was a researcher who needed to come up with a value of the area under a complex graph of data. Rather than calculate the irritatingly irregular curve using calculus, he plotted it out, cut out the paper along the plot lines and weighed them on a scale.
You can imagine how acurate that was. But yes, people do such stuff. Being human, they really do.
So the bottom line is to take the results of studies in. Think on them. But, if it is important, don't swallow whole until it is repeated, critiqued and published in a reliable professional journal. Even then, think pretty good rather than perfect.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Not to create a lot of thread drift but I am curious..... What evidence is there that a "soul" exists at all, much less that a fetus has one?


There is no evidence. I believe you missed my sarcasm.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

where I want to said:


> I guess the worst thing I ever saw directly in a lab was a researcher who needed to come up with a value of the area under a complex graph of data. Rather than calculate the irritatingly irregular curve using calculus, he plotted it out, cut out the paper along the plot lines and weighed them on a scale.
> You can imagine how acurate that was. But yes, people do such stuff. Being human, they really do.
> So the bottom line is to take the results of studies in. Think on them. But, if it is important, don't swallow whole until it is repeated, critiqued and published in a reliable professional journal. Even then, think pretty good rather than perfect.


I actually don't believe you at all. And I'd love to know exactly what lab this was. I know people here would love to believe that there is no validity to any science, so that their religious tenets can dominate the rest of us, but it just isn't going to happen any time soon.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

wiscto said:


> There is no evidence. I believe you missed my sarcasm.


No I caught that, it just aroused my curiosity, it's something I have heard about all my life, but nobody has even been able to tell me what it is, much less tell me how they know anyone has one.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> No I caught that, it just aroused my curiosity, it's something I have heard about all my life, but nobody has even been able to tell me what it is, much less tell me how they know anyone has one.


I'm an agnostic, so you're asking the wrong guy. I don't really believe there is such a thing, but I won't rule out the possibility of something "kind of like that" until we stop finding particles that don't follow the laws of physics we used to be 100% sure of. Of course, that's a personal matter.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

wiscto said:


> I'm an agnostic, so you're asking the wrong guy. I don't really believe there is such a thing, but I won't rule out the possibility of something "kind of like that" until we stop finding particles that don't follow the laws of physics we used to be 100% sure of. Of course, that's a personal matter.


I am sure everything follows laws of physics, it's just a lot of those laws are unknown to our feeble minds at this point.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I am sure everything follows laws of physics, it's just a lot of those laws are unknown to our feeble minds at this point.


Yes. They appeared to be following different laws of physics, therefore not the ones that we used to be 100% sure of.


----------



## Trixie (Aug 25, 2006)

wiscto said:


> I actually don't believe you at all. And I'd love to know exactly what lab this was. I know people here would love to believe that there is no validity to any science, so that their religious tenets can dominate the rest of us, but it just isn't going to happen any time soon.


My skepticism of the research we get has nothing to do with religion or God.

It has to do with money -


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> This could be why you will never hear your doctor tell you to put honey on open wounds. It works great and people heal twice as fast without infection, but they can't make any money off honey. We need those antibiotic creams made by big pharma.


If all "honey" was identical they might tell people to use it, but unless you own the bees, you really don't know what's in those jars, unlike the drugs that are tightly controlled


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Bearfootfarm said:


> If all "honey" was identical they might tell people to use it, but unless you own the bees, you really don't know what's in those jars, unlike the drugs that are tightly controlled


How many jars of honey have you seen with mold on it? Germs and bacteria don't grow in any honey. Yours mine or anyone else's.


----------



## DanBond (Nov 25, 2020)

It's interesting research. I believe that psychology is more like art than science.


----------



## Sharpdx (Dec 22, 2020)

Ok, this information may cause panic in everyone who is currently undergoing psychotherapy. I don't think it's all that bad and at least the fundamentals of psychology, like, cognitive behavioral therapy is effective and no one's going to argue with that. Besides, the human mind is very flexible and maybe people were answering the questions the way they thought they were supposed to answer and that's why the results of the studies are questionable. I know for sure that my therapists helped me a lot to pull away from relationship  and cure my depression.


----------

