Nature: Rein in the four horsemen of irreproducibility

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-01307-2

 

Definitely true. Something needs to change so the value of all useful contributions to the sum total of knowledge can be properly recognised. Discovering that something does not show significant effect is often extremely useful. It's so fundamental.

 

The implication I took from it is that 'biomedical science' takes a lot more money and is what we feel holds the most promise for improvement of the human condition. So maybe it's not the worst offender, but its offenses carry the most weight.

 

Yes, obviously we focus - rightly so - on the absurdities of much of BPS-driven ME/CFS pseudo science, but I would be amazed if biomedical research is not also prone to dodgy practices.

 

taken from another article (from 2015) linked to on the op site


https://www.nature.com/news/how-scientists-fool-themselves-and-how-they-can-stop-1.18517

 

retweeted by Michael Sharpe (!?)
https://twitter.com/user/status/1123165538274951168


it takes one to know one

 

I actually think all this stuff is a storm in a teacup. The real problem with science is something quite different.

Why are these studies so hard to reproduce? Because they were tests of not very clever ideas that turned out to be wrong. The real problem with science is that the vast majority of studies test hypotheses that aren't worth bothering with because there are good reasons for thinking they make no sense. Perhaps the commonest thing is testing a hypothesis that superficially looks as if it would explain something but with a bit of thought can be seen not to make those predictions at all.

The molecular mimicry hypothesis in immunology is an old chestnut. In ME I am sceptical about any hypotheses that try to explain symptoms on the basis of impaired energy metabolism. The symptoms don't fit with that because they occur after the exertion more than during it.

If you come across a really good idea, which if you are lucky you do once or twice in a career, then the results shout back at you that it is right. P values are not even needed.

 

I'm not sure if he's tweeting it in support of those. Seeing as it would essentially lead to retraction of most of his work, it's hard to imagine otherwise. Unless he just doesn't understand that, which is conceivable but... damn. He's certainly made it plenty clear he is a fool.