August 31, 2005

HOPE FOR DARWINISM AFTER ALL (via Robert Schwartz):

Most published research findings may be false (Paul Ocampo, Public Library of Science )

"There is increasing concern that in modern research, false findings may be the majority or even the vast majority of published research claims," says researcher John Ioannidis in an analysis in the open access international medical journal PLoS Medicine.

In his analysis, Ioannidis, of the University of Ioannina School of Medicine, Greece, and Tufts University School of Medicine, United States, identifies the factors that he believes lead to research findings often being false.

One of these factors is that many research studies are small. "The smaller the studies conducted in a scientific field, the less likely the research findings are to be true," says Ioannidis.

Another problem is that in many scientific fields, the "effect sizes" (a measure of how much a risk factor such as smoking increases a person's risk of disease, or how much a treatment is likely to improve a disease) are small.

Research findings are more likely true in scientific fields with large effects, such as the impact of smoking on cancer, than in scientific fields where postulated effects are small, such as genetic risk factors for diseases where many different genes are involved in causation. If the effect sizes are very small in a particular field, says Ioannidis, it is "likely to be plagued by almost ubiquitous false positive claims."

Financial and other interests and prejudices can also lead to untrue results. And "the hotter a scientific field (with more scientific teams involved), the less likely the research findings are to be true," which may explain why we sometimes see "major excitement followed rapidly by severe disappointments in fields that draw wide attention."

Posted by Orrin Judd at August 31, 2005 1:16 PM
Comments

Of course, his findings applied to his *own* paper yield...what?

Posted by: Bruce Cleaver at September 1, 2005 7:03 AM

Hamster cage lining?

Posted by: oj at September 1, 2005 8:16 AM

That Darwinist you guys love to hate, Stephen Jay Gould, pointed this out quite some time ago in his _Mismeasure of Man_.

Might you explicate your heading for us slow folks, OJ?

Also, I thought the comparison of the human/chimp genome might provide Darwinists with even more hope.

Posted by: lmarvingjr. at September 1, 2005 8:42 AM

l:

Well, since Darwinists have never been able to produce any evidence of Darwinism they can just claim all of the studies are wrong.

Posted by: oj at September 1, 2005 8:50 AM

"Well, since Darwinists have never been able to produce any evidence of Darwinism they can just claim all of the studies are wrong."

As you well know (or at least should know by now), the theory of evolution finds itself confirmed with great consistency. Plug in ID though, and you might be on to something:

Since IDers have never been able to produce any evidence of Intelligent Design they can just claim all of the studies are wrong.

Posted by: creeper at September 1, 2005 10:18 AM

creeper;

Yes, you can just plug in ID wherever Darwinists claim Natural Selectiuon--alternatively you can just plug in God and have Creationism. That's because none is scientific.

Posted by: oj at September 1, 2005 10:31 AM

We've been over this before, and while it is possible to plug ID into your sentence above, it is not possible to plug it into the theory of evolution as a substitute for natural selection, at least not without being totally nonsensical, or positing a divine being that allows no free will of any kind, but simply moves us around like chess pieces.

If you don't believe that the theory of evolution is scientific, you really should try to read one of Mayr's books beyond quote mining and misrepresenting the introductions, that is. 'What Evolution Is' is actually quite a good read.

Posted by: creeper at September 1, 2005 10:37 AM

they're all evolutionary theories. Mayr was brutally frank about Darwinism not meeting the test of science. It's a philosophy.

Posted by: oj at September 1, 2005 10:42 AM

"Mayr was brutally frank about Darwinism not meeting the test of science. It's a philosophy."

As usual, just a willful misrepresentation of Mayr's words. Read the whole book sometime.

Posted by: creeper at September 1, 2005 11:06 AM

Toward a New Philosophy of Biology: Observations of an Evolutionist by Ernst Mayr

Philosophy, not science

Posted by: oj at September 1, 2005 12:04 PM

We've been over this particular misrepresentation how many times, Orrin? It's not a coincidence that you stop writing full sentences when you get to this and instead simply put "philosophy, not science".

Mayr clearly and consistently refers to the "philosophy of biology" in the same context as "philosophy of science".

The philosophy of science is the branch of philosophy which studies the philosophical foundations, assumptions, and implications of science, including the natural sciences such as physics and biology, and the social sciences, such as psychology and economics. In this respect, the philosophy of science is closely related to epistemology and ontology. It seeks to explain such things as: the nature of scientific statements and concepts; the way in which they are produced; how science explains, predicts and, through technology, harnesses nature; the means for determining the validity of information; the formulation and use of the scientific method; the types of reasoning used to arrive at conclusions; and the implications of scientific methods and models for the larger society, and for the sciences themselves.

Referring to the "philosophy of science" is not the same as claiming that science is a philosophy. Likewise, referring to the "philosophy of biology" (which is all you've ever been able to show regarding the erroneous "Mayr said biology is not a science but a philosophy" claim) is not the same as claiming that biology is a philosophy.

Posted by: creeper at September 1, 2005 12:47 PM

no, science isn't philosophy, biological science sometimes is and Darwinism only is.

As you say, the philosophies --ID, Creationism, Darwinism -- belong outside the science class.

Posted by: oj at September 1, 2005 12:52 PM

The theory of evolution is not a philosophy, and belongs in a science class.

If you want to make up a new definition for Darwinism that you think is also a philosophy, by all means do so, but other readers should keep in mind that this is nothing but a strawman.

Posted by: creeper at September 1, 2005 2:43 PM

Not according to Mayr.

Posted by: oj at September 1, 2005 4:14 PM

If you can provide a link or quote that doesn't rest on the misrepresentation of "philosophy of biology" being "biology is classified as philosophy", then please do so.

Otherwise this is just more intellectual dishonesty, which it appears is all you have to support your position on this topic.

Posted by: creeper at September 2, 2005 12:46 AM

See prior Mayr discussions.

Posted by: oj at September 2, 2005 7:00 AM

"See prior Mayr discussions."

All of them are based on the same misrepresentation; none of them contain a link or quote that doesn't rest on the misrepresentation of "philosophy of biology" being "biology is classified as philosophy".

Posted by: creeper at September 2, 2005 7:41 AM
« WHY WOULDN'T HE WAIT & DROWN THEM?: | Main | THUS THE NEW STATE TRAVEL MOTTO...: »