Right. Generalisation, because that is such a constructive argument. Or do you have actual evidence supporting your claim that all scientists destroyed all their own credibility? Because this scientist sure would love to see that.
I'm assuming you are not aware that the layman article you linked to is based on the article I posted in my OP. I'm also assuming you didn't read either my OP or your own link as they both mention Richard Horton and The Lancet.
Now, how does your link provide any evidence for your claim that all scientists can't be trusted because they all destroyed their credibility?
I appreciate comments, but this is not a productive argument nor does it lead to a flourishing discussion. This is too bad...
'...studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance'
Good reputations are very difficult to build, yet very easy to lose. Scientists should have done a better job of policing themselves. Doctors do it better. Accountants do it better. Plumbers do it better.
view the rest of the comments →
Charlie_Prime ago
Scientists can't be trusted because they destroyed their credibility.
Homo_ludens ago
Right. Generalisation, because that is such a constructive argument. Or do you have actual evidence supporting your claim that all scientists destroyed all their own credibility? Because this scientist sure would love to see that.
Charlie_Prime ago
Nah. You wouldn't.
http://www.collective-evolution.com/2015/05/16/editor-in-chief-of-worlds-best-known-medical-journal-half-of-all-the-literature-is-false/
Homo_ludens ago
I'm assuming you are not aware that the layman article you linked to is based on the article I posted in my OP. I'm also assuming you didn't read either my OP or your own link as they both mention Richard Horton and The Lancet.
Now, how does your link provide any evidence for your claim that all scientists can't be trusted because they all destroyed their credibility?
I appreciate comments, but this is not a productive argument nor does it lead to a flourishing discussion. This is too bad...
Charlie_Prime ago
'...studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance'
Good reputations are very difficult to build, yet very easy to lose. Scientists should have done a better job of policing themselves. Doctors do it better. Accountants do it better. Plumbers do it better.
Homo_ludens ago
Since you don't feel inclined to provide claims that are actually substantiated, I don't feel inclined to continue this discussion with you.