Editor of Lancet: "Much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue" (collectivelyconscious.net)
submitted 9.7 years ago by Tleilaxu_Ghola
view the rest of the comments →
Lobotomy 9.7 years ago
Well, I know one good way of validating this claim. The scientific method has to be good for something, right?
Charlie_Prime 9.7 years ago
It is if you use it. Most "scientists" do not.
Then that means that most scientific literature must be proven extensively in front of an unaffiliated panel before being published.
garryorlarry 9.7 years ago
True. The whole "panel of peers" part is much of the problem.
Which is why it's not.
view the rest of the comments →
Lobotomy ago
Well, I know one good way of validating this claim. The scientific method has to be good for something, right?
Charlie_Prime ago
It is if you use it. Most "scientists" do not.
Lobotomy ago
Then that means that most scientific literature must be proven extensively in front of an unaffiliated panel before being published.
garryorlarry ago
True. The whole "panel of peers" part is much of the problem.
Charlie_Prime ago
Which is why it's not.