Jimmy was born in Texas, grew up nominally Protestant, but at age 20 experienced a profound conversion to Christ. Planning on becoming a Protestant seminary professor, he started an intensive study of the Bible. But the more he immersed himself in Scripture the more he found to support the Catholic faith, and in 1992 he entered the Catholic Church. His conversion story, "A Triumph and a Tragedy," is published in Surprised by Truth. Besides being an author, Jimmy is the Senior Apologist at Catholic Answers, a contributing editor to Catholic Answers Magazine, and a weekly guest on "Catholic Answers Live."
View all posts by Jimmy Akin
4 thoughts on “Why Most Published Scientific Research Is Wrong”
An understandable but misleading headline by Jimmy. We should not conclude that we can pick and choose our “scientific truths” eg flat-earth, geocentrism, young earth creationism, chemtrails ….
From the conclusion of the video @11m30s
” … as flawed as our science maybe is, it is by far, the most reliable way of knowing … that we have”
This is an interesting, but exaggerated, critique of: p values taken in isolation, without repeatibility and with small sample sizes.
Peer-review is not perfect – but like democracy, it is the best system we currently have. Crackpot and pseudo-science does not usually get past the peer-review filter or survive for long in mainstream science.
If most peer-reviewed research was widely off the mark then we would not have made most of the scientific and medical advances we have made. If you seriously doubt established scientific consensus, then you should not rely on its fruits eg you should not take any tested medication, fly, drive, watch TV, use science or technology especially electronics, the internet, etc..
The phrase “scientific consensus” is anti-scientific. Science is based on verifiable observation, which often kicks “consensus” to the curb. (See what Einstein did to Newtonian physics).
The phrase “scientific consensus” is used to shut down discussion.
So scientists are also susceptible to original sin.
This is a very well done video.
I am sorry that I am late to the party. The statistical worthiness of a study does not prove anything about the wrongness or rightness of the science, itself – only about the study done to prove a point. One may, badly, conduct an experiment to prove that water is wet. Because the experiment is bad, does that mean that water is not wet? John Ioannidis, the most prominent critic of poor statistics and the person who touched off the controversy, knows this. An experiment argues for a limited proposition.
An understandable but misleading headline by Jimmy. We should not conclude that we can pick and choose our “scientific truths” eg flat-earth, geocentrism, young earth creationism, chemtrails ….
From the conclusion of the video @11m30s
” … as flawed as our science maybe is, it is by far, the most reliable way of knowing … that we have”
This is an interesting, but exaggerated, critique of: p values taken in isolation, without repeatibility and with small sample sizes.
Peer-review is not perfect – but like democracy, it is the best system we currently have. Crackpot and pseudo-science does not usually get past the peer-review filter or survive for long in mainstream science.
If most peer-reviewed research was widely off the mark then we would not have made most of the scientific and medical advances we have made. If you seriously doubt established scientific consensus, then you should not rely on its fruits eg you should not take any tested medication, fly, drive, watch TV, use science or technology especially electronics, the internet, etc..
The phrase “scientific consensus” is anti-scientific. Science is based on verifiable observation, which often kicks “consensus” to the curb. (See what Einstein did to Newtonian physics).
The phrase “scientific consensus” is used to shut down discussion.
So scientists are also susceptible to original sin.
This is a very well done video.
I am sorry that I am late to the party. The statistical worthiness of a study does not prove anything about the wrongness or rightness of the science, itself – only about the study done to prove a point. One may, badly, conduct an experiment to prove that water is wet. Because the experiment is bad, does that mean that water is not wet? John Ioannidis, the most prominent critic of poor statistics and the person who touched off the controversy, knows this. An experiment argues for a limited proposition.
The Chicken