How I Became Particle Physicists’ Enemy #1
Sabine highlights some of the numerous problems in many fields of science at present.
Another serious issue is that of Reproducibility. This is where discoveries made in a scientific experiment cannot be reproduced by other scientists.
The fact that this occurs on such a large scale, is a massive red flag.
Why can’t we reproduce so many scientific findings?
From the linked article.
“If scientists find a certain result from an experiment, but no one else is able to replicate it, that’s a red flag. It indicates that the first scientists could have made a mistake or that the original study design wasn’t sound.”
Although this is a possibility, what is not mentioned in the article is the potential for fraud and corruption.
With failures to replicate occurring to such a large degree, means that either there are many incompetent people receiving science degrees, or there is systemic fraud and corruption permeating the scientific community.
Both of which are highly problematic.
“Currently, researcher[s] that have the most-cited or most popular studies in “high-impact” journals get rewarded — even though the methods may not be reproducible.”
How are studies able to be published in peer reviewed journals, without being reproducible?
Reproducibility is a core tenet of science, yet these people cannot even get that right. 1
To a layperson, this seems to be a fundamental first step before publication. If your study is not able to be reproduced, how can it be published as a valid study?
WTF!
“Reproducibility is a concerning issue in science, but these new initiatives also give us something to be optimistic about. Now go out there, and do the same thing over again!”
How are any of these initiatives a cause for optimism? These initiatives just sound like fluff. These initiatives sound like, “let’s just keep sweeping the issue under the rug”.
Science under Scrutiny: The Problem of Reproducibility
From the linked article.
“Yet the reproducibility problem does not necessarily mean that science is fundamentally broken. “Progress is dependent on failures,” says Richard M. Shiffrin, a psychologist at Indiana University Bloomington, who is skeptical of the attention being paid to the “crisis.””
What sort of unscrupulous dirt bag thinks that this is not a problem?
“Progress is dependent on failures…”
If the system that you work within has failed and is broken and you refuse to fix it, how is this, “progress”?
System failure indicates a problem that needs to be addressed. It means you have a broken system. Why is anyone expected to trust your broken system?
This is typical of the crap that is vomited out of the mouths of psychologists.
Reproducibility: The science communities’ ticking timebomb. Can we still trust published research?
From the linked article.
“But for a discipline that prides itself on the “unbiased pursuit of knowledge and truth”, the fact that up to 65% of researchers have tried and failed to reproduce their own research is astonishing, to say the least.”
Let that sink in.
65% of researchers failed to reproduce their own results.
How have these people still got a job after this?
In the engineering field, which I have worked in, being this incompetent would have meant an immediate sacking, and rightly so. Because people could die if I screw up.
But scientists that produce bogus and/or fraudulent studies, simply move on to their next grant project.
The unfortunate fact here is, it is not just science that is replete with clueless incompetence, but it is a disease that has infected every profession and field.
Professional grifters are being paid tremendous amounts of money, and they will do their best to ensure that the gravy train continues for them.
Yet, those that call out the nonsense and/or corruption, are the ones to lose their job.
Why is senior management so eager to cover these things up?
From these articles, there seems to be an underlying narrative that it is not the fault of the scientist, but the system.
However, if the scientists see the problem, why don’t more of them speak out? Why are so many happy to go along, to get along?
A scientist’s primary loyalty should be to truth and integrity, even at the expense of their own well-being.
People create these systems. People work within these systems. People need to be responsible for the systems they create and work in.
“We need the space to question, revisit, and reassess. But if the goal is to constantly push forward, we don’t allow for that opportunity.”
The context of this quote seems to imply that flawed studies are, “constantly pushing forward”.
How is there any “pushing forward” if the primary research is flawed?
I wasn’t expecting Sabine’s video to trigger such a rant, but here we are.
Regardless of all this, remember to just, “Trust the Science”.
Not.
A Beautiful Aching
Store
Revision Log
- 24th Apr. 2025 – New sentence added. “Reproducibility is a core tenet of science, yet these people cannot even get that right.”
