The Decline effect

[mobihci]

an interesting article here on the scientific method-



------
"Because most of these studies were randomized controlled trials—the “gold standard” of medical evidence—they tended to have a significant impact on clinical practice, and led to the spread of treatments such as hormone replacement therapy for menopausal women and daily low-dose aspirin to prevent heart attacks and strokes. Nevertheless, the data Ioannidis found were disturbing: of the thirty-four claims that had been subject to replication, forty-one per cent had either been directly contradicted or had their effect sizes significantly downgraded.

The situation is even worse when a subject is fashionable. In recent years, for instance, there have been hundreds of studies on the various genes that control the differences in disease risk between men and women. These findings have included everything from the mutations responsible for the increased risk of schizophrenia to the genes underlying hypertension. Ioannidis and his colleagues looked at four hundred and thirty-two of these claims. They quickly discovered that the vast majority had serious flaws. But the most troubling fact emerged when he looked at the test of replication: out of four hundred and thirty-two claims, only a single one was consistently replicable. “This doesn’t mean that none of these claims will turn out to be true,” he says. “But, given that most of them were done badly, I wouldn’t hold my breath.” "

------

[beer4life]

"Lies, damned lies, and statistics" is a phrase describing the persuasive power of numbers, particularly the use of to bolster weak , and the tendency of people to disparage statistics that do not support their positions. It is also sometimes colloquially used to doubt statistics used to prove an opponent's point.
The term was popularised in the United States by (among others), who attributed it to the 19th-century British Prime Minister (1804–1881): "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." However, the phrase is not found in any of Disraeli's works and the earliest known appearances were years after his death. Other coiners have therefore been proposed. The most plausible, given current evidence, is Englishman (1843–1911).

[trash]

Leaves a company and it's directors open from criminal proceedings if things go wrong later and the research is proven to have been a fudge. In the USA, it would be a dangerous practice with the number of ambulance chasing lawyers.

[Onefella]

Good article, but I'm a bit confused. At first it seems like they're saying that earlier experiments tend to be biased towards a positive result, therefore could be skewed. But then they say that the most accurate data is at the time the largest number of experiments is done with consistent outcomes, and that this is also during the early phase of a new scientific theory.

So which is it?

[mobihci]

i dont think they say it is at an early phase of discovery. while studies are likely to agree with each other at an early stage, they agree with each other less over time, so while in decline you can bet that the theory is not completely correct. if it never declines then it is probably correct. suppose it depends on how much time you allow for this process and of course how much interest there is in the subject matter.

there would be many studies that are completely wrong, but are held up as 'current knowledge' due to the fact that they havnt been disputed and the process of decline did not run its course.

[mobihci]

Leaves a company and it's directors open from criminal proceedings if things go wrong later and the research is proven to have been a fudge. In the USA, it would be a dangerous practice with the number of ambulance chasing lawyers.

it really depends on how it is marketed or sold and of course who is selling it. eg government departments can get away with anything, maybe because they are seen to be working for the public good. a fine example is the bullshit studies done to justify speed cameras.

everyone else who is at least a bit responsible for their products etc, the claims made are more vague and carefully worded to make sure there is no liability. like all these analgesics that are supposed to target certain body parts all the way to virtually any form of alternative medicine. they are allowed to make whatever claim they want as long as they are vague enough.

[trash]

In Australia it requires the victim to prove harm has been done and they have suffered some sort of loss.
In the USA they only have to demonstrate fraud. If the company has acted fraudulently then all of their other research is called into question. If they lied about one then, then they must have lied about everything else.
It equates to professional negligence. Even if your lab R&D guys were honest, there is no telling what data the company might have suppressed. USA courts are well versed with companies suppressing information. They've seen so many examples that the companies have set their own precedence of guilty until proven innocent.

If the law in both Australia and USA was to be fair, directors of companies would be held criminally liable for the actions of their companies. All off the directors whether they were present or not. It's their responsibility to know what their company is doing.
If the company kills a person, then manslaughter charges will keep them in line.

As for the government. Nobody is above the law. Since most politicians are lawyers and know many more lawyers, the public has a hard time calling them to accountability.
Politicians skirt a very fine line. It only takes them to piss off one person just enough for them to deem their crimes against their constituents a capital offence.

Second Amendment in USA is primarily for that purpose. It keeps every last person in a position of power, in a state of fear and encourages them to do the right thing.
Sure there are consequences. I will go to hell, but I can take you with me.