Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Study Shows One Third of All Studies Are Nonsense

samzenpus posted more than 9 years ago | from the 9-out-of-10-researchers-surveyed dept.

Science 391

SydShamino writes "CNN has a report on new research to confirm claims made in initial, well-publicized studies. According to the new study, about a third of all major studies from the last 15 years were subsequently shown to be inaccurate or overblown. The study abstract is available."

cancel ×

391 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Obviously flawed (1, Funny)

shorti9 (307602) | more than 9 years ago | (#13058728)

There's a new study to be published next week showing that only one quarter of all studies are overblown, including this one.

Re:Obviously flawed (1, Redundant)

The_Dixie_Flatline (842927) | more than 9 years ago | (#13058749)

I heard that 32.344 % of all statistics are made up on the spot

Re:Obviously flawed (-1, Redundant)

LucidBeast (601749) | more than 9 years ago | (#13058848)

That was then now the correct number is 31.2% so there is progress.

Re:Obviously flawed (1, Funny)

MrFlannel (762587) | more than 9 years ago | (#13058941)

I heard that 68% of all statistics are made up on the spot.

[insert mindless banter and 30 seconds here]

Oh, did you hear? 46% of all statistics are made up on the spot.

Re:Obviously flawed (1, Insightful)

smitty_one_each (243267) | more than 9 years ago | (#13058975)

No, really: internet traffic really is doubling every six months!
It is!
No, please don't call my bluff!
What are those cuffs [telegraph.co.uk] about?
Screw you all! SCREW YOU ALL!

Re:Obviously flawed (1)

VeryProfessional (805174) | more than 9 years ago | (#13058963)

Modded Insightful? The mind boggles...

Re:Obviously flawed (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13058758)

Case in point!

Hmm... (-1, Redundant)

abscondment (672321) | more than 9 years ago | (#13058780)

Well, we all know that 63% of internet statistics are made up.

Re:Obviously flawed (-1, Redundant)

mortonda (5175) | more than 9 years ago | (#13058878)

Just goes to show that 87.563% of stats are totally made up on the spot...

nice (1, Redundant)

Exstatica (769958) | more than 9 years ago | (#13058730)

I wonder if this is one of those studies that is nonsense :)

Re:nice (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13058874)

Congratulations. You have just made the most obvious comment ever. I commend you.

Re:nice (5, Interesting)

nickj6282 (896871) | more than 9 years ago | (#13058948)

Most obvious comment ever has been taken. On November 12, 2001 (61 days after the WTC attack in NYC) American Airlines flight 587 [cnn.com] took off from JFK and promptly crashed into a Queens neighborhood. Obviously, most Americans suspected the worst. That day, I was watching CNN when one of these so-called "experts" (sic) came on and actually said in plain english:

"This is not a very good time for something like this to happen."

So my question is this: when is a good time for an airplane full of people to crash into a residential neighborhood? This guy should designate a day for us so we can make sure all the airlines and pilots know when the good day for crashing is. Morons.

And this study is not nonsense... (-1, Redundant)

unborracho (108756) | more than 9 years ago | (#13058731)

because?

Re:And this study is not nonsense... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13058760)

because of probability calculus

Re:And this study is not nonsense... (2, Funny)

Jeet81 (613099) | more than 9 years ago | (#13058769)

Because this is from the other 2/3rd studies talking about the other 1/3rd studies.

Re:And this study is not nonsense... (3, Funny)

jameszhou2000 (811168) | more than 9 years ago | (#13058831)

it was published three times?

See I told you. (0)

Jeet81 (613099) | more than 9 years ago | (#13058733)

I soo knew this was true.. But no one believed me.

Mathematically Challenged (2, Insightful)

fembots (753724) | more than 9 years ago | (#13058734)

My apology in advance for being a MC-person, but if 1/3 of the studies are inaccurate, which means this study can be 1/3 inaccurate, does it mean that the actual inaccuracy is 1/3 * 2/3 = 2/9 of all major studies are inaccurate?

This is just silly! Far too silly! (3, Funny)

mister_llah (891540) | more than 9 years ago | (#13058782)

Well, it says 1/3 of the studies are inaccurate, so let us rank that on a percentage scale, say the study is inaccurate, we give them a 0 value.

Accurate studies, lets say 100 (I know nothing is 100% accurate, and I know most studies even if they are somewhat accurate probably don't exceed 70% probability even in the specific environments they are enacted in, but lets just be over-generous since this whole thing is rather ridiculous anyway) ... *GASP FOR AIR* ... okay... so you have 66% chance of that particular study being at least somewhat accurate...

Right? ... (rolls percentile dice)... OOOOHH! Man, rolled a 72, looks like I can't believe it.

Rats.

Re:This is just silly! Far too silly! (1)

GeneralHorel (851957) | more than 9 years ago | (#13058911)

Don't give more researchers ideas on how to make up stats and numbers in studies. The dice will be right more often than the studies

Re:Mathematically Challenged (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13058790)

Trouble with that logic is that it is recursive.

Re:Mathematically Challenged (2, Insightful)

DavidHumus (725117) | more than 9 years ago | (#13058815)

Actually, this isn't a bad guess.

The text of the article does not suppport the 1/3 bad claim exactly. Instead, it reports that 1/6 of initial reports are subsequently contradicted and another 1/6 are subsequently only weakly supported.

Estimating from this range, the true number is probably somewhere in between, say 22.2% (=2/9) which is between 16.7% and 33.3%, or 24.5% which is the aveage of these?

Re:Mathematically Challenged (1)

T(V)oney (736966) | more than 9 years ago | (#13058879)

I think it's easier to say that this study has a 33% chance of being innacurate.

So.. (0, Redundant)

koreaman (835838) | more than 9 years ago | (#13058735)

Isn't it completely possible that this study is bogus?

1/3? (0, Redundant)

qewl (671495) | more than 9 years ago | (#13058737)

A third?! I'm sure this one is at least a 'litte' overblown too...

first post (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13058740)

damn studies

Irony meter! (4, Funny)

mister_llah (891540) | more than 9 years ago | (#13058743)

What... are you guys trying to blow up our heads?

I think it is possible this is the most amusingly ridiculous piece of "legitemate" news I've read in awhile...

Anyone got anything to beat it? Post it, I need to shock my brain a little more ;)

Re:Irony meter! (5, Funny)

currivan (654314) | more than 9 years ago | (#13058972)

Turkish shepherds look at dead sheep in the town of Gevas, near the city of Van, eastern Turkey, Thursday, July 7, 2005. First one sheep jumped to its death. Then stunned Turkish shepherds, who had left the herd to graze while they had breakfast, watched as nearly 1,500 others followed, each leaping off the same cliff, according to the Turkish media reported on Friday July 8, 2005. In the end, 450 dead animals lay on top of one another in a billowy white pile. Those who jumped later were saved as the pile got higher.
Yahoo link [yahoo.com]

Nonsense! (2, Insightful)

Speare (84249) | more than 9 years ago | (#13058750)

Since when is "inaccurate" or "overblown" nonsense? That's what science is: study something, make a theory, and just about dare someone else to prove it wrong, because that's what makes for a better theory.

Re:Nonsense! (0)

InfiniteWisdom (530090) | more than 9 years ago | (#13058803)

It's nonsense when it's intentionally skewed... eg. a survey that has leading questions

Re:Nonsense! (5, Insightful)

GileadGreene (539584) | more than 9 years ago | (#13058839)

Yes, but this wasn't talking about surveys with leading questions. TFA was talking about clinical studies published in medical journals like JAMA and the New england Journal of Medicine.

Re:Nonsense! (2, Insightful)

Nasarius (593729) | more than 9 years ago | (#13058935)

Exactly. Of course a good portion of studies, even when conducted properly, produce inaccurate results. That's the whole purpose of peer review; doing further research tends to filter out the bad stuff.

Isnt this a Study. (1)

norritt (597210) | more than 9 years ago | (#13058753)

Not to be too blunt, But shouldn't a CNN report equal some kind of study, which also is overblown and innaccurate.

Next story (1, Funny)

terminateprocess (812697) | more than 9 years ago | (#13058754)

I can imagine the next headline:
Study finds that previous study is also nonsense

Re:Next story (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13058862)

The people responsible for the previous study have been sacked.

So.... (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13058755)

So is this part of the third?

And what, exactly, would it mean if it were?

ERROR 0x381F (3, Funny)

omarius (52253) | more than 9 years ago | (#13058756)

This study will cause an infinite loop..PLEASE SHUTDOWN IMMEDIATELY. 0x381F

more like (0, Troll)

hsmith (818216) | more than 9 years ago | (#13058759)

all studies are biased and show exactly what the person who is doing them want. much like stats, you can make anything prove anything through working the #'s and asking the right questions

Re:more like (2, Funny)

yotto (590067) | more than 9 years ago | (#13058819)


all studies are biased and show exactly what the person who is doing
them want. much like stats, you can make anything prove anything
through working the #'s and asking the right questions


Can you prove this with a study? If not, I'll not believe you. I asked 100 people if they thought studies were overblown, and 33 of them said 'yes.' Where's /your/ proof? :D

Re:more like (1)

audacity242 (324061) | more than 9 years ago | (#13058841)

Damn. So when I got results that didn't fit my hypothesis and reported non-significant results, I was doing something wrong?

Re:more like (4, Insightful)

Daniel Dvorkin (106857) | more than 9 years ago | (#13058876)

Aaargh. Comments like this turn up in droves in every story that mentions statistics (in any light, whether good or bad) and ... wait for it ... they're always wrong. 100% of the time. I can state that with absolute certainty. No margin of error.

The fact is, yes, statistics can be misused. So can every other field of study. But used right, statistics are a tremendously powerful way to understand our world, and often reveal information that can't be obtained any other way. And believe me, nobody gets more peeved at statistics abuse than statisticians do.

But that's okay, pal. Just keep on making fun of things you don't understand. The smart people of the world will keep on working, keep doing things that make your and everyone else's life better, whether you know it or not.

Re:more like (1)

hsmith (818216) | more than 9 years ago | (#13058906)

i never said they aren't useful. the fact is, they are easily manipulated. such as studies can be.

Re:more like (1)

Snerdley (98439) | more than 9 years ago | (#13058967)

(I was all ready to reply with a story from college about a statistics professor telling a story about Canadian forest rangers and beard growth. But I simply don't have it in me.)

The long and short of this is that any statistics that have been dumbed down to the point where the unwashed masses can follow it are generally more slant than science.

This leads to a downward spiral where the masses don't trust the statistics, since they can always wait a week and get the opposite side of the debate to run a study.

Re:more like (3, Interesting)

cyclopropene (777291) | more than 9 years ago | (#13058942)

all studies are biased and show exactly what the person who is doing them want. much like stats, you can make anything prove anything through working the #'s and asking the right questions
While I agree that some form of bias infects essentially all research, I don't think that's the whole picture here. Publishing new scientific results has two components. One is to put the data out into the literature where other researchers can read it, comment on it, build on it and improve on it. The other is to provide your interpretation of it, to draw what are supposed to be the best conclusions you can based on the data set that you have, even if it's small. Many conclusions based on initial data or small data sets may well be proved wrong (or may well be biased toward what the investigators want), but that doesn't mean that all of the data is wrong, or that it has no value to other researchers. Scientific literature is a dialog involving the presentation of data along with an explanation. It is expected that the interpretation will be amended as larger data sets become available. The mistake is to take an old, highly referenced paper and treat it as gospel.

Oblig. Futurama quote (4, Funny)

dancingmad (128588) | more than 9 years ago | (#13058761)

Zapp: Kiff we have a conundrum!

SLASHDOT IS FULL OF GAY NIGGER PEDOPHILES! (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13058762)


...And that's just the editors!!!

There should be a Slashdot Story... (1)

gavri (663286) | more than 9 years ago | (#13058774)

...about how one-third of all Slashdot stories are dupes.

Youbetcha! (1)

comzen (830240) | more than 9 years ago | (#13058776)

Dr. Spin and his pragmatic stats says, that's the fact Jack!

obStrongbad (-1, Offtopic)

yotto (590067) | more than 9 years ago | (#13058781)

My Head A Splode.

Studies inaccurate but not completely bogus (1, Insightful)

LucidBeast (601749) | more than 9 years ago | (#13058785)

I think it states that most studies have inaccurate or overblown results not that 1/3 of studies are completely off.

Nonsense (2, Insightful)

Coyote399 (666525) | more than 9 years ago | (#13058786)

Just because a study has inaccuracies doesn't mean the whole thing is nonsense.

Life imitating art (2, Funny)

mattmentecky (799199) | more than 9 years ago | (#13058787)

Obligatory Simpsons quote:

"Oh, people can come up with statistics to prove anything, Kent. 14% of people know that."

Re:Life imitating art (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13058934)

fourfteen.

Wow! (1)

nherm (889807) | more than 9 years ago | (#13058791)

First recursive study!

Nonsense topic (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13058796)

All studies is not the same thing as all studies in the field of clinical research.

Falsifiability. (2, Insightful)

Tackhead (54550) | more than 9 years ago | (#13058799)

> According to the new study, about a third of all major studies from the last 15 years were subsequently shown to be inaccurate or overblown.

According to a recent study involving 100 clones based on DNA fragments of Karl Popper, a statistically significant number of the clones agree that this is pretty goddamn good result, considering that that's how science is supposed to work.

You know - that silly process whereby you make a falsifiable claim, run an experiment, report your results, and encourage others to add to the store of scientific knowledge by attempting to falsify your original hypothesis?

Re:Falsifiability. (1)

pete-classic (75983) | more than 9 years ago | (#13058913)

I appreciate what you are saying, but isn't the aim to produce something that can be reproduced successfully? By that criterion this study (assuming it is repeatable) indicates failure.

-Peter

Better science education required. (4, Insightful)

Colin Smith (2679) | more than 9 years ago | (#13058809)

The fact that they get away with it is a shame. It's even worse when they have an influence on government policy. Ugh.

Lots of people can't think of a good reason to do science, maths and statistics at school. Well, a bloody good reason is so you can prevent the wool being pulled over your eyes.

Re:Better science education required. (1)

FLAGGR (800770) | more than 9 years ago | (#13058864)

What's to stop people from finding something other than wool to pull over your eyes? (You know what I mean) It's the way the world works, sadly.

Pareto or Sturgeon (1)

the eric conspiracy (20178) | more than 9 years ago | (#13058812)


No doubt the study of studies is itself of dubious quality.

Personally I would have expected that the Pareto principle (20% of anything is the important part) or Sturgeon's law (90% of everything is crap) would have been the operational forces here.

Implications in number theory? (1)

stelmach (894192) | more than 9 years ago | (#13058821)

Talk about recursive self reference - I think this study is best suited for you number theorists out there!

Slashdot Paradox (2, Funny)

nick13245 (681899) | more than 9 years ago | (#13058825)

What a nice paradox this story presents. "I am lying."

The topic is stated toooo broadly! (2, Interesting)

mister_llah (891540) | more than 9 years ago | (#13058829)

The way the topic makes this sound, this is some sort of blatantly obvious study...

it isn't, really :)

It is about the effectiveness of interventions... if you skipped over it, its worth a perusal to a skim... at the very least... but it would seem to me that the whole thing has lead to almost no positive conclusion itself... with 44% of the experiments being replications and 24% unchallenged... the 66% really don't seem to have much value... ... so it's kind of... ambiguous...

Ahhh, academic research... only there can you get paid well to tell us absolutely nothing...

Studies are wrong because... (5, Funny)

Alpha27 (211269) | more than 9 years ago | (#13058838)

four out of three people have problems with fractions.

Re:Studies are wrong because... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13058955)

i would love to be on that study group. well no one released a study for us to study this week so we al decided to sit around and read slasdot looking for a study there. and then we realized that it had already been released there. so we went ahead and studied it anyways, well that was pretty much our week. yes we still need funding to make sure that this study was accurate becase that is how science works.

More nonsense studies: (1)

winkydink (650484) | more than 9 years ago | (#13058843)

Questionable studies like Second-Hand Smoke Is Bad [blogspot.com] or Drink 8 Glasses of Water a Day [detnews.com] (does beer count?)

Re:More nonsense studies: (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13058931)

Drink 8 Glasses of Water a Day (does beer count?)

Depends. One would have to calculate the water content of beer versus the rate of dehydration produced by the alcohol content. Following through, one would conclude that 8 glasses of beer would fall short of the goal of 8 glasses of pure water, with the only recourse being to drink more beer.

This, kids, is a practical demonstration of how to make science work for you.

Re:More nonsense studies: (1)

Mr2cents (323101) | more than 9 years ago | (#13058974)

> Drink 8 Glasses of Water a Day (does beer count?)

If you drink beer with 6% alcohol, you will only have drunk 7.52 glasses of water. So you would have to drink another half glass to compensate for the alcohol.

Cheers!

Obligatory... (1)

_RidG_ (603552) | more than 9 years ago | (#13058846)

Since there is a 33% chance that this study itself is wrong, I hereby scoff and dismiss it!

Overblown (2, Funny)

nick_davison (217681) | more than 9 years ago | (#13058849)

According to the new study, about a third of all major studies from the last 15 years were subsequently shown to be inaccurate or overblown.

The actual figure turns out to have been 26.4% - much closer to 1/4 than 1/3.

Oh yeah! (2, Funny)

JeiFuRi (888436) | more than 9 years ago | (#13058858)

I did my own study and it shows that one half of all studies are nonsense.

ObSimpsons (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13058860)

Homer: "Oh, Kent, you can make up statistics to prove anything. 14% of all people know that."

All real facts contained in emails from your aunt (1)

StefanJ (88986) | more than 9 years ago | (#13058865)

It's true. Those letters your aunt, grandmother, and that complete stranger who thinks you are their college friend because you have the same initials are the most reliable source of scientific, health, and political information:

Aspartame causes MS. Andy Rooney has definitive proof that the founding fathers wanted prayer in the classroom. Microwaving food in plastic causes cancer. George Carlin lays out why librals are dumb. Bill Gates wants to buy you a car for forwarding this email.

All true!

Stefan

The Statistical Methods in Most Studies are Flawed (1)

wsherman (154283) | more than 9 years ago | (#13058869)

Most published studies include statistics claiming something like a 95% (or higher) chance of being correct. I've always thought that was bogus and it looks like someone finally got around to proving it.

Re:The Statistical Methods in Most Studies are Fla (2, Insightful)

Skippy_kangaroo (850507) | more than 9 years ago | (#13058949)

No - the standard way to report statistics is with a 95% confidence interval (i.e. there is a 95% chance that the true value lies within the interval quoted). It's just a norm that has nothing to do with overblown results (at least not directly) and nothing to do with the study.

saving throw... (1)

Geekboy(Wizard) (87906) | more than 9 years ago | (#13058870)

/me rolls 4d6

7

didn't make the saving throw, I don't belive the story.

Irony? (1)

MisterFuRR (311169) | more than 9 years ago | (#13058871)

I heard this last night on the news, and couldn't help but laugh. Anyone catch the irony in this? What if this study is inherantly false? That would give greater creadance to studies being true (..goes running for his cat and buttered bread...)

Physician, Heal Thyself (1)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 9 years ago | (#13058872)

This CNN story is antiscience nonsense. The report might have something useful to say about the 45 pharma studies that were analyzed - if its results can be repeated by another analyst, and its methodology is sound (assumedly vetted by the JAMA publishers). But it doesn't say anything about "science". Science doesn't give final answers. Of course many studies are subsequently shown to be inaccurate: the reproducability of the experiment tests the theory, and more data eventually converge on the actual statistical models.

Even this study needs to be repeated, to test its accuracy. For example, as far as the CNN article states, only 45 studies were examined. Out of thousands every year. And they are from the sector of science that has the most money put into promoting studies, pharma research. How about a random sample of every study in the JAMA, for instance? Even that would have to be tested against a random sample of, say, Lancet, to discover comparative bias in the two journals. And of course they'd have to do multiple studies on the same journal, each with different random samples.

No shit (2, Insightful)

grasshoppa (657393) | more than 9 years ago | (#13058883)

When companies can buy reports and studies to say whatever the fuck they want them to say (*cough*microsoft*cough*), of course they are going to be bullshit.

Who's surprised by this? Seriously.

Science by press conference (5, Insightful)

jokestress (837997) | more than 9 years ago | (#13058884)

Sadly, this has become a cottage industry for less scrupulous publicity-hungry hacks in academia and elsewhere. Think Clonaid or cold fusion. Come up with some hasty conclusion and make a grand announcement before the data is available or has been tested by others.

Even worse are the lazy journalists who report it. After a New York Times piece last week claimed bisexual males were "lying" [nytimes.com] based on results from a highly questionable study, I reminded their editors of this excellent piece Blinded by Science [cjr.org] in Columbia Journalism Review.

This kind of sloppy reporting is perfect for lazy journalists-- it's a three-for-one deal. They get to break the news, and then later they have a second story when real experts point out the flaws, and a third when the people finally get discredited. More evidence of the shameful state of journalism in this country.

nonsense (2)

boring, tired (865401) | more than 9 years ago | (#13058893)

..and one third of the replies to this article will be lame jokes about this study being nonsense.

What I Read... (1)

finrock (634521) | more than 9 years ago | (#13058900)

...was that 64% of all statistics are made up on the spot. Yeah, I've got nothing.

I'm hopeful (1)

AutopsyReport (856852) | more than 9 years ago | (#13058902)

I sure hope this study [breakthechain.org] falls into that category :)

Study shows that previous study inaccurate (1)

ArielMT (757715) | more than 9 years ago | (#13058909)

A new study has shown that the previous study on the subject was flawed and reached an inaccurate conclusion. The next study scheduled is anticipated to show this new study as flawed and inaccurate in its conclusion, thus reinforcing the initial assumtion and ironically contradicting itself. Upon being reached for comment, all respondents promptly suffered violent seizures as their brains clawed their way out of their skulls.

There are 3 types of liars.... (1)

Toadius (886709) | more than 9 years ago | (#13058910)

1] Liars
2] Damn Liars
3] Staticians

And of course... (1)

PipOC (886408) | more than 9 years ago | (#13058915)

79% of statistics are made up on the spot.

Well now we know... (1)

blibbler (15793) | more than 9 years ago | (#13058917)

how many studies are produced by creationists, or the oil lobbies' climatologists.

Reminds me of a study I did myself (1)

MindStalker (22827) | more than 9 years ago | (#13058924)

At work we did a study using state DOE data, we showed a correlation between high scoring (we review Juvenile detention programs by visiting them and scoring them on different benchmarks) programs and students rate of returning to school and graduating. Seems pretty obvious, and the results were as we expected. Odd thing is another team did a followup study with their own methods, both of which seemed to make sense, except they were studying kids released a year later than the ones we studied. They produced absolutly no correlation in their results. I methods seemed perfectly fine, I still havn't run their cohort against our methods to test it out. But otherwise I can't figure out what went wrong. But I guess thats just the nature of studies sometimes.

Get the "Facts" (1)

Gyarados (893032) | more than 9 years ago | (#13058927)

Wow! I didn't know Microsoft commission so many studies!

Another turn of fiction becoming fact: (1)

Argon Sloth (655369) | more than 9 years ago | (#13058930)

Oh, people can come up with statistics to prove anything, Kent. 14% of people know that. --Homer Simpson Simpsons episode 1F09 (Homer the Vigilante)

It's called peer-reviewed science (1)

Ying Hu (704950) | more than 9 years ago | (#13058932)

One might argue experimenters should observe better, but they are often trying to study very subtle stuff (in terms of getting their instrumentation to show them a reliable result), and often, as in medicine, going not for either/or results but for 45, 55% likely, whatever -

--and then it's reviewed by their peers, or new tests are done. Hallelujah, science at work.

(Of course all the other posters' comments about statistics and bought studies apply, too.)

It's a well known fact (1)

Bifurcati (699683) | more than 9 years ago | (#13058936)

Physicist 1 to physists 2: One in three scientists believe their peers fabrictate research.
Physicist 3, to herself: He's making that up...

Statistics (1)

umeshunni (37684) | more than 9 years ago | (#13058944)

Yeah, this reminds me of the fact that 87.6% of all statistics are made up on the spot!

So 33% of all statistics are... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13058947)

made up on the spot. This study proves that!

medical research (1)

mholt108 (229701) | more than 9 years ago | (#13058954)

Well now they were refering to medical research; which is kind of like the humanities of the hard sciences - so really, who knows - as long as i can still get my viox .... oh wait... damn!

From the scholarly journal... (1)

jmb-d (322230) | more than 9 years ago | (#13058959)

This study, found in the scholarly journal Duh...

With stuff like THIS... (1)

BRSQUIRRL (69271) | more than 9 years ago | (#13058961)

This guy [enterprisemission.com] alone probably tipped the scales considerably...

Breaking News! (1)

TheMster (845236) | more than 9 years ago | (#13058962)

Study confirms : Pope shits in woods!

Sooooooo 1/3 of all studies? (1)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 9 years ago | (#13058965)

Which 1/3 does this study fall under?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>