New Book on the Giraffe's Neck

Discussion about scientific issues as they relate to God and Christianity including archaeology, origins of life, the universe, intelligent design, evolution, etc.
User avatar
KBCid
Senior Member
Posts: 649
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2012 9:16 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Undecided
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

Re: New Book on the Giraffe's Neck

#31

Post by KBCid » Wed Aug 15, 2012 11:04 am

KBCid wrote:How many headlines do we see that say something like "Missing link found" and then later its determined to not be a missing link? This is how things get into textbooks.
sandy_mcd wrote:So scientists are now responsible for media sensationalism?
Scientists are responsible for making unscientifc assertions
It is as if some Christians sit there and wait for the smallest thing that they can dispute and then jump onto it...
The Bible says that we were each given an interpretation – this gift of interpretation is not there so we can run each other into the ground. It is there for our MUTUAL edification.
//www.allaboutgod.net/profiles/blogs/chri ... each-other

Beanybag
Valued Member
Posts: 330
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2012 9:22 am
Christian: No
Sex: It's Complicated
Creation Position: I don't believe in creation
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

Re: New Book on the Giraffe's Neck

#32

Post by Beanybag » Fri Aug 24, 2012 1:27 pm

KBCid wrote:
KBCid wrote:How many headlines do we see that say something like "Missing link found" and then later its determined to not be a missing link? This is how things get into textbooks.
sandy_mcd wrote:So scientists are now responsible for media sensationalism?
Scientists are responsible for making unscientifc assertions
Care to point to one-such peer-reviewed study in which a scientist does so?

User avatar
KBCid
Senior Member
Posts: 649
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2012 9:16 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Undecided
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

Re: New Book on the Giraffe's Neck

#33

Post by KBCid » Fri Aug 24, 2012 4:03 pm

Beanybag wrote:Care to point to one-such peer-reviewed study in which a scientist does so?
An Epidemic of False Claims
Competition and conflicts of interest distort too many medical findings

False positives and exaggerated results in peer-reviewed scientific studies have reached epidemic proportions in recent years. The problem is rampant in economics, the social sciences and even the natural sciences, but it is particularly egregious in biomedicine. Many studies that claim some drug or treatment is beneficial have turned out not to be true. We need only look to conflicting findings about beta-carotene, vitamin E, hormone treatments, Vioxx and Avandia. Even when effects are genuine, their true magnitude is often smaller than originally claimed.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... lse-claims
It is as if some Christians sit there and wait for the smallest thing that they can dispute and then jump onto it...
The Bible says that we were each given an interpretation – this gift of interpretation is not there so we can run each other into the ground. It is there for our MUTUAL edification.
//www.allaboutgod.net/profiles/blogs/chri ... each-other

Beanybag
Valued Member
Posts: 330
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2012 9:22 am
Christian: No
Sex: It's Complicated
Creation Position: I don't believe in creation
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

Re: New Book on the Giraffe's Neck

#34

Post by Beanybag » Fri Aug 24, 2012 8:29 pm

KBCid wrote:
Beanybag wrote:Care to point to one-such peer-reviewed study in which a scientist does so?
An Epidemic of False Claims
Competition and conflicts of interest distort too many medical findings

False positives and exaggerated results in peer-reviewed scientific studies have reached epidemic proportions in recent years. The problem is rampant in economics, the social sciences and even the natural sciences, but it is particularly egregious in biomedicine. Many studies that claim some drug or treatment is beneficial have turned out not to be true. We need only look to conflicting findings about beta-carotene, vitamin E, hormone treatments, Vioxx and Avandia. Even when effects are genuine, their true magnitude is often smaller than originally claimed.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... lse-claims
No such peer-reviewed paper was even presented in this article, no arguments and no data. But I'll just assume this journalist actually reads the papers that make the incorrect claims instead of sensationalist science journalists who overhype the findings.

Yes, science is frequently wrong - moreso than we'd prefer. But you can't exaggerate numbers without committing an academic honesty that will ruin your career. Papers are biased and numbers are biased, but they're frequently shown to be wrong and they never overstate their impact - we have confidence levels for a reason. Frequently papers only reach the 95% threshold which is still 5% room for error, rather high. They almost always call on more research with better methodology, larger samples, and so on.

Ivellious
Esteemed Senior Member
Posts: 1046
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2011 8:48 pm
Christian: No
Sex: Male
Creation Position: I don't believe in creation
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

Re: New Book on the Giraffe's Neck

#35

Post by Ivellious » Fri Aug 24, 2012 8:44 pm

An Epidemic of False Claims
Competition and conflicts of interest distort too many medical findings

False positives and exaggerated results in peer-reviewed scientific studies have reached epidemic proportions in recent years. The problem is rampant in economics, the social sciences and even the natural sciences, but it is particularly egregious in biomedicine. Many studies that claim some drug or treatment is beneficial have turned out not to be true. We need only look to conflicting findings about beta-carotene, vitamin E, hormone treatments, Vioxx and Avandia. Even when effects are genuine, their true magnitude is often smaller than originally claimed.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... lse-claims
First of all, I agree with beanybag, this article is not scientific or legitimately groundbreaking in any way.

Also, in addition to what beanybag said, I would point out that most research articles that make bold claims or have extremely promising statistics/data involved are typically reproduced experimentally and heavily analyzed by numerous other scientists around the country. There are research labs at the university I attend that are working with several other universities in unison trying to reproduce the results of a certain chemical engineering paper from a peer-reviewed journal. That's how the process works...if other researchers can come to the same outcomes and conclusions as that paper (and submit reviews stating so), then those possibly overstated conclusions will catch hold as a scientific discovery. If poor reviews of the paper are written and other scientists fail to come to the same outcomes/conclusions, then those numbers will be discarded as overstated by the scientific community.

Problem is, journalists with little understanding of the scientific process leap on the initial research as if it is some sort of accepted fact within the scientific community, and that is where the public can be mislead. That, and journalists also frequently misuse scientific terminology because they don't understand the extremely complex work itself, causing them to over-simplify the results or just get the point wrong.

I'm not saying scientists don't overstate their results. They do. And it's understandable, too...If you spend years working toward a certain goal and make no progress, of course you are going to spin your results in a positive light. That is why other researcher's jobs are to sometimes "check up" on published papers to see if the results are legit or not. This happens in all fields, too, from evolutionary biology to medicine to physics to archaeology to, yes, engineering.

User avatar
KBCid
Senior Member
Posts: 649
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2012 9:16 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Undecided
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

Re: New Book on the Giraffe's Neck

#36

Post by KBCid » Sun Aug 26, 2012 11:12 am

Beanybag wrote:No such peer-reviewed paper was even presented in this article, no arguments and no data. But I'll just assume this journalist actually reads the papers that make the incorrect claims instead of sensationalist science journalists who overhype the findings.
Ivellious wrote:First of all, I agree with beanybag, this article is not scientific or legitimately groundbreaking in any way.
...Problem is, journalists with little understanding of the scientific process leap on the initial research as if it is some sort of accepted fact within the scientific community, and that is where the public can be mislead.
Of course you do. Why should we expect any different on such a subject?
So the article isn't scientific. interesting... Implying that this is simply the result of some "sensationalist science journalists". Maybe possibly we should look at the "sensationalist science journalists" who wrote the article.

An Epidemic of False Claims
Competition and conflicts of interest distort too many medical findings
By John P. A. Ioannidis
http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... lse-claims

So who is John P. A. Ioannidis? When did Scientific American hire him as another of its "sensationalist science journalists". After a few seconds of actual looking one would find that this is the only paper in SA by this "sensationalist science journalist". I wonder why? maybe its because he isn't very good at journalism or maybe just possibly he isn't a journalist but that can't possibly be true can it? Beany and Ivellious can't both be wrong can they? Well they are both humans... with a mission, so maybe I should look for myself... again.

Who is John P. A. Ioannidis... Ladies and gentlmen I would like to introduce you to;

John P. A. Ioannidis (born 1965 in New York City) is a professor and chairman at the Department of Hygiene and Epidemiology, University of Ioannina School of Medicine as well as tenured adjunct professor at Tufts University School of Medicine and Professor of Medicine and Director of the Stanford Prevention Research Center at Stanford University School of Medicine
Biography
He was born in 1965 and raised in Athens, Greece. He graduated first in his class at the University of Athens Medical School, then attended Harvard University for his medical residency in internal medicine. He then did a fellowship at Tufts University for infectious disease.[3]Ioannidis's 2005 paper "Why Most Published Research Findings Are False"[4] has been the most downloaded technical paper from the journal PLoS Medicine.[5] This paper has met much approval, though Goodman and Greenland criticized it in a short comment[6] and a longer analysis.[7] Ioannidis has answered this critique.[8]
A profile of his work in this area appears in the November 2010 issue of The Atlantic.[9] The Atlantic article notes Ioannidis analyzed "49 of the most highly regarded research findings in medicine over the previous 13 years". And "Of the 49 articles, 45 claimed to have uncovered effective interventions. Thirty-four of these claims had been retested, and 14 of these, or 41 percent, had been convincingly shown to be wrong or significantly exaggerated." [10]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_P._A._Ioannidis

Tufts Medical Center
Institute for Clinical Research and Health Policy Studies
Faculty Bios
John P.A. Ioannidis, MD, PhD
Adjunct Professor of Medicine, University of Ioannina (Greece)
John P.A. Ioannidis was born in New York, NY in 1965 and grew up in Athens, Greece. He was Valedictorian of his class (1984) at Athens College and won a number of early awards, including the National Award of the Greek Mathematical Society, in 1984. He graduated in the top rank of his class from the School of Medicine, University of Athens, in 1990 and earned a doctorate in biopathology (1996). He trained at Harvard and Tufts, specializing in Internal Medicine and Infectious Diseases, and then held appointments at NIH, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, and Tufts University School of Medicine. He chaired the Department of Hygiene and Epidemiology at the School of Medicine, University of Ioannina, Greece, since 1999 (a tenured professor since 2003, on leave since 8/2010) and he is currently the C.F. Rehnborg Professor in Disease Prevention, Professor of Medicine and Director of the Stanford Prevention Research Center at Stanford University School of Medicine. He has been adjunct faculty for the Tufts University School of Medicine since 1996, with the rank of professor since 2002, and since 11/2008 has been leading the Center for Genetic Epidemiology and Modeling, of the Tufts Institute for Clinical Research and Health Policy Studies and the Genetics/Genomics component at the Tufts CTSI. He is also adjunct professor of epidemiology at the Harvard School of Public Health and visiting professor of epidemiology and biostatistics at Imperial College London. Dr. Ioannidis has served as a member of the executive board of the Human Genome Epidemiology Network, President of the Society for Research Synthesis Methodology, editorial board member of 26 leading international journals, and Editor-in-Chief of the European Journal of Clinical Investigation. He has given more than 200 invited and honorary lectures in 28 different countries. His publication record includes almost 500 peer-reviewed papers, 40 books and book chapters, and several other writings. He has received several awards, including the European Award for Excellence in Clinical Science for 2007 and he has been inducted into the Association of American Physicians and the European Academy of Cancer Sciences. His 2005 paper in PLoS Medicine, “Why most Published Research Findings are False,” has been the most-downloaded article in the history of Public Library of Science. His work combines skills in clinical research methodology and evidence-based medicine with the challenges of current molecular medicine and genomics.
http://160.109.101.132/icrhps/faculty/f ... JohnPA.asp

Here are some of his written works;

John P. A. Ioannidis, Contradicted and Initially Stronger Effects in Highly Cited Clinical Research, JAMA 294(2): 218-228 (13 July 2005)
http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.asp ... eid=201218

John P. A. Ioannidis, Why Most Published Research Findings Are False, Public Library of Science Medicine [PLoS Med] 2(8): e124, doi: 10.371/journal.pmed.0020124 (30 August 2005)
http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/inf ... ed.0020124

John P. A. Ioannidis, Why Most Published Research Findings Are False: Author’s Reply to Goodman and Greenland, Public Library of Science Medicine [PLoS Med], doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.0040215 (26 June 2007)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1896210/

Yup this is certainly one serious case of a "sensationalist science journalist". I would say that both of you should write him and tell him how stupid he is for trying to be a journalist in the field of science and when your done you can go signup for ID since you are actively diss-ing people from the Evo side.
Last edited by KBCid on Sun Aug 26, 2012 11:40 am, edited 2 times in total.
It is as if some Christians sit there and wait for the smallest thing that they can dispute and then jump onto it...
The Bible says that we were each given an interpretation – this gift of interpretation is not there so we can run each other into the ground. It is there for our MUTUAL edification.
//www.allaboutgod.net/profiles/blogs/chri ... each-other

Ivellious
Esteemed Senior Member
Posts: 1046
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2011 8:48 pm
Christian: No
Sex: Male
Creation Position: I don't believe in creation
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

Re: New Book on the Giraffe's Neck

#37

Post by Ivellious » Sun Aug 26, 2012 11:32 am

Just being a scientist and involved in science doesn't make everything you write a piece of scientific literature. I hardly consider the books written by Richard Dawkins or Michael Behe to be scientific, at least not entirely. And I certainly wasn't dissing him, I was just pointing out that using his opinion as evidence isn't as big a deal as you might think. I'm sure he's a great guy, I just don't agree with how you are using his article to justify your own bias.

User avatar
KBCid
Senior Member
Posts: 649
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2012 9:16 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Undecided
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

Re: New Book on the Giraffe's Neck

#38

Post by KBCid » Sun Aug 26, 2012 11:50 am

Ivellious wrote:Just being a scientist and involved in science doesn't make everything you write a piece of scientific literature.
You are quite correct. However, it also doesn't make you an inept sensationalist scientific jounalist either.
Ivellious wrote:I hardly consider the books written by Richard Dawkins or Michael Behe to be scientific, at least not entirely. And I certainly wasn't dissing him
If you inferred that I was a simple journalist when I wasn't that would be dissrespect especially since the link included reference to the author who you just now learned about after diss-ing the article itself let us review your point;
Ivellious wrote:Problem is, journalists with little understanding of the scientific process leap on the initial research as if it is some sort of accepted fact within the scientific community, and that is where the public can be mislead. That, and journalists also frequently misuse scientific terminology because they don't understand the extremely complex work itself, causing them to over-simplify the results or just get the point wrong.
Ivellious wrote:I was just pointing out that using his opinion as evidence isn't as big a deal as you might think. I'm sure he's a great guy, I just don't agree with how you are using his article to justify your own bias.
When something backs an assertion then it goes beyond a simple bias. This is why the scientific method requires repeatability to ensure bias is not a determining factor. This is also what he was pointing out, scientists regularly over state their case. This is not proper science which is in accord with my bias in this topic
It is as if some Christians sit there and wait for the smallest thing that they can dispute and then jump onto it...
The Bible says that we were each given an interpretation – this gift of interpretation is not there so we can run each other into the ground. It is there for our MUTUAL edification.
//www.allaboutgod.net/profiles/blogs/chri ... each-other

Beanybag
Valued Member
Posts: 330
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2012 9:22 am
Christian: No
Sex: It's Complicated
Creation Position: I don't believe in creation
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

Re: New Book on the Giraffe's Neck

#39

Post by Beanybag » Tue Aug 28, 2012 9:39 am

My problem with the article wasn't that he was an inept sensationalist (I pointed that accusation at other journalists) but that he listed none of the scientific papers from which he'd drawn his conclusions. Why, exactly, when we're discussing science, should we accept a claim without any evidence? This paper certainly isn't peer-reviewed by other scientists and it didn't list any of its sources.. I suspect it's because, upon closer inspection, much of the faulty science is corrected through repeated experimentation and peer review and rarely overstates their claims. Poor methodology is often critiqued, and we could certainly use some improvements to our methodology - here's a great critique by Richard Feyman that actually provides an example (link). Larger sample sizes, more controlled variables, more experiments.. And many scientists could do with trying to improve their results to a level beyond 95% certainty, although, with low funding and only a surface-level study, sometimes that's all you can really get. There is often a cost to better science, so preliminary studies are often great starting points. They should just be more well-understood as just that - starting points.

If a scientist is overstating his case, often it is in an arena outside of science such as a press release or interview, personal work of writing, or something similar. Some scientists do want to try to publicize their science for means of attaining more funding or getting people excited about an area or possible finding in science (excitement can translate to more research, researches, and grants). Here is a recent infamous example where a scientist tried to hype up his own paper (link). However, you will rarely find such arrogance within the papers themselves. Now, I will repeat what I said earlier. Can you point to a peer-reviewed paper from a notable journal that can demonstrate otherwise? What exactly are you taking issue with, because you haven't shown any problem with science.

User avatar
KBCid
Senior Member
Posts: 649
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2012 9:16 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Undecided
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

Re: New Book on the Giraffe's Neck

#40

Post by KBCid » Tue Aug 28, 2012 4:51 pm

Beanybag wrote:My problem with the article wasn't that he was an inept sensationalist (I pointed that accusation at other journalists) but that he listed none of the scientific papers from which he'd drawn his conclusions. Why, exactly, when we're discussing science, should we accept a claim without any evidence? .
Beanybag wrote:Can you point to a peer-reviewed paper from a notable journal that can demonstrate otherwise? What exactly are you taking issue with, because you haven't shown any problem with science.
Seriously, you actually need your hand to be held? Have a close look at this paragraph of english and take note of this little thingy --- [10] ---. Guess what that little thingy is for.

The Atlantic article notes Ioannidis analyzed "49 of the most highly regarded research findings in medicine over the previous 13 years". And "Of the 49 articles, 45 claimed to have uncovered effective interventions. Thirty-four of these claims had been retested, and 14 of these, or 41 percent, had been convincingly shown to be wrong or significantly exaggerated." [10]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_P._A._Ioannidis

If you actually go to the cited reference you can zoom right to the bottom of the page and see what [10] refers to....
and if you clicky on the right thing then it takes you here;

Contradicted and Initially Stronger Effects in Highly Cited Clinical Research FREE
John P. A. Ioannidis, MD
http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.asp ... eid=201218

which has been cited in 165 other papers And you can read the whole peer reviewed paper... for free even. If you need further assistance you are on your own.
It is as if some Christians sit there and wait for the smallest thing that they can dispute and then jump onto it...
The Bible says that we were each given an interpretation – this gift of interpretation is not there so we can run each other into the ground. It is there for our MUTUAL edification.
//www.allaboutgod.net/profiles/blogs/chri ... each-other

sandy_mcd
Esteemed Senior Member
Posts: 1000
Joined: Mon Feb 14, 2005 3:56 pm
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

Re: New Book on the Giraffe's Neck

#41

Post by sandy_mcd » Tue Aug 28, 2012 9:08 pm

This little detour shows what? I kept out earlier, because I am not sure what the point is. Believe it or not, scientists are humans. Many have incredible egos. Some will deliberately misrepresent facts (Sames-Sezen), some will unconsciously fool even themselves (Pons and Fleischmann), and even more will exaggerate. Dr Ioannidis however is not speaking of science in general, but biomedical research and statistical effect studies http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/inf ... ed.0020124. This is an area prone to false effects. http://www.explainxkcd.com/2011/04/06/significant/. Does any of this invalidate science? There are plenty of published, accepted ideas which are wrong in science. It doesn't show that an alternate approach is better but that humans are fallible.

User avatar
KBCid
Senior Member
Posts: 649
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2012 9:16 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Undecided
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

Re: New Book on the Giraffe's Neck

#42

Post by KBCid » Wed Aug 29, 2012 9:30 am

sandy_mcd wrote:This little detour shows what? I kept out earlier, because I am not sure what the point is. Believe it or not, scientists are humans. Many have incredible egos. Some will deliberately misrepresent facts (Sames-Sezen), some will unconsciously fool even themselves (Pons and Fleischmann), and even more will exaggerate.

No really?
The fact is we have known this for quite some time. This is why if you follow the scientific method properly then you eliminate the bias.

Beliefs and biases
Scientific methodology directs that hypotheses be tested in controlled conditions which can be reproduced by others. The scientific community's pursuit of experimental control and reproducibility diminishes the effects of cognitive biases.
For example, pre-existing beliefs can alter the interpretation of results, as in confirmation bias; this is a heuristic that leads a person with a particular belief to see things as reinforcing their belief, even if another observer might disagree (in other words, people tend to observe what they expect to observe).

In contrast to the requirement for scientific knowledge to correspond to reality, beliefs based on myth or stories can be believed and acted upon irrespective of truth,[26] often taking advantage of the narrative fallacy that when narrative is constructed its elements become easier to believe.[27][28] Myths intended to be taken as true must have their elements assumed a priori, while science requires testing and validation a posteriori before ideas are accepted.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

Such a priori beliefs as naturalism do nothing more than hinder the proper functioning of the scientific method.
sandy_mcd wrote:Dr Ioannidis however is not speaking of science in general, but biomedical research and statistical effect studies http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/inf ... ed.0020124. This is an area prone to false effects.
So in your opinion no other type of research has this problem? lol. Yup all other science is immune to such things... good logic there.
sandy_mcd wrote:Does any of this invalidate science? There are plenty of published, accepted ideas which are wrong in science. It doesn't show that an alternate approach is better but that humans are fallible.
Nothing invalidates properly using the scientific method except of course when the proper method is not followed.

Like asserting that all life has a common ancestor or that variation is due to random mutation or that NS can eliminate variational types. All of these things proposed by scientists improperly since they are untestable by the scientific method but, for the fifth or sixth time this is your opportunity to show how it is proper scientific method by revealing how they can be tested. By now though i'm sure everyone is familiar with your continued avoidance of these points and subsequent redirects to other things that you feel are defendable which simply works to our benefit in a discussion.
It is as if some Christians sit there and wait for the smallest thing that they can dispute and then jump onto it...
The Bible says that we were each given an interpretation – this gift of interpretation is not there so we can run each other into the ground. It is there for our MUTUAL edification.
//www.allaboutgod.net/profiles/blogs/chri ... each-other

Post Reply