It's all about funding

[.Spectator]

I want to attempt to poke a hole in some logic that I think we overlook regularly that has plagued my mind for quite some time.

We seem to believe that peer reviewed research is the gold standard of “proof” or at the very least – evidence.

Problem: Areas of research that get a lot of attention can be just as vicarious and politically laced as things like charismatic species – brought on by public opinion vs actual utility.

So many topics of research that are just as important and valid – Do not get funded.

This leads me to distrust modern science particularly when it is used as a standard bearer with claims of being “peer reviewed.” Those words are akin to “rich white men decided it was important so it is.”….

I think I’ve grown to distrust everything and everyone.

[Simon PayntonParticipant]

What topics of research do you have in mind, that don’t get funded?

I would have thought it’s those that make money that get funded, pure and simple.

I think all scientific papers etc. have to be taken with a pinch of salt.  It’s very true that factual findings regularly get distorted, and also, the conclusions that are drawn are usually debateable (as they should be).  I find it’s best to get to know a particular author, or outfit, and assess their strengths and weaknesses.  Also, draw on a number of these at once.  Also, check out any dissenting voices.

[Reg the Fronkey FarmerModerator]

The peer review process is used to determine the validity of an hypothesis or proposed theory based upon the “proofs” submitted. In Science it is used to  evaluate the evidence given to reach the conclusions presented. The peers who review it attempt to disprove it (yes, disprove). The process is only to review the steps taken and not to declare the theory as some kind of “truth”.

Most scientists would agree that scientific proof is myth. It only allows us to have something to help us construct our model of reality upon so we can say “This is our current understanding of the topic in question based upon the theories (Scientific Theories, not guesses or hypothesis) we have at this point in time”.

[.Spectator]

@SimonPayton yes I do have topics in mind but I don’t want the “topics” to become the distraction….

I have several bones to pick first.

[.Spectator]

@regthefronkeyfarmer

The process is only to review the steps taken and not to declare the theory as some kind of “truth”.

Then why is it your standard of “proof?”

[Reg the Fronkey FarmerModerator]

Peer review in not a standard of proof. It is certainly not mine.

[.Spectator]

I’m confused

[Reg the Fronkey FarmerModerator]

A chemist called Grace thinks she has made a very slick medical discovery. She mixed some chemicals and created 2 different pills. She claimed that they can either shrink or increase the size of white rabbits. She then publishes her hypothesis along with the details on how to make the pills and what effects she observed in the white rabbits who took them. The Red pills shrunk 4 out of 4 white rabbits and the Green pills returned them to their normal size. She then gave 4 other white rabbits the Green pills and they all trebled in size, returning to normal upon taken the Red Pills.

Upon reading this the medical world became very curious but remained skeptical about her paper. An hypothesis can only ever move towards becoming a Theory if the original trial can be reproduced, Therefore it was decided that 50 separate scientific institutes in 50 different countries would peer review her results.

The Jefferson Institute was the first medical company to invest in medical trials. They chartered an airplane and flew in the best chemists they could find. They recreated the 2 pills exactly as Graces’ paper set out.

They got 300 white rabbits and divided them into 3 groups of 100 each. The first group would be given Red pills to see if they would shrink. The second group would get the Green pills to see if they would grow. A control group should always be used in such experiments which Grace had omitted from her small trials. So they were to be given red and green sugar placebos by the mother of the founder of the Jefferson Institute.

Once all the white rabbits were medicated some of the scientists played chess, some had mushroom soup while the rest contemplated logic and proportions.

The results did not take too long (or short) to become apparent. It was a 100% success.

One pill made them larger and one pill made them small and the ones that mother gave them didn’t do anything at all.

They had successfully peer-reviewed Grace’s trial and it was very slick indeed. However it could not be considered as definitive proof. They would have to submit their results with full disclosure of their methodology, times, dosages, medical records before and after and what, if any, allegiances or ties they may have to other groups or industries that might show a bias in the work.

Then they would have to wait until the other 49 peer reviews conducted their trials and submitted their results and methodologies.

Once all this was done all the scientists involved would meet up and analyze the “metadata” – the combined results of all 50 tests. Then they would reach (or not reach) Consensus – a stage in the Scientific Method that happens long after the peer-review process.

Alice was elected spokesperson and she said that statistically speaking the results were very significant. Overall it turned out that 4999 out of 5000 (100 x 50) white rabbits increased in size after taking the red pills and 4999 out of 5000 shrunk back successfully. This was enough for them to declare that it had been proven as Grace had said her experiments showed. It was practically a 5 Sigma result for Science.

Because it was proven to such a high degree (Grace found it very high indeed) the Consensus became our current understanding of how these pills work. However our understanding would change or develop if it was shown that the same thing happened (or did not happen) to grey rabbits or to another creature like a hash smoking caterpillar or a dormouse that wants you to feed your head.

This is Grace at work in her lab.

[Simon PayntonParticipant]

“We seem to believe that peer reviewed research is the gold standard of “proof” or at the very least – evidence.”

–  but if you think about it, the peer reviewers need to be peer reviewed themselves.  Do you trust the peer reviewers?

There is a concept in accounting called reconciliation.  This means, reaching an answer through two independent means.  If the answer agrees both ways, it shows that the answer you have is an accurate description of a feature of reality, since different aspects of reality are consistent with each other.  The reason (I believe) for this situation is that false information leads to false conclusions.  Therefore, every step in the process of reaching an answer, in each of the means of reaching that answer, has to have been true.  If there were any steps that were not true, then the two results would have been different.

In other words, check your information a few different ways.

“public opinion vs actual utility.”

– surely public opinion is something that a lot of people want satisfied, and so, it needs to be satisfied.  I agree that utility is something that makes research necessary, but also, research is also valuable when it doesn’t have direct utility.  This is because, any fact becomes a feature of an accurate model of the aspect of reality you are trying to look at.  So, it stands to reason that if you just collect facts – any facts – to do with the subject area you are interested in, these will form bricks in the building of your model.

“Those words are akin to “rich white men decided it was important so it is.”….”

– I’m not sure I buy this at all.  I agree that there is a lot of research funded by big companies that somehow manages to show them in a good light, for example – research being misused, unscientifically and dishonestly, to serve the interests of powerful people.  However, I don’t agree that this is always going to be “rich white men”.  In theory it could be anybody at all.  What constitutes research anyway?  The concept goes much wider to encompass any kind of gathering of any kind of information.

[Simon PayntonParticipant]

@regthefronkeyfarmer – yes, you’re right, only time can tell.  Basically it has to be tested and discussed etc. every which way.  Just as important as the ideas themselves are the consequences of the ideas.  This is because, basically, bullshit leads to bullshit.  What is also significantly important, is how well does it explain the real world, and also, because truth leads logically (?) somehow to more truth, how well does it solve new problems, or shed light on them.  It should also lead easily to new abstract, logical knowledge (in this particular case) – since it is some kind of logic of everyday life, and we all live everyday life.

[.Spectator]

That was such a fronkey farmer answer Reg, lmfao….

The thing is my point is that whatever research gets funded is what has the opportunity to become well peer-reviewed, and in many ways politics and money plays a HUGE role in that…

So if peer reviewed research starts out bias in that way…..I don’t know about you but me personally I see a huge problem with that.

[Reg the Fronkey FarmerModerator]

So many topics of research that are just as important and valid – do not get funded.

A topic getting funded is not the same as a topic getting peer-reviewed. They are completely different.

You appear to be saying that you mistrust “modern science” because of the peer review process. I am not sure what other Science there is, unless like Ken Ham you prefer “historical science”.

I think what you mean is that there are particular areas of Science rather than “all of Science” that you are not happy with. Some academic arenas, especially those that are social or psychological are not funded to the degree as those in the engineering fields. These areas by their very nature tend to advance based upon innovation while the less tangible ones tend to advance based upon how they are understood by peers in those already esoteric fields.

It is certainly valid to claim that there are areas of life that require more funding and development but this is not the fault of science and certainly not the fault of the peer review process. There are plenty of “unscientific” people working in areas that fall under the umbrella of science and who are never keep up to date, read a relevant journal or publish any of their own papers. There are companies that are biased towards particular results and who ignore negative results but that again is not the peer review process or Science that is at fault.

That is the result of corporate funding with spin doctors using PR and marketing companies. Once business gets into the peer review process it becomes biased as do many scientists. But that is generally only one “peer-reviewer”.

Then there are companies that select only the positive reviews. Many homeopathy companies do this. They point to the one paper that indicated a favorable outcome but ignore the 99 that called it rubbish.

Can you point to a worthwhile discovery or experiment that was not peer-reviewed due to lack of funding?

[_Robert_Participant]

I had a house guest who is convinced that the reason we have cell phones and satellite TV is because of alien interventions. I told him as an electrical engineer, a big part of my education was learning about each and every scientific advancement that made this technology commonplace today. That I could literally walk him backwards so he could learn about each new discovery and how it all just builds on itself till it seems miraculous to a bystander. No aliens were required.

Lets face it, however the professors that work in fields that could result in a corporate windfall will get a lot more funding from the private sector. That’s just how capitalism works. The cool thing is that many people working on the edge of technology have no idea how it will ultimately be applied.

 

[.Spectator]

@regthefronkeyfarmer

You appear to be saying that you mistrust “modern science” because of the peer review process.

No no no that’s not at all what I’m saying….I’m learning about a new advancement in the field of medicine as we speak. This field was widely ignored and deemed “not worthy of research” until a senator (no less) took interest in it…Then they changed their tune. That just doesn’t seem right to me. What I’m saying is that to BE ABLE TO BE PEER REVIEWED in the first place your experiement/venture/whatever must be recognized and people must think it’s important. That’s a purely subjective decision. Don’t you think? Don’t you see the many flaws in that?

[Reg the Fronkey FarmerModerator]

Ok, I could see how that would be of concern. Can you tell me if the Senator:

A.      Is a doctor or works in the medical field.

B.      Does he have someone in need of this new medicine?

C.      How did he come to hear of it?

D.      Is connected to the people involved.

It sounds strange to me that a major medical development worthy of further research was not already known in the medical field or ignored if it was promising advancement. Do you know what medical journals the original paper was published in?

[Author]

Posts