On Sunday, 23 August 2020 21:32:08 UTC+1, #Paul wrote:
Tim Streater wrote:

That's a mistaken view. Any top scientist should be able to
peer any other - given time to bone up on some stuff.

You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about... unless,
perhaps, by "given time to bone up" you mean something like
"several years". Modern science is highly technical and highly
specialised and even peer-reviewing within ones own field can
be challenging. Bear in mind that the science in question was
(or should have) even been challenging for the *authors* to
do. And although public-friendly summaries may get across the
general idea, and give a reader an impression of having
understood; this should not be mistake for any sort of actual
understanding, which requires significant expertise.

#Paul

This time at least you're absolutely correct.

The research papers I've read are prone to mistakes of many kinds at every stage. On the first one I did as an undergrad I realised I could take the same set of data and present it as 'yes it works' or 'no it doesn't' with plausible deniability. No-one has any chance of picking the issues researchers run into up unless they know the subject well, and even then they frequently won't realise some of the issues the researcher encountered and did not choose to mention.

And there are far more problems with research than just that one. All considered it's not surprising that most research conclusions are simply bunk.


NT