Flawed Method At The Heart Of Scientific Communication

Joel Achenbach, the author of the article, “Why Do Reasonable People Doubt Science?” starts of by saying that in today's era the people often disagree with scientific reasoning. The world we live in today is so full of problems it's hard to tell what is real anymore. The decision is left to the individual to decide what to believe is true or false, and then how there going to put their beliefs into action. Achenbach later explains in his article that the scientific method pushes back all the opinions and unfolds the real truth.

Scholarly peer review, also known as refereeing, is the process of subjecting an author’s scholarly manuscript to the scrutiny of others who are experts and working in the same field (Ware 2013).

Peer-Review Process. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Science peer review is important with the role that it plays in the experiment. It helps confirm the research, establish a method to be evaluated, and increase different kinds of possibilities within research groups. There are three types of peer review such as single blind, double blind and open review. Single blind is where only the participate doesn’t know if they are in the controlled group or treatment. Double blind is when both the participate and the experimenter are kept in the dark. An open blind is where both sides

We discover scientific knowledge in various natural science fields such as biology or chemistry. A common misconception about the natural sciences is that both the knowledge they reveal to us and the scientific method used in discovering this are purely analytical. This means that these sciences are rigid in facts and do not contain any subjectivity or creativity. However, the scientific method is not a rigid system of pursuing measurable facts. It contains fallacies and biases. In testing hypotheses, performing observations, or reasoning inductively, science is undoubtedly flawed and erroneous. Paradigms, commonly seen as infallible and containing rather insignificant errors, contribute to many of the errors involved in scientific

The scientific method continues to be misrepresented in public schools all over the world. Students are being taught that there is a beginning and an end to the scientific method, and that everything in between is protocol and must be followed chronologically. “Ask a question, do some research, come up with a hypothesis, conduct an experiment, understand your data, make your conclusion!” a grade six science teacher will tell their students. “It’ll be on your quiz!”. However, what those students are not being taught is that the scientific method has never been, and will never be a linear process. Scientists constantly revisit different steps of the process in order to better understand the subject matter; sometimes it can take many years to

A peer review is a process of subjecting research methods and findings to the study of others who are experts in the same field. The purpose is designed to prevent dissemination of irrelevant findings, unwarranted claims, unacceptable interpretations, and personal views. It relies on colleagues that review one another’s work and make an informed decision about whether it is legitimate, and adds to the large dialogue or findings in the field.

Grinnell explains that when scientists make a discovery, they cannot claim it as a scientific fact until they have convinced the scientific community of its legitimacy; therefore, a discovery that has not entered the second conversation of Grinnell’s cyclical model is only a proto-scientific claim. This distinction is an extension of Grinnell’s argument regarding subjectivity and inter-subjectivity. Furthermore, when a scientist make a discovery, it is deemed as proto-scientific since its interpretation could have been influenced by the scientist’s subjective experience; however, once the scientific community inter-subjectively agrees on the legitimacy of the claim, it becomes scientific. Credibility is the process by which this transformation

For example, a Dentist could not write a research article on the best delivery method for babies because that is not their specialty. Therefore, good indicators of credibility would consist of evidence that the article has been peer-reviewed by other scholars in a similar field and the writer’s credentials.2 The “A” stands for accuracy, which focuses on ensuring that the information that is presented is not only up to date but also exact, detailed and comprehensive.2 Science is an ever changing field and research studies that might have been conducted 20 years ago may not be true today because of the technical advances. Therefore, it is essential that when dealing with accuracy certain indicators need to be considered such as the timeliness of the information, is the information presented in an un-bias approach and is the information

The importance of relying on scholarly - peer reviewed - articles and journals become clearer with each passing day; it is difficult to discern fact from fiction.

2. I agree that journalism and policies must give all viewpoints the chance to be shared with the public, but I do not support the false balance of scientific legitimacy being granted to all viewpoints. It is important for the public to be informed of current scientific issues, without a doubt; however, I think the public should hear more about the viewpoint that the majority of the scientific community supports. In the process of weighing the evidence, it is true that the less legitimate viewpoints must also be considered. However, the false balance of viewpoints in journalism and policies makes it harder for the general public, especially the non-scientifically trained, to recognize the viewpoint

B) Some other scientific experts read the papers and provide quality control by eliminating many mistakes.

The article discusses the increasing trend of conducting replications, as opposed to novel idea studies Additionally, the article highlights that replications are becoming more common and can lead to debunking and discrediting another’s work. Unfortunately, with the focus being on replication, the time spent conducting and exploring new knowledge is consequently reduced. However, it is also suggested that replications provide accountability for scientists to ensure their work is of high quality. Questions to discuss in class: What do we think is the ultimate goal of conducting a replication versus an original study? How can scientists ensure that as a field, the

One of the greatest dangers to scientific studies is the "confirmation bias". When a researcher is trying to collect documents and publications for what is studying or analyzing, it is very likely that only see, or just to notice what "it suits" for what he wants to prove. Moreover, even almost unconsciously, it is liable to see more quickly connections with other publications that seem to corroborate their investigations. Unfortunately, this "confirmation bias" affects not only scientific studies. It concerns us all. In today's article, I intend to show by example how to detect this phenomenon and some techniques to try to avoid it.

Assumptions in the title of this essay imply that results, theories and laws resulting from the current system of peer review multiple perspectives produce completely infallible objective truth, this is a false premise. Whilst the group of knowers known as the scientific community have collectively less bias than one lone knower trying to understand the universe, there is still collective and engrained level of institutional bias. The same problems of confirmation bias and expectation are present in a group of knowers just as they are with one single knower. According to Karl Popper (1902-1994) the best way to eliminate any expectation and confirmation bias was to falsify and disprove rather than confirm one’s hypothesis and predictions. Popper argues: no matter how convincing an argument or theory is, all that is needed to disprove it is one piece of valid counterclaiming evidence. Whilst this theory is valid on an individual level, it really becomes an effective tool in the objectivity of science on a large scale. Despite this attempt at objectifying and ‘protecting against’ error and bias it is inadequate due to inherent flaws in the scientific method. Induction, moving from the specific to the general, is the key element in scientific logic. Any theory or law ‘proved’ through this logic has some key flaws: the main flaw being that inductive logic can never be certain of any event happening or of any prediction. Richard van de Lagemaat