Slashdot Mirror
1 In 4 Statisticians Say They Were Asked To Commit Scientific Fraud (acsh.org)
As the saying goes, "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." We know that's true because statisticians themselves just said so. From a report: A stunning report published in the Annals of Internal Medicine concludes that researchers often ask statisticians to make "inappropriate requests." And by "inappropriate," the authors aren't referring to accidental requests for incorrect statistical analyses; instead, they're referring to requests for unscrupulous data manipulation or even fraud. The authors surveyed 522 consulting biostatisticians and received sufficient responses from 390. Then, they constructed a table that ranks requests by level of inappropriateness. For instance, at the very top is "falsify the statistical significance to support a desired result," which is outright fraud. At the bottom is "do not show plot because it did not show as strong an effect as you had hoped," which is only slightly naughty.
And when the experiment is repeated - many times, by different teams in different labs using different statistical techniques to analyse the results, the truth will come out.
But if an experiment is only performed once, never scrutinised, never checked, never tested then there can be little or no confidence in its conclusions.
Even if an experiment is not repeated exactly, its results still provide a way-point that can be scrutinized in future studies. Other scientists will try to build on previous results, and if something subsequently does not make sense, they will back-trace to find the problem. This is often how science evolves.
Experiments are often repeated, at least implicitly, if some process that previous experimenters followed must be followed again to pick up where they left off. And often it is worthwhile to repeat an experiment with improved equipment, to see whether additional insights can be found.
In short, don't dwell on whether there is a cadre of scientists who make it their mission to repeat other scientists' experiments. That's impractical, and frankly silly. Scientific studies do get scrutinized and repeated (at least implicitly) -- just not in the narrow way you suggest.
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
https://retractionwatch.com/
Notice that papers that have been used to direct research and being used as supporting data often have been detected as frauds long after the publication. That means that the falsified data have already escaped most scrutiny and have already wasted time, money and effort.
They only show what the author wants you to see, period. Whether biostats guy wants to lie to us or not... if his data bogus then stats are bogus.
No stats are even likely valid without *FULL* data being presented with nothing hidden or omitted. It is filtering process or dropping outliers, makes the stats falsehoods at best.
Remember with stats... any data can *prove* anything by at least misdirection.
A liar (scientist or not) can make a lie sound like the truth. Science does occasionally have bad actors who lie. Their lies are discovered and corrected sooner or later.
What was your point again?
This is same as the proof that shows 1=2.
A=B
A*A=B*A
A*A-B*B=B*A-B*B
(A+B)(A-B)=B(A-B)
A+B=B
B+B=B
2=1
"The same?" Well, no. Anyone who has take high-school math (and that includes scientists) can spot the flaw in your "proof." When you divided out the (A-B) factor, you divided by zero.
Or the hotel $1
3 guys check into a room
Room cost $30 (long ago)
Each paid $10.
Night Audit determined the over charged, should be $25 (honest place)
Bellman sent up with $5 to return to them (yes still have them too)
Guys did not have change to split... so each took $1
They gave the bellman $2
So, Each paid $9 for the room for $27
and paid $2 to bellman, for a total of $29
Where is the missing dollar?
There is no missing dollar. The hotel ended up charging the 3 guys $25. They paid $27. The bellman collected a $2 arbitrage ($27 - $25 = $2.)
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.