But that doesn't mean a good high-quality peer reviewed scientific paper in a respected and well-juried paper is "inaccurate". There are a lot of journals out there, and different standards and quality levels.
Sure, that and all the rest. We never said all are inaccurate; half are, so half aren't. But we are talking about a huge number of papers and given the fact that we assume them all to be true and correct by default.
The most obvious examples would be papers that come to contradictory conclusions. At least then you know something's wrong. But these and all the rest inaccuracies cause confusion and pain to researchers.
But then ofcourse, from TFA:
"Solomon Snyder, senior editor at the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, and a neuroscientist at Johns Hopkins Medical School in Baltimore, US, says most working scientists understand the limitations of published research.
"When I read the literature, I'm not reading it to find proof like a textbook. I'm reading to get ideas. So even if something is wrong with the paper, if they have the kernel of a novel idea, that's something to think about," he says."
and science does go forward. Still, with better papers advances could be smoother and faster.
They could start using more modelled sounds in the soundtrack to act subliminally to add some (interesting) effect. Like the low frequencies often used to make you feel uneasy/disoriented. EEG experiments could provide algorithms know to induce certain states. Anything from joy to fear to psychotic episodes to free paper bags for vomit!
Slashdot Mirror
Sure, that and all the rest. We never said all are inaccurate; half are, so half aren't. But we are talking about a huge number of papers and given the fact that we assume them all to be true and correct by default.
The most obvious examples would be papers that come to contradictory conclusions. At least then you know something's wrong. But these and all the rest inaccuracies cause confusion and pain to researchers.
But then ofcourse, from TFA: "Solomon Snyder, senior editor at the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, and a neuroscientist at Johns Hopkins Medical School in Baltimore, US, says most working scientists understand the limitations of published research. "When I read the literature, I'm not reading it to find proof like a textbook. I'm reading to get ideas. So even if something is wrong with the paper, if they have the kernel of a novel idea, that's something to think about," he says."
and science does go forward. Still, with better papers advances could be smoother and faster.
They could start using more modelled sounds in the soundtrack to act subliminally to add some (interesting) effect. Like the low frequencies often used to make you feel uneasy/disoriented. EEG experiments could provide algorithms know to induce certain states. Anything from joy to fear to psychotic episodes to free paper bags for vomit!
Talk about immersion! &Talk about rating!