Drexel dragonThe Math ForumDonate to the Math Forum



Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by Drexel University or The Math Forum.


Math Forum » Discussions » Education » math-learn

Topic: [math-learn] Re: Why Most Published Research Findings Are False
Replies: 0  

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List  
Richard Hake

Posts: 1,231
From: Woodland Hills, CA 91367
Registered: 12/4/04
[math-learn] Re: Why Most Published Research Findings Are False
Posted: Dec 3, 2012 6:35 PM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply
att1.html (15.4 K)

Some subscribers to Math-Learn might be interested in a recent post
"Re: Why Most Published Research Findings Are False" [Hake (2012a)].
The abstract reads:

**********************************************
ABSTRACT: In "The Randomistas' War On Global Poverty - ERRATUM &
ADDENDUM" [Hake (2012b] at <http://bit.ly/YfMESg> I pointed to:

(a) a "PLoS Medicine" article by John Ioannidis (2005)
<http://bit.ly/Vb1u70> titled "Why Most Published Research Findings
Are False" at <http://1.usa.gov/YxUxkL>, brought to my attention by
Guy Brandenberg; and

(b) a good discussion of the important work of Ioannidis in the
"Atlantic": "Lies, Damned Lies, and Medical Science" by David
Freedman (2010) at <http://bit.ly/11aAmt0>. Freedman wrote that
Ioannidis (2005):

(1) claims that as much as 90 percent of the published medical
information that doctors rely on is flawed;

(2) states that randomized controlled trials. . . . ended up being
wrong some of the time;

(3) laid out a detailed mathematical proof that, assuming modest
levels of researcher bias, typically imperfect research techniques,
and the well-known tendency to focus on exciting rather than highly
plausible theories, researchers will come up with wrong findings most
of the time;

(4) is the most downloaded article in the history of "PLoS Medicine."

BTW: Freedman claims that meta-research experts have confirmed that
similar issues distort research in all fields of science, from
physics to economics (where DeLong& Lang at <http://bit.ly/SpNMww>
showed how a remarkably consistent paucity of strong evidence in
published economics studies made it unlikely that ANY of them were
right).
**********************************************

To access the complete 9 kB post please click on <http://bit.ly/Ve4Qnk>.

Richard Hake, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Indiana University
Links to Articles: <http://bit.ly/a6M5y0>
Links to Socratic Dialogue Inducing (SDI) Labs: <http://bit.ly/9nGd3M>
Academia: <http://bit.ly/a8ixxm>
Blog: <http://bit.ly/9yGsXh>
GooglePlus: <http://bit.ly/KwZ6mE>
Twitter: <http://bit.ly/juvd52>

"It is not enough to observe, experiment, theorize, calculate and
communicate; we must also argue, criticize, debate, expound,
summarize, and otherwise transform the information that we have
obtained individually into reliable, well established, public
knowledge."
John Ziman. 1969. "Information, Communication, Knowledge," Nature
224: 318-324;
abstract online at <http://bit.ly/cNPB1d>.

REFERENCES [URL's shortened by http://bit.ly/ and accessed on 02 Dec 2012.]
Hake, R.R. 2012a. "Re: Why Most Published Research Findings Are
False," online on the OPEN! AERA-L archives at
<http://bit.ly/Ve4Qnk>. Post of 02 Dec 2012 11:39:22-0800 to AERA-L
and Net-Gold. The abstract and link to the complete post are being
transmitted to several discussion lists and are also on my blog
"Hake'sEdStuff" at <http://bit.ly/YnrrWA> with a provision for
comments.

Hake, R.R. 2012b. "The Randomistas' War On Global Poverty - ERRATUM &
ADDENDUM," online on the OPEN! AERA-L archives at
<http://bit.ly/YfMESg>. Post of 30 Nov 2012 12:15:33-0800 to AERA-L
and Net-Gold. The abstract and link to the complete post are being
transmitted to several discussion lists and are also on my blog
"Hake'sEdStuff" at <http://bit.ly/11c5w3e> with a provision for
comments.








[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




Point your RSS reader here for a feed of the latest messages in this topic.

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© Drexel University 1994-2014. All Rights Reserved.
The Math Forum is a research and educational enterprise of the Drexel University School of Education.