Comments on: Dediscovery: My new essay for a new section of the New York Times

By: Faster forwards than backwards — scientific de-discovery and forensics « Scientific B-sides

Fri, 18 Nov 2011 16:01:28 +0000

[...] is needed here is de-discovery: a serious attempt to clean science of wrong results (if they are indeed wrong). And scientific [...]

By: meir

meir — Wed, 29 Jun 2011 19:55:09 +0000

I think that the problem is that science is not done by scientists – it’s done by PEOPLE. And people, as some of us may know, are highly unreliable/ It should probably be more of a surprise to us that science makes any progress at all, don’t you think?

By: Mike

Mike — Tue, 28 Jun 2011 17:48:33 +0000

I read an account once (can’t remember the source) that although the “scientific model” has scientists persuaded by evidence, what really happens is that young scientists adopt the new approach and older scientists cling to what they’ve always believed true. But since they’re not training future researchers (grad students are smart enough to get with the new program) the beliefs die out with them. In a generation the old belief is seem as nothing but a quaint story. This seems to dovetail nicely with the 30 years timeframe mentioned in your article.

By: Jack

Jack — Tue, 28 Jun 2011 14:49:07 +0000

I did enjoy reading your piece both here and in the NYT.

One point though, surely ‘de-discovery’ only happens in hindsight. I mean as a scientist one wouldn’t enter into research to disprove a theory would one? That would be subjective and biased.

Rather one would set out to prove a theory, to replicate or not and then publish one’s findings, which might then be taken as ‘de-discovery’ by others; until someone else comes along and ‘re-discovers’ perhaps!

Who decides when a theory is debunked anyway? Is it really only decided by the publication process and peer-reviewers? When does ‘science’ actually say – ‘Right that’s proved! NEXT!’

It hardly sounds scientific to me – this whole process. Maybe there should be a separate system for attempts at replication? Maybe there is?

The current system hardly warms one to the process by which, for example, vaccine production might be stopped or mass blood-screening protocols halted, all because one accepted theory – presumably replicated repeatedly – is suddenly ‘de-discovered’.

I mean just how much power – including public hysteria – do these papers that claim ‘eureka!’ actually have in today’s internet world? It seems that as soon as one is published that claims – so-and-so – it can and does create a tsunami effect.

And then all successive attempts at ‘replication’ which fail to – or support even – the original findings – if not the original methods precisely [rolls eyes] – attract no end of criticism from patients, professionals and media.

Not a very comforting position at all this system of publication. Seems all so ‘hit and miss’ to me I am afraid.Then what do I know? A former Private Banking Investment Manager

By: 220mya

220mya — Mon, 27 Jun 2011 19:35:50 +0000

I was going to leave a snarky comment about how space probes did not circle Mars in 1916. Then I realize it depends on how you read that sentence. In any case, might want to re-order things so people don’t get confused as to whether 1916 refers to Lowell’s death or the space probes.

By: Christiana Leonard

Christiana Leonard — Mon, 27 Jun 2011 16:11:36 +0000

My husband and I have followed your work ever since I discovered your wonderful account of Thomas Willis and the Oxford group. I was soooooo happy to read your article yesterday. It was absolutely shocking to learn that a major journal would have a policy of not publishing replications. I went into science after taking philosophy of science courses that taught me that the great advantage of the scientific method was that consensus could be used to discover truth. Individual observations can be faulty but if there are lots of observations (no matter how seemingly subjective) that agree, one can gradually become more and more confident. I was awestruck by this insight and have never regretted my choice. Since I left animal research and entered the human imaging field in 1990, I have devoted myself to the lonely task of trying to replicate findings — mine and others. In schizophrenia research, one article stated that findings disappear when you double the sample. That has been my experience, too, although I have found a few relationships that could be replicated in new samples. It is really shocking how few scientists in human research think that replication is essential or even important. Considering how hard it is to do, maybe that is no surprise. In my field, many findings that are patently untrue are quoted and cited over and over again as divine truth, “Dylexics have migration abnormalities, ” “The size of the brain is unrelated to intelligence,” for example. Your column made me wonder if you were planning to write a book on this?