MAJ Private RallyPoint Member 1091842 <div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>Yes, while this may sound like a Kent Brockman news story, it is in fact the fruit of a study made by 270 researchers who meticulously reproduced past psychology studies. 60% of the results refuted those of their original studies. Sources have yet to confirm whether the re-results of this study will re-re-refute those found in this one. 2015-11-06T08:24:02-05:00 MAJ Private RallyPoint Member 1091842

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>Yes, while this may sound like a Kent Brockman news story, it is in fact the fruit of a study made by 270 researchers who meticulously reproduced past psychology studies. 60% of the results refuted those of their original studies. Sources have yet to confirm whether the re-results of this study will re-re-refute those found in this one.

2015-11-06T08:24:02-05:00 2015-11-06T08:24:02-05:00 SSgt Alex Robinson 1091856

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>Interesting. Thanks for sharing.

2015-11-06T08:32:41-05:00 2015-11-06T08:32:41-05:00 SSG Private RallyPoint Member 1091867

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>So, is that to say we don't know what we really know OR we know what we don't know BUT we don't know it?

2015-11-06T08:40:02-05:00 2015-11-06T08:40:02-05:00 SPC Anne Miller 1091876

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>Thus proven, this study is not a reliable source of information

2015-11-06T08:48:41-05:00 2015-11-06T08:48:41-05:00 LTC Matthew Tieszen 1091896

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>Wasn&#39;t aware of that but I had heard that 76.53% of all statistics are made up on-the-spot.

2015-11-06T09:02:38-05:00 2015-11-06T09:02:38-05:00 PO2 Private RallyPoint Member 1091898

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>I my head just did a couple spins. One of the reasons I don't delve too deep into science is because it's such a large grey area. I'll stick with what I know; Family, military and video games.

2015-11-06T09:03:11-05:00 2015-11-06T09:03:11-05:00 SrA Edward Vong 1091907

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>So that must mean, that the scientific study that studied scientific studies is also not reliable. <br /><br />Scientific studies to me are not always true 100%, however it's evidence that leads to. Some studies can be pretty obvious, others are theoretical. Many that cannot be proven yet but are proven on paper I like to call "proven theory".

2015-11-06T09:07:48-05:00 2015-11-06T09:07:48-05:00 SFC Michael Hasbun 1091954

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>LOL...

2015-11-06T09:30:19-05:00 2015-11-06T09:30:19-05:00 MSG Private RallyPoint Member 1091987

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>Studies show that most people will believe anything they are told when the phrase starts "And studies show"

2015-11-06T09:46:55-05:00 2015-11-06T09:46:55-05:00 SGT Patrick Reno 1091990

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>Maybe Congress should set aside several million dollars to study this.

2015-11-06T09:47:52-05:00 2015-11-06T09:47:52-05:00 1SG Private RallyPoint Member 1091992

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>When the researchers are incentivized in the form of research grants to reach a conclusion, they will make sure their data supports that conclusion.<br />Money is the great corrupter of science. I could go on about "climate change" or the food du jour that is good/bad for you, but I'll take a less controversial example.<br />For decades, the tobacco industry conducted "studies" refuting mounting evidence that smoking caused a myriad of health issues in tobacco users. There was ample evidence that lung cancer and emphazema were directly attributable to tobacco use, yet there was no shortage of scientists at Duke, UNC, and other institutions in tobacco-friendly states that would come up with a study periodically saying that no connection between smoking and maladies could be found.

2015-11-06T09:48:44-05:00 2015-11-06T09:48:44-05:00 LTC Stephen F. 1092288

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>This is fairly obvious for studies conducted for the soft sciences including psychology <a class="dark-link bold-link" role="profile-hover" data-qtip-container="body" data-id="1979" data-source-page-controller="question_response_contents" href="/profiles/1979-35e-counterintelligence">MAJ Private RallyPoint Member</a>. I would expect scientific studies for chemistry, physics, geology and biology to be more reliable if they are conducted according to established study principle.

2015-11-06T11:49:54-05:00 2015-11-06T11:49:54-05:00 SCPO David Lockwood 1092356

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>That all depends on who you talk to. In a recent poll taken 34.67% said that this information is untrue while 25.76% would agree. The remaining 39.57% had no thought on this matter!

2015-11-06T12:18:09-05:00 2015-11-06T12:18:09-05:00 PO3 Private RallyPoint Member 1092444

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>scientific studies itself is just a study .... it is not a proof. It is people themselves that jump the connection between studies and "proof".

2015-11-06T12:53:12-05:00 2015-11-06T12:53:12-05:00 Sgt Kelli Mays 1092448

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>A lot of wasted money goes into a lot of scientific studies....and scientific studies can be fudged...so we should not always automatically take the word of a scientific study

2015-11-06T12:56:05-05:00 2015-11-06T12:56:05-05:00 SSG Private RallyPoint Member 1093200

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>According to applied mathematics... 98% of all statistics are made up!

2015-11-06T19:44:06-05:00 2015-11-06T19:44:06-05:00 SMSgt Private RallyPoint Member 1093216

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>According to a stat that I just made up, 65% of all studies are inaccurate by an average of 4% point.

2015-11-06T19:56:30-05:00 2015-11-06T19:56:30-05:00 2015-11-06T08:24:02-05:00