elearnspace

Is most published research false?

Wikipedia, and other amateur/user-created sources of knowledge, are often rated as inaccurate (or with greater potential for errors than work generated by experts). Is Most Published Research Really False? revisits a 2005 article suggesting many formalized research findings are actually false. The current article suggests that replication of research increases its prospects for being true (obviously) and that our society may be at a stage where "less than perfect" results are acceptable. Laying aside the indirect challenge to the scientific method...and the biases inherent in adopting and approach and constructing a research project...it's important to acknowledge that our relationship to knowledge has changed within the last 10 - 15 years. We have less of a sense of permanence. We have a "good enough" (using Weinberger's analogy) view of knowledge - if it meets our needs now, it is sufficient. Most of us don't use Wikipedia in formal writing (journal articles, books, and thesis) - we use sources subject to greater scrutiny and more rigorous processes. But to answer a quick question or fill a small knowledge need/gap, wikipedia works fine. And, as noted above, even formal, published research lacks the certainty we crave. The biggest lesson we have to learn in our knowledge climate today may well stem from the breakdown of certainty, and the increased reliance on trusted networks and contexts to inform our actions and understanding.