Do scientists often admit they were wrong?

[QuarkChild]

Captain Amazing: It is sometimes said that science progresses not from paper to paper, but from funeral to funeral. However, as I’ve argued above, this pessimistic opinion is probably at odds with reality.

Here’s a timely article from Freakonomics:link

There’s a new trend emerging in academic research: more retractions. According to a recent article in Nature by Richard Van Noorden, “*n the early 2000s, only about 30 retraction notices appeared annually. This year, the Web of Science is on track to index more than 400 (see ‘Rise of the retractions’) — even though the total number of papers published has risen by only 44% over the past decade.”

[RickJay]

@Kimstu

Except that it doesn’t. As I noted above, there are maybe a dozen or so well-known instances of a majority of scientists…

But I didn’t say “it comes up a lot that a majority of scientists are seriously obstructionist.” You’re attacking a strawman, at least with regards to responding to my post.

What comes up a lot is that INDIVIDUALS have trouble accepting they’re wrong. Which is simply human, and to be expected. We aren’t Vulcans. That’s why we have more than one scientist.

[thelabdude]

Good scientists limit being wrong. Those that said the inert gases don’t form compounds were proved wrong about 50 years ago. Those saying the noble gases are not know to form compounds had less error to admit to.

[Yllaria]

@Vihaga

This is a huge issue and is the reason meetings are so invaluable. It sucks that so many people end up doing the same experiments someone’s already done, but it’s hard to get, “nope, doesn’t work,” results published no matter how rigorous they are, unless it’s unexpected data that causes a lot of controversy.

Is there any possibility of a journal dedicated to negative results? Or am I just having a Wormrunner’s Digest moment?

@Voyager

. . . It is common practice to make sure you reference work by those most likely to review your paper.

Let me add an affirmation that hell hath no fury like an uncited reviewer. At least sometimes.

[JoelUpchurch]

@Jackmannii

That conclusion (published in the scientific literature) will probably be retracted as well.

Actually the article has been cited 842 times. I guess it comes in handy when you are wrong.

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Why+Most+Published+Research+Findings+Are+False&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart

[Energy_Plus]

Why would they admit they are wrong? They are the chosen ones.

[Voyager]

@Captain_Amazing

I don’t think that its that individual scientists tend to admit they’re wrong (which makes sense. You spend 30 years learning, teaching, and researching one theory and then decide “well, that was all garbage”. It’s that eventually those scientists die off and those schools of thought don’t get so many new people in to replace them.

Well, if there was evidence supporting that theory for all 30 years, it is not surprising that a reasonable person stays with it. There are very few cases in which new evidence is clear enough to make tossing old theories the obvious thing to do.

However, I think we are missing the real reason that there are so few admissions - 99% of papers are write-only, and the fact that nothing more gets published on the subject is a tacit admission of either error or lack of support. In most cases someone publishing retractions to the work would be considered attention-whoring. It is different if it is an active area of hot research. BTW, publishing a retraction for something trivial also says that the reviewers weren’t doing their jobs. While their identities are secret, the editor knows and the reviewer knows also. Might get the author a lot of unwelcome attention the next time.

[Chronos]

Why would they admit they are wrong? They are the chosen ones.

You must have the wrong thread-- This is the one about scientists.