Hold on, I've heard of the replication crisis - though I don't know the scale - but are you saying that over 50% of "hard science" is bunk? I find that hard to swallow.
Not addressing the parent's specific claim, but there was recent discussion of a disturbingly high proportion of studies in one field being fake/flawed: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37572394
> "For more than 150 trials, Carlisle got access to anonymized individual participant data (IPD). By studying the IPD spreadsheets, he judged that 44% of these trials contained at least some flawed data: impossible statistics, incorrect calculations or duplicated numbers or figures, for instance. And in 26% of the papers had problems that were so widespread that the trial was impossible to trust, he judged — either because the authors were incompetent, or because they had faked the data."
I don’t think hard sciences are 50% but still too high. But that’s just the data people looked at. There are so many papers and studies being submitted, who knows how many times a researcher fudged a few values to make the effect size bigger? I personally witnessed this in academia.
livueta|2 years ago
> "For more than 150 trials, Carlisle got access to anonymized individual participant data (IPD). By studying the IPD spreadsheets, he judged that 44% of these trials contained at least some flawed data: impossible statistics, incorrect calculations or duplicated numbers or figures, for instance. And in 26% of the papers had problems that were so widespread that the trial was impossible to trust, he judged — either because the authors were incompetent, or because they had faked the data."
asylteltine|2 years ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis