Nowhere did this article say that 50% of research papers were not "factually accurate". It says faulty research methods mean 50% of conclusions are not true.
Which is itself a ridiculous thing for New Scientist to repeat. The basis of the scientific method is that we don't ever try to prove things are true. We just show that there's a good chance (1 in 20 is standard) that a model fits. Statistical methods are used and statistics is another area that has no truck with "truth" -- it is the mathematics of making your way in a probabilistic universe.
Having papers come out with promising claims and having "only" 50% of them stand up to professional scrutiny is a wondrous miracle. The entire scientific establishment is set up to disprove hypotheses as they emerge. If half of them stand, the scientific establishment is not doing its job.
A sensationalist article that plays into the "nobody really knows how things work, so I'll believe what I want" meme.
Which is itself a ridiculous thing for New Scientist to repeat. The basis of the scientific method is that we don't ever try to prove things are true. We just show that there's a good chance (1 in 20 is standard) that a model fits. Statistical methods are used and statistics is another area that has no truck with "truth" -- it is the mathematics of making your way in a probabilistic universe.
Having papers come out with promising claims and having "only" 50% of them stand up to professional scrutiny is a wondrous miracle. The entire scientific establishment is set up to disprove hypotheses as they emerge. If half of them stand, the scientific establishment is not doing its job.
A sensationalist article that plays into the "nobody really knows how things work, so I'll believe what I want" meme.