There is a paradox in a high quality meta - analytic review of a sparse and methodologically
flawed field of studies.
Not exact matches
But years
of data from long - term
studies by Doak and other scientists examining plants, birds, mammals and fungi in the
field are showing the
flaws in these assumptions.
Is it valid to conclude as the item quotes «It just means that the standard statistical methods
of science are so weak and
flawed as to permit a
field of study (parapsychology) to sustain itself in the complete absence
of any subject matter.»?
If you look into the science, you begin to see patterns
of behavior that are strikingly similar to the what is being discussed in climate science: manipulation
of research, improperly conducted
studies, political machinations and influence, and so on, to the point that I read in a recent article in the Altlantic that a very highly regarded researcher in this
field claims that up to 90 %
of these
studies are either
flawed or totally inaccurate.
The accusation
of flawed studies is echoed by the Canadian Pest Management Regulatory Agency which said
of Bayer's clothianidin application, «All
of the
field / semi-
field studies, however, were found to be deficient in design and conduct
of the
studies and were, therefore, considered as supplemental information only.