What does “New Scientific Research” mean?

Class, when you see the phrase “new scientific research,” what comes to mind?

What would you expect to read?

What would make you think, ‘hey look there – new scientific research’?

What is New. Scientific. Research?

Print Friendly

  • Mary

    New: Recently reported (not in media for more than 3 months)

    Scientific: Can document measuring criteria, tested, revealing a need to do further research

    Research: Primary Data

  • Robbi

    New scientific research means someone did an experiment which has not been reported before.

  • Evan

    If it’s new, it’s not a review of past literature.

  • http://neuroskeptic.blogspot.com Neuroskeptic

    Data that hasn’t been reported before.

    Not -

    A literature review

    A meta-analysis

    A re-analysis of data that has been previously been reported with a different analysis.

  • http://www.wthrockmorton.com Warren

    Thanks, all — keep em coming…

  • Ann

    when you see the phrase “new scientific research,” what comes to mind? What would you expect to read?

    What would make you think, ‘hey look there – new scientific research’?

    What is New. Scientific. Research?

    I would say that Dr. Throckmorton/Warren wants to start a new thread on definitions that can have different meanings for different people and is hoping to break the number of comments from all the other threads that have come before it. If the readers come to an all time level of wringing it dry, all the better :-)

  • Fg68at

    Study with new Data. Study with new analysis of old data with new findings. (New subsets and/or new criterias). Maybe a comparative or summarice metaanalysis of many studies (with different findings and viewpoints) of one topic with some criteria that give new or much better findings. Or clarify the positions and/or criterias and show for what someone have to look out in future.

    Not a literature review. Not a review to undermine the own viewpoints with no diversity view. (like wich criteria are relevant)

    More thinking:

    And how are the Questions: “There is no greater pathology in the homosexual population than in the general population.” I think they do not show additional difficult criterias. Instead they would only show, that persons who have same sex have more pathology. (everyone who say he is gay have sex, a homosexual lifestyle, every celibate is a positivum ex-gay) And that this is also in Homo-Glory-Lands (SF or Netherlads) with no history criterias (childhood stress), no relocation criterias, no other psychological stress factors, etc. And yes, homosexuality, SSA is more stress then to be in the mainstream. And yes, medical doctors (have the knowledge) and actors have also more pathologies und suizide attemps. (“To be and work as a medical doctor is a bad action. Don’t go for this Job. This is a bad Job. You can change!” :-) )

  • http://www.wthrockmorton.com Warren

    Fg68at – you have figured out what triggered my question. Perhaps it was not that hard to do.

    And you have correctly hit at some of the problems with section three of the NARTH “no new research” paper. Most of the studies NARTH cites fail to control for one or more of the covariables which are relevant to risk. However, they review them and come up with one cause – being SSA.

    It is what they wanted to find.

  • Fg68at

    Being SSA? Or being SSA and don’t find practice of same sex bad? Or being SSA and have sex? Or being SSA and life openly gay? Or being SAA and have “somtimes” compulsive sex and never never a relationship,because it is bad? (Toscano had in his 17 year ex-gay-life more sex than in his 11 year ex-gay-survivor-life) Or being SSA and life celibatere? (this group is everytime in the positive outcome-group)

    Only the practiced sex is bad, is sin. Nicolosi don’t mind if his patients have sex. (They can only find why they do so.) To be something is not bad. Is this real?

    The German DIJG send years ago a letter with Nicolosi-citations to the German Department of Defence that it is good not to take men who have gay sex to leading positions because of their more pathological psyche.

    I must look in the future after these things. But i have not much hope to find something more concrete.

  • Michael Bussee

    New: (1) recently made, created, or invented, (2) first-hand: not yet used by anyone else, (3) replacing existing one: replacing or supplementing something of the same kind that already exists.

    Scientific: To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning. A scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.

    Research: “Organized study: methodical investigation into a subject in order to discover facts, to establish or revise a theory, or to develop a plan of action based on the facts discovered.”

    You know how I love definitions. Am I on the right track?

  • Pingback: New Scientific Research revisited — Warren Throckmorton


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X