ReviewSports medicine and health science2024
The missing hydrogen ion, Part-3: Science and the human flaws that compromise it.
Review in Sports medicine and health science, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The purpose of this research was to use a historical method and core principles from scientific philosophy to explain why mistakes were made in the development of the lactic acidosis construct. On a broader scope, this research explains what science is, why some scientists despite good intention, often get it wrong, and why it takes so long (decades) to correct these errors. Science is a human behaviour that consists of the identification of a problem based on the correct application of prior knowledge, the development of a method to best resolve or test the problem, completion of these methods to acquire results, and then a correct interpretation of the results. If these steps are done correctly there is an increased probability (no guarantee) that the outcome is likely to be correct. Thomas Kuhn proposed that you can understand what science is from how it has been performed, and from his essays he revealed a very dysfunctional form of science that he called 'normal' (due the preponderance of its presence) science. Conversely, Karl Popper was adamant that the practice of 'normal' science revealed numerous flaws that deviate from fundamental principles that makes science, science. Collectively, the evidence reveals that within the sports medicine and health sciences, as with all disciplines, errors in science are more frequent than you might expect. There is an urgent need to improve how we educate and train scientists to prevent the pursuit of 'normal' science and the harm it imparts on humanity.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.