Three Million Scientific Papers Wrong Statistical Method Wrong

I have been, in this blog, maintaining that Science at best is workable hypothesis for the time being and there is no certainty about it.

And the Scientists hide under the cloak of Axioms, which you are not allowed to question.

They say it is self-evident.

Science is built on faulty logic.

That a certain result shall follow a given set of cause/s/events under similar conditions.

What people forget or do not dare to question is that all the conditions in any scientific testing or experiments are not in our control , we do not know how reliable they are and we are not guaranteed the circumstances shall remain repeatedly the same.

That Nature shall behave uniformly is a fallacy not supported by Logic.

We can not say Nature shall behave uniformly for we have not examined all the cases of Nature and it is impossible to know this.

We assume it shall.

p Value Imaginary.Image.jpg
Many researchers have labored under the misbelief that the p-value gives the probability that their study’s results are just pure random chance. Credit: Lenilucho/Wikipedia

Secondly Science is certain of Causal relationship ,that is an effect has a Cause and a Cause  must  produce a result.

Logically a Cause may have more than One effect and one effect may have more than one Cause.

Therefore this is also faulty.

(Indian Philosophy addresses this problem by Parinama Vada and Vivatha Vada)

And the scientists also assumes many tools for verification of data,those that are purely imaginary and have no factual basis.

Now a Testing tool used by Psychology is found to be wrong and so are the three million scientific papers based on these tools.

Worse is that this has happened in Applied Psychology

How the patients were ever cured based on these scientific papers only GOK!

Psychology researchers have recently found themselves engaged in a bout of statistical soul-searching. In apparently the first such move ever for a scientific journal the editors of Basic and Applied Social Psychologyannounced in a February editorial that researchers who submit studies for publication would not be allowed to use a common suite of statistical methods, including a controversial measure called the p-value.

These methods, referred to as null hypothesis significance testing, or NHST, are deeply embedded into the modern scientific research process, and some researchers have been left wondering where to turn. “The p-value is the most widely known statistic,” says biostatistician Jeff Leek of Johns Hopkins University. Leek has estimated that the p-value has been used at least three million scientific papers. Significance testing is so popular that, as the journal editorial itself acknowledges, there are no widely accepted alternative ways to quantify the uncertainty in research results—and uncertainty is crucial for estimating how well a study’s results generalize to the broader population.

Unfortunately, p-values are also widely misunderstood, often believed to furnish more information than they do. Many researchers have labored under the misbelief that the p-value gives the probability that their study’s results are just pure random chance. But statisticians say the p-value’s information is much more non-specific, and can interpreted only in the context of hypothetical alternative scenarios: The p-value summarizes how often results at least as extreme as those observed would show up if the study were repeated an infinite number of times when in fact only pure random chance were at work.

This means that the p-value is a statement about imaginary data in hypothetical study replications, not a statement about actual conclusions in any given study. Instead of being a “scientific lie detector” that can get at the truth of a particular scientific finding, the p-value is more of an “alternative reality machine” that lets researchers compare their results with what random chance would hypothetically produce. “What p-values do is address the wrong questions, and this has caused widespread confusion,” says psychologist Eric-Jan Wagenmakers at the University of Amsterdam


Ostensibly, p-values allow researchers to draw nuanced, objective scientific conclusions as long as it is part of a careful process of experimental design and analysis. But critics have complained that in practice the p-value in the context of significance testing has been bastardized into a sort of crude spam filter for scientific findings: If the p-value on a potentially interesting result is smaller than 0.05, the result is deemed “statistically significant” and passed on for publication, according to the recipe; anything with larger p-values is destined for the trash bin.

Quitting p-values cold turkey was a drastic step. “The null hypothesis significance testing procedure is logically invalid, and so it seems sensible to eliminate it from science,” says psychologist David Trafimow of New Mexico State University in Las Cruces, editor of the journal.’

In plain English the p value is imaginary and has no basis.

I can foresee a host of scientists coming out against this post using fancy jargon, while the questions raised by me remain unanswered/will remain so.

Long Live Science!

News Source,

How The First DNA Evolved Vedas, Research Result

Asking for the first cause in Science is akin to a serious sin

As Science, with its self-made rules, which takes only Perception as the tool of Knowledge ,always flounders  on this issue, Philosophy comes to its rescue.

Though Scientists may ridicule Intuition  in Public, they accept it in Private.

One may recall that many  discoveries in Science were because of a flash of inspiration, from Newton’s Laws of Motion, Clarks’ Table to Einstein’s Theory of Relativity all have been a result of a flash of Imagination.

This is called Intuition.

The Purusha Suktha expalins the evolution of Universe at the Universal Level.

The Reality is described , explaining the evolution of Seasons, Laws etc.

The Purusha Suktha is loaded with energy and the first two lines have produced electricity.

Please read my post on this.

As is a fact in Hinduism, what is in the Macrocosm and vice versa.

Research , applying this , along with the verses in the Rig and Yajur Vedas have delivered stunning results, including the origin of the DNA .

Every thing must have a cause even in Science.

When one tries to explain the First Cause, science fails.

It dictates that you should accept axioms which can not be proved!

But Indian Philosophy and Seers(Rishis) found out the Truth and First Cause, accepting Intuition as a source of Knowledge.

And Science to-day has validated most of the by the experimental method.

Structure of DNA.Image.jpg
Structure of DNA.

Now to the Study of DNA with the help of the Vedas.

The life on the earth has evolved from the fundamental energy Figure 1, the ;life is supported by the three important factors. The – ozone layer in the mid atmosphere, the water on the earth, the conversion of hydrogen into helium. Figure 4 the first life has originated in the water. The beginning of the photosynthesis with recombination of the genetic material has opened the door for the organic evolution on the earth. Figure 3,4

The life on the earth has evolved from fundamental energy under the laws of thermodynamics and genetic inheritance. The physical basis of life is cell. Figure 3. The life on the earth is supported by t he ozone O3 layer in the mid atmosphere, the source of energy is the conversion of hydrogen into helium H3 on the surface of the sun. The water molecule H2O = 3 is life resource.

The first-created: water consists of H2O, it has been expressed by three warm the Earth while holding water reservoir, and from their separation came the letter, and two of these convey the murmuring moisture is H+ & OH־ ions.  It expresses the phenomena of ionization Rig-Veda 10- 27-23 .

The DNA replication is regulated by the Triple bond of Hydrogen  H ≡ H Rig-Veda 1-163 1,2,3,4  Figure 7

Prof. C.P. Trivedi,  109,111, C-Block, Sagar Apt.
Former Senior Fellow, Department of Culture, Govt. of India, 17/1, Old   Palasia, Indore 452001, Ph.0731-2544436                    

Decipherment of Indus Valley Vedic Seals in Modern Science 


The Indus Valley Civilization was scientifically developed. It has generated a quest to know their source of scientific development. It has been observed that the excavated seals and the tablets are the hoofs of their traces. The Vedic metaphors have been engraved on the seals. The symbols have vast ocean of knowledge in background. They explore the reactions at molecular level. Its literary evidences can be traced in the Vedic hymns, where a picture of well developed society has been explored Rig-Veda 1-164. With this knowledge the cities like Harappa and Mohenjo-daro can be developed. The symbols narrates the origin and evolution of the creation from the fundamental energy Rig-Veda 10-90, Bell’s theorem 1972 Clauser, Freedman, David Boehm, and Alain Aspect1985

Material and Method

  1. Max Müller, who has the credit to introduce Vedas in the world, with his logical approach,  “What can be more tedious than the Veda, and yet what can be more interesting, if once we know that it is the first word spoken by the Aryan man?” It has been expressed that the Vedas represent first word spoken by the civilized man on the on the earth.

Nature April 2006  the oldest (and first early Neolithic) evidence for the drilling of human teeth in vivo (i.e., in a living person) was found in Mehrgarh.

The Vedas are the book of Science, The Vedic language is a symbolic language, where words are only the indicator of the phenomena, having vast ocean of knowledge in the background. If one knows the related phenomena than only he can give the answers related with the symbols. The Vedic seers were the head of the contemporary Institutes of education, the metaphors and the riddles reflect their examination system. To get the answer from the students the pictographs have been engraved on the seals.

Vedic Science viz – a – viz Modern Science

The building block of the Creation is Atom and the building block of the living-beings is DNA De oxy ribose Nucleic Acid Rig-Veda 4-58. The Creation has evolved from the single unified force- fundamental energy under the laws of thermodynamics Rig-Veda 10-90.

The first life has generated in water Rig-Veda 1-163-1.

The living-beings have evolved from the DNA with genetic recombination and the Mendel’s laws of inheritance. The life on the earth is supported by the ozone layer O 3.   The conversion of the hydrogen into Helium H 3 on the surface of the sun, and the water molecules H 2 O.

The triple bond of Hydrogen H Ξ H  has the key for the genetic recombination of the DNA Rig-Veda 1-163- 2,3,4.

The creation has evolved from the fundamental energy with energy transformation. The laws of thermodynamics have been expressed by the three faces of the symbolic Man showing origin.

The horned hood express the synthesis of DNA from the atoms and molecules. They have synthesized the cell and the genomic chromosome. The surrounding animals have been evolved from the single cell with genetic recombination and crossing over.

The U shape structure is the symbol for the genomic chromosome and the fish like structure is a symbol for the cell.

It has been expressed that the life has originated on the earth with synthesis of a cell, it has been expressed by a fish like structure the dot in the centre represent nucleus in the cell. The leaves on the head is a symbol for the photosynthesis,  The genetic recombination with crossing over have given the ways for evolution.

The horned hood expresses the four horned buffalo emitted  Rig-Veda 4-58-1,2,3

The leaves on the head expresses the source of food on the earth is photosynthesis Rig-Veda 1-164-7″

The button seal symbol 

Symbols of early Life.Rig Veda.Image.jpg
Symbols of early Life.Rig Veda
, the button seal indicate origin of the biotic and a-biotic components of the nature from theatmospheric ocean in two different directions. The hollowstructure in the centre is symbolic atmospheric ocean andthe bifurcation of the hollow structure into two differentdirections indicates the evolution of the biotic and a-bioticcomponents in two different directions.
Atharvaveda 13-1-52
2 The hollow space
 – it is the qualm and quiet pre-
cosmic condition of the fundamental energy, when there wasnothing in existence only deep darkness was there. Therewas only one force, which began to disintegrate from infiniteto finite with its back ground in the infinite cosmos Rig-Veda10-129 1, 2, 3.
Rig-Veda 10-129- 2 “

“The kine extract milk from his head; clothing themselves in a wrap, they drunk water with the foot Rig-Veda 1-164-7

The seven figures at the base expresses the phenotypes and genotypes.

It has been expressed that the creation came into the existence with formation of the atmospheric layers of the earth Atharvaveda 14-1-5

Guarded by covering-arrangements, defended by watchmen (?? b ā rhata), O Soma, thou standest hearing the pressing-stones; no earthly one partakes of thee Atharvaveda 14-1-5


Binomial Triangle Computer Binary System By Pingala Hinduism

Recently there was a News item that a Scientist has stated that Mythology is to be differntiated from Science and the attempt of the Government to include ‘Pseudo Science’ into Indian Education System.


He was speaking on ‘IIsc debunked Vimanas Theory.


He also observed that ‘the people who say that Hinduism/Vedas have said this before, why do they not say this before the facts are discovered by Science?What they say as facts from the Vedas can not be verified by experiment now”(the  quote is not verbatim, i shall get it shortly).


I shall be posting a rebuttal to this shortly.


Be that as it may, let me reproduce something from the Vedic Period on Binomial System and Binary system, that is used for Modern Computing.


Ancient Indians used Mathematics extensively and relied on it so heavily that Indian Logic, Philosophy,Hindu Rituals and the Sanskrit Language have strong Mathematical base.


Meters, called Chandas are used in Prayers, literary works have a strict Mathematical base.


Pingala, younger brother of Panini, the Sanskrit grammarian, has devised Chanda Shastra that deals with these Meters.


He  is dated to 2 BC, may be earlier.


Another Legend has it that he is the younger brother of Patanjali, who wrote the Yoga Sutra.


This assigns Pinagala to 4 BC.


Each number in the triangle is the sum of the ...
Each number in the triangle is the sum of the two directly above it. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)



The Chandaḥśāstra presents the first known description of a binary numeral system in connection with the systematic enumeration of meters with fixed patterns of short and long syllables.The discussion of the combinatorics of meter corresponds to the binomial theorem. Halāyudha’s commentary includes a presentation of the Pascal’s triangle(called meruprastāra). Pingala’s work also contains the Fibonacci numbers, called mātrāmeru.


Use of zero is sometimes mistakenly ascribed to Pingala due to his discussion of binary numbers, usually represented using 0 and 1 in modern discussion, while Pingala used short and long syllables. As Pingala’s system ranks binary patterns starting at one (four short syllables—binary “0000”—is the first pattern), the nth pattern corresponds to the binary representation of n-1, written backwards. Positional use of zero dates from later centuries and would have been known to Halāyudha but not to Pingala.




Formation of Binomial Triangle.Pingala Triangle.



The Importance given to 2 by Pingala: Pingala in his rules to Sanskrit prosody has given undue importance to the number 2. Typically, he lays down that, Any power of two throughout divisible by two is equal to two raised to the power of two representing the number of twos the first power is divisible by two�, i.e, 216 = 224, 232 = 225, 264 = 226 and so on (VIII.407).




In grouping heavies and lights, Pingala adopts a unique method.




If we take Heavy = H and Light = L, for two syllables, we get the combination, as follows:




  1. 1H
  2. 1L




There are two combinations.




For 3 syllables, we get,




  1. 3 H
  2. 2H, 1L
  3. 1H, 2L.
  4. 3L.




There are  four combinations.




For 4 syllables, we get,




  1. 4H
  2. 3H, 1L
  3. 2H, 2L
  4. 1H, 3L
  5. 4L.




There are eight combinations.




For 5 syllables, we get,




  1. 5H
  2. 4H, 1L
  3. 3H, 2L.
  4. 2H, 3L
  5. 1H, 4L
  6. 5L




There are sixteen combinations.




Thus, this is the formation of Binomial Numbers, Triangle and Series. They are explained as follows:




(a + b)o = 1

(a + b)1 = a + b

(a + b)2 = a2 + 2ab + b2

(a + b)3 = a3 + 3a2b + 3ab2 + b3

(a + b)4 = a4 + 4a3b + 6a2b2 + 4ab3 + b4

(a + b)5 = a5 + 5a4b + 10a3b2 + 10a2b3 + 5ab4 + b5

(a + b)= a6 + 6a5b + 15a4b2 + 20a3b3 + 15a2b4 + 6ab5 + b6



1  1

1   2   1

1  3    3   1

1   4   6   4   1

1 10  5   5  10  5  1

1   6  15  20   15    6   1

(a + b)n   = an + [n!/1!(n-1)!] a(n-1) b + [n(n-1)/2!(n-2)!] an(n-1) b2 + [n(n-1)(n-2)/3!(n-3)!] an(n-1)(n-2) b3 + [n(n-1)(n-2)(n-3)/4!(n-4)!] an(n-1)(n-2)(n-3) b4 +��+ bn




This has been explained in the context of prosody and similar exposition has been made in Vedic literature about the chanting of mantras with time scale. However, the mathematical significance has to be noted here. This Binomial triangle can rightly be called Pingala Triangle and the series Pingala series. Indian mathematicians have identified the series and arranged the numbers in the form of a pyramid, which they called asMeruprasthana and depicted as follows:




1     1

1     2     1

1    3     3    1

1   4    6    4     1

1    5    10   10  5    1

1   6    15   20   15    6   1

1   7    21    35    35   21    7    1

1   8    28   56    70   56   28   8    1

1   9    36   84   126   126   84   36   9   1

1  10   45   120  210  252  210  120  45  10   1

1  11  55  165  330  462  462  330  165  55   11  1

1   12   66  220  495  792   924  792   495  220  66  12   1






























The basis of writing numbers can be easily explained:




1. Write one in the first square. 1
2. Draw two squares below, write 1 , 1 1 1
3. Draw three squares, write 1, 1 in the first and last squares. 1 2 1


Add the adjacent numbers of the above row and write intermediate numbers i.e, 1+1=2.


4. 1, 1+2=3, 3+1=3, 1 1 3 3 1
 5. 1, 1+3=4, 3+3=6, 3+1+4, 1 1 4 6 4 1




Like, this, the squares can be continued with added numbers. The following Pingala Triangle is formed for 12 layers and it is mentioned as Meru Prasthana in the literature.










































Binary system explained.


0 0 0 0 numerical value = 1
1 0 0 0 numerical value = 2
0 1 0 0 numerical value = 3
1 1 0 0 numerical value = 4
0 0 1 0 numerical value = 5
1 0 1 0 numerical value = 6
0 1 1 0 numerical value = 7
1 1 1 0 numerical value = 8
0 0 0 1 numerical value = 9
1 0 0 1 numerical value = 10
0 1 0 1 numerical value = 11
1 1 0 1 numerical value = 12
0 0 1 1 numerical value = 13
1 0 1 1 numerical value = 14
0 1 1 1 numerical value = 15
1 1 1 1 numerical value = 16

Other numbers have also been assigned zero and one combinations likewise.

Pingala’s system of binary numbers starts with number one (and not zero). The numerical value is obtained by adding one to the sum of place values. In this system, the place value increases to the right, as against the modern notation in which it increases towards the left.

The procedure of Pingala system is as follows:

Divide the number by 2. If divisible write 1, otherwise write 0.
If first division yields 1 as remainder, add 1 and divide again by 2. If fully divisible, write 1, otherwise write 0 to the right of first 1.
If first division yields 0 as remainder that is, it is fully divisible, add 1 to the remaining number and divide by 2. If divisible, write 1, otherwise write 0 to the right of first 0.
This procedure is continued until 0 as final remainder is obtained.
Example to understand Pingala System of Binary Numbers :

Find Binary equivalent of 122 in Pingala System :

Divide 122 by 2. Divisible, so write 1 and remainder is 61. 1
Divide 61 by 2. Not Divisible and remainder is 30. So write 0 right to 1. 10
Add 1 to 61 and divide by 2 = 31.
Divide 31 by 2. Not Divisible and remainder is 16. So write 0 to the right. 100
Divide 16 by 2. Divisible and remainder is 8. So write 1 to right. 1001
Divide 8 by 2. Divisible and remainder is 4. So write 1 to right. 10011
Divide 4 by 2. Divisible and remainder is 2. So write 1 to right. 100111
Divide 2 by 2. Divisible. So place 1 to right. 1001111
Now we have 122 equivalent to 1001111.

Verify this by place value system : 1×1 + 0×2 + 0×4 + 1×8 + 1×16 + 1×32 + 1×64 = 64+32+16+8+1 = 121
By adding 1(which we added while dividing 61) to 121 = 122, which is our desired number.
In Pingala system, 122 can be written as 1001111.

Though this system is not exact equivalent of today’s binary system used, it is very much similar with its place value system having 20, 20, 21, 22, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26 etc used to multiple binary numbers sequence and obtain equivalent decimal number.

Reference : Chandaḥśāstra (8.24-25) describes above method of obtaining binary equivalent of any decimal number in detail.
These were used 1600 years before westerners/arabs copied binary system from India through trade and invasion.

We now use zero and one (0 and 1) in representing binary numbers, but it is not known if the concept of zero was known to Pingala— as a number without value and as a positional location.Pingala’s work also contains the Fibonacci number, called mātrāmeru, and now known as the Gopala–Hemachandra number. Pingala also knew the special case of the binomial theorem for the index 2, i.e. for (a + b) 2, as did his Greek contemporary Euclid..


This article is based on the research work of Dr.K.V.Ramakrishna Rao and material from the site’s Link provided second at the end of the Post.


Cell Division under New Microscope Video

One of the mysteries of Life is the division of Cells.

Viewing it under Microscope is an experience.

Now a New Microscope has been developed an it can provide interesting 3 D viewing.

The microscope uses a technique called lattice light-sheet microscopy, which involves scanning a cell with ultra-thin sheets of light. This process allows scientists to collect high-resolution images while minimizing light damage to the cells. The research was described in a paper published online in the journal Science on Oct. 24.

“There are many cells you could look at forever in 3D,” Dr. Eric Betzig, a physicist, inventor, and engineer at the institute who developed the microscope, said in a written statement. “We know what the microscope can offer in terms of the imaging, but I think there are a lot of applications we haven’t even thought of yet.”

Watch the Video.

News Source.

Scientists Admit Fake Study Papers

Often I come across ‘scientific studies’ claiming outrageous and down right ridiculous statements on many disciplines,including social sciences.


One would claim that a woman’s sexual references can be predicted by her nail polish colors!


And the father of all this is Sigmund Freud, who blamed everything under the Sun for one’s behavior,especially one’s parents.


If you are aggressive, it is because of gregarious parents:if you are timid, it is because of retiring parents.


If you are a pervert, your parents are responsible.


But never You, for your actions or for what you are!


So much for these ‘Scientific studies!’


I have posted some articles on this.


Now read more news on this.

Scientist admits faking Study.jpg
Scientist admits faking Study.


preliminary investigative report issued on Monday by Tilburg University has concluded that dozens of research papers authored and co-authored by Stapel contain fabricated data.

“We have some 30 papers in peer-reviewed journals where we are actually sure that they are fake, and there are more to come,” says Pim Levelt, chair of the committee that investigated Stapel’s work. If all of these papers are withdrawn, Stapel’s will become one of the worst cases of scientific misconduct in history.

Stapel is the researcher behind a number of eye-catching studies which, prima facie, seem to offer provocative insights into human nature. His research topics range from the effects of beauty product ads on consumer self-esteem, to how urban decay (like littered streets) promote stereotyping and discrimination — the latter being a study we reported on here at io9.

Whether these studies are included in the 30+ papers known to contain fraudulent data remains to be seen. Tilburg University has yet to provide a list of which studies contain fudged results, though Stapel’s paper on the tie between urban decay and discrimination, published in April in the journal Science, has already been flagged with an expression of concern by the journal’s publishers.

Stapel is believed to have acted alone, deceiving colleagues, collaborators, and even PhD candidates for years by providing them with fictitious data. Given Stapel’s prominence within the field of social psychology, (not to mention the sheer volume of publications already identified as tainted), it’s safe to say that the effects of his outing will be far-reaching…..

otably, none of these mention anything about science, fact-finding, or statements about converging upon truth. (Note, in the past I’ve gone so far as to suggest that even the process of citing specific papers is biased and flawed, and that we would be better off giving aggregate citations of whole swathes of the literature.)

The second article takes almost an entirely economic, cost-benefit perspective of peer-review again focused on publishing results in journals. Only toward the end does the author directly address peer-review’s purpose in science by saying:

…[T]he most important question is how accurately the peer review system predicts the longer-term judgments of the scientific community… A tentative answer to this last question is suggested by a pilot study carried out by my former colleagues atNature Neuroscience, who examined the assessments produced by Faculty of 1000 (F1000), a website that seeks to identify and rank interesting papers based on the votes of handpicked expert ‘faculty members’. For a sample of 2,500 neuroscience papers listed on F1000, there was a strong correlation between the paper’s F1000 factor and the impact factor of the journal in which it appeared. This finding, albeit preliminary, should give pause to anyone who believes that the current peer review system is fundamentally flawed or that a more distributed method of assessment would give different results.

I strongly disagree with his final conclusion here. A perfectly plausible explanation for this result would be that scientists rate papers in “better” journals higher because they’re published in journal perceived to be better. This would appear to be a source of bias and a major flaw of the current peer-review system. Rather than giving me pause as to whether the system is flawed, one could easily interpret that result asproof of the flaw.

The most common response that I encounter when speaking with others scientists about what they think peer-review is for, however, is some form of the following:

Peer-review improves the quality of published papers.

I’m about to get very meta here, but post-doc astronomer Sarah Kendrew recently wrote a piece in The Guardian titled, “Brian Cox is wrong: blogging your research is not a recipe for disaster”.


More than 120 computer-generated “gibberish” research papers are being removed from the archives of scientific journal publishers Springer and the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE) after a French computer scientist determined the papers were fakes.

The bogus research papers, it turns out, were created by an automated word generation program that can string random, seemingly sophisticated words together in plausible English syntax.

Scientific papers, especially those dealing with computer science and mathematics, as these fake papers were, feature reams of sophisticated jargon. Even legitimate papers can seem like gibberish to an unfamiliar reader.