In science, as in life, we are continually presented with new evidence that potentially alters our view of reality. We have hypotheses about reality and these hypotheses are subject to adjustment or replacement in the light of new information. However, we are rightly reluctant to discard well-established models of reality every time some new information calls them into question. To do so would place us at the mercy of poorly collected data and chance outliers. New evidence must be weighed against pre-existing evidence and alternative explanations for new data must be considered.
References
1.
GoodmanS.N.Introduction to Bayesian methods I: measuring the strength of evidence.Clin Trials2005; 2: 282–290.
2.
SterneJ.A., Davey SmithG.Sifting the evidence-what's wrong with significance tests?BMJ2001; 322: 226–231.
3.
SpiegelhalterD.J., MylesJ.P., JonesD.R., AbramsK.R.Bayesian methods in health technology assessment: a review.Health Technol Assess2000; 4: 1–130.
4.
TverskyA., KahnemanD.Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases.Science1974; 185: 1124–1131.
5.
IoannidisJ.P.A.Why most published research findings are false.PLoS Med2005; 2: e124.
6.
ISIS-4 (Fourth International Study of Infarct Survival) Collaborative Group.ISIS-4: a randomised factorial trial assessing early oral captopril, oral mononitrate, and intravenous magnesium sulphate in 58,050 patients with suspected acute myocardial infarction.Lancet1995; 345: 669–685.
7.
POISE Study Group, DevereauxP.J., YangH., YusufS., GuyattG., LeslieK.Effects of extended-release metoprolol succinate in patients undergoing non-cardiac surgery (POISE trial): a randomised controlled trial.Lancet2008; 371: 1839–1847.