Odds are, it's wrong

From Science News.com:

For better or for worse, science has long been married to mathematics. Generally it has been for the better. Especially since the days of Galileo and Newton, math has nurtured science. Rigorous mathematical methods have secured science’s fidelity to fact and conferred a timeless reliability to its findings.

During the past century, though, a mutant form of math has deflected science’s heart from the modes of calculation that had long served so faithfully. Science was seduced by statistics, the math rooted in the same principles that guarantee profits for Las Vegas casinos. Supposedly, the proper use of statistics makes relying on scientific results a safe bet. But in practice, widespread misuse of statistical methods makes science more like a crapshoot.

Replicating a result helps establish its validity more securely, but the common tactic of combining numerous studies into one analysis, while sound in principle, is seldom conducted properly in practice. [read more]

Combining studies is just plain laziness. Chalk it up to human nature I guess. But what if one of the studies is wrong? A scientist can just make up results (see Jan Hendrick Schön and Woo Suk Hwang for instance) or miscalculate or mismeasure for whatever reason. Maybe they got sloppy because of a deadline. Or maybe they get a lot of money if they produce a certain result. Who knows. Whatever the reason, wrong experimental results could skew your results. It is better to test the results yourself. Yea, I know this takes time and effort but you know personally if the results fit the experiment.