That 'scientific certainty' in big medical studies? Sometimes it’s just because the researchers are buddies, not because the data is actually solid.
SocArXiv · March 16, 2026 · 2adyz_v3
AI-generated illustration
Why it matters
We trust systematic reviews to provide the final word on medical treatments. This research reveals that 'socio-epistemic bubbles'—where researchers collaborate closely—falsely amplify the perceived size and certainty of medical effects.
From the abstract
The paradigm of scientific medicine is among the most influential epistemic shifts in the past century, wherein randomized clinical trials (RCTs) represent the impartial arbiter of legitimate medical knowledge, a view prevalent among quantitative social scientists. Nevertheless, not all RCTs agree, and systematic reviews are invoked to reconcile them. These assume the wisdom of crowds, which hinges on diverse perspectives and data, across the distribution of analyzed studies, but socio-epistemic