Would these newer approaches to science publishing make it easier to discuss difficult topics? For example, if Gunter Bechly could have been evaluated only on his work and not on the fact that he switched sides in the Darwin wars, wouldn’t that be better for everyone but Darwin trolls?
But look on the bright side. At least they care. In the social sciences, it’s the guy revealing flimflam who gets punished. But why, exactly, is a PhD so important? The Sokal hoax-ees all have PhDs, probably, and what good did that ever do?
The panic in sociology, psychology, nutrition science, and pharmacology has been growing as >70% papers with “p-values” smaller than 0.05 are discovered to be unrepeatable.
The historic moment here is the university’s awesome lack of a sense of shame. At one time, people would ask hard questions of themselves if they looked as silly as this, rather than rushing to blame someone else.
It sounds like, in their ideal scenario, the rest of us would never know, except for our own experience, if what they are saying is incorrect.
In the midst of all the sham, scam, and flimflam in journals today, here’s a story of a real-life data detective who makes a difference.
The distinction is that low-quality papers might happen to fall through the cracks now and then and a cherry picker could gin up an indictment of a whole field unjustly. BUT when a number of hoax papers get accepted by various journals, that points to deeper systemic rot. Especially when the social science profs are enraged rather than ashamed
Another question: Why are so many studies done about why laypeople don’t trust science and comparatively few done on what’s the matter with people who DO “trust science” in an atmosphere where this stuff seems to flourish unchecked?
Laws concerning the way people behave around numbers mean that quantification itself invites certain types of corruption.
But maybe this historian of science’s idea can’t work. Many doctors are prepared to slay beautiful theories for the sake of the lives of their patients. Have social scientists any similar motivation?
Gillis’s overly respectful view of Correct science media stems from one key problem with his assumptions: He assumes that the rise of junk science is mainly due to new publishing technology. No, naturalism is the cause.
The problem is that people can come to think of approved stagnation as a duty and stagnating as a virtue. If a genius comes along, with new ideas, they have lost the habit of listening with expectation.
The researchers who cold not replicate that “conservatives’ brains are more attuned to threats” were dismissed by the AAAS journal Science with no reasonable explanation.
Robert J. Marks, author with design theorist William Dembski and Winston Ewert of Introduction to Evolutionary Informatics talks with Gary Smith, author The AI Delusion, about how, in general, based data is produced Smith: Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy # 1 is that I’m going to prove what a great shot I am and so I stand […]
Research integrity specialist: Too many research-misconduct investigations turn out to be inadequate or flawed