Sheldon: There are red flags all over this data, but the investigators are standing by their measurement. This is what irreproducible papers look like in physics, and why the same crisis that afflicts other disciplines also afflicts physics.
Educational psychologist Eric Loken points to some good outcomes in terms of more open science. But, he admits, only one in four scientists uses the techniques.
Researchers, says an experimental psychologist, generally know what they should do: Yet many researchers persist in working in a way almost guaranteed not to deliver meaningful results. They ride with what I refer to as the four horsemen of the reproducibility apocalypse: publication bias, low statistical power, P-value hacking and HARKing (hypothesizing after results are […]
In an era where even medical journals are urged to get woke, abandoning statistical significance could mean abandoning a refuge against Correct nonsense. As Brookshire writes, “Unfortunately, there is no single alternative that everyone agrees would be better for all experiments.” But that might just be what some factions want and need.
We’re still looking for the system that is smarter than anyone who will come along and invent another, smarter system.
Aw come on, it’s actually not all that complicated when you see it in action. One way you can know that liberal bias deepens the replication crisis is this: Consider the sheer number of ridiculous Sokal hoaxes that have played psychology journals.
Afterword: Many scientists think of themselves as philosopher kings, far superior to those in the “basket of deplorables.” The deplorables have a hard time understanding why scientists are so special, and why they should vote as instructed by them.
Of course, as science embraces post-modernism, “irrefutable nonsense” could be the new standard. Along with ever more strenuous demands that we trust science.
Let’s see where this goes. Will it lead to less magic with numbers or more and bigger magic?
A science writer asks, citing several distinctly odd viewpoints aired in the journal that was founded in 1823, including This year, the weirdness continued. A paper in The Lancet argued that certain food experts should be banned from food policy discussions. (Of course, the experts that should be banned are any that are associated with […]
So the genius of the tobacco companies’ strategy was that the research they funded was good research, just not about the effects of tobacco.
many of the people who might need the information would not have access to a university library that subscribes to expensive publications. How about people who are making decisions about cancer treatments who would like to find out if studies they have heard about were replicated?
Hmmm. To please Jerry, maybe the author will have to disappear too. 😉
Some of us remember the spate of sciencey articles that appeared in women’s mags on the cancer-prone personality. It sounded wrong at the time. Many of us knew so many people who had died of cancer who didn’t fit the type at all.
They tested that and came up with some dramatic variances. Remember that when you hear what neuroimaging supposedly shows about how people think.