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 Read More…
Research integrity specialist: Too many research-misconduct investigations turn out to be inadequate or flawed
Trust science? No. Trust but verify.
Epstein:The result: The experts were, by and large, horrific forecasters.
Today, if we are surrounded by dangerous flimflam, we may also be surrounded by blowhards puffing for “science” on its behalf.
The National Academies of Science is wading into the longstanding mess over the validity of research findings. It doesn’t, of course, agree that there is a “crisis.” That said, the report also notes that the American public’s confidence in science hasn’t wavered at all in recent years, despite major news articles discussing the “crisis” in Read More…
She introduces SciMeter.org where you can “Create your own custom metric and apply it to a list of authors.” And it is none of Mark Zuckerberg’s business or any science boffin’s either.
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.