Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

replication crisis

Canadian journal pleads: Make science skepticism great again

At C2C Journal: After several years of meticulously documented research, in 2020 the seven-member team, including Raby and Roche, published a comprehensive refutation of the “Crazy Nemo” thesis in the prestigious science journal Nature. Some of the team went further and requested various international funding bodies investigate Munday and Dixson for academic misconduct since their work contained statistical anomalies generally associated with data fraud. “There are irregularities in the data that need to be investigated,” states Roche firmly. Read More ›

Trust in science: How the replication crisis got started

Sarah Perry: In my experience, it is the norm, rather than the exception, for cited claims in popular science books and review papers to misstate the claims of their sources. Read More ›

Big (?) Surprise: Cool, glitzy papers less likely to be replicated

Of course. The papers that are unlikely to be replicated are mostly going to be stuff that people want and need to believe that isn’t necessarily so. Or not demonstrated via the sources that gave rise to the paper, anyway. To begin any kind of serious analysis, we would need to classify the papers by general theme and general drift. That might give us a picture of what type of finding is too readily believed. But is it a picture anyone wants? Who, that has any say in the process, can really afford it? Read More ›

At Nature: Surviving the “reproducibility apocalypse”

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 known). My generation and the one before us have done little to rein these in.Dorothy Bishop, “Rein in the four horsemen of irreproducibility” at Nature That’s interesting, considering how often we were ordered to see science as the relentless pursuit of truth. If we start with something as basic as giving up gimmicks, maybe we’ll get further. She offers some thoughts on suggested reforms. Follow Read More ›

Report: That so many studies cannot be reproduced is a “crisis” in science

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. Read More ›

Researchers: Double down on theory like “natural selection” to solve replication crisis

At Nature Human Behaviour, we are told that the replication crisis is due to lack of rigid adherence to such a theory: Science, he explains, is about accumulating sets of observations that occur reliably—the Sun appears at different places in the sky depending on the season and time of day; finches have different shaped beaks depending on what they eat. “That’s the raw ingredients,” he says. “To make sense of it requires a framework to say, this is how all these different facts fit together, and this is why.” We explain these observations by developing theoretical models—of how the Earth rotates around the Sun on a tilted axis, of natural selection. Cathleen O’Grady, “The replication crisis may also be a Read More ›