3 ms·

I find the article's implication that replication of scientific studies is something invented at Yale in the 21st century beyond preposterous. And I'm certain

• freshhawk 11y ago
  They implied that actually doing the replication of already published studies in the social sciences being considered a normal thing was the result, for these researchers, of being exposed to this attitude at Yale. I don't know Yale, but I know enough to know this attitude had to come from somewhere, since the norm is that replication is not just unrewarded, but often actively discouraged. Hence the generally shittiness of social science results. This seems to be changing as the results of the combination of WEIRD bias, the filedrawer effect, these social norms and other problems have been recognized and done serious damage to the reputation of the social sciences (for good reason).
• pasquinelli 11y ago
  sure rebunk's a word. they may be using the word in a strange way, i can't say, since they don't like my ad blocker, but the "bunk" in debunk is just the old-time way of saying bullshit, and the "de" is the prefix relating removal, like debug or dehydrate. no reason "re" can't be attached to bunk in the same way, yielding another verb.