4 ms·
The 95% CI for the original study contains zero? How does a study with a non-significant result which can't be replicated become "seminal"?
by evanpw 10y ago
The 95% CI for the original study contains zero? How does a study with a non-significant result which can't be replicated become "seminal"?
- lj3 10y ago> How does a study with a non-significant result which can't be replicated become "seminal"? How does anything become "seminal"? People we trust told us so. Whenever something like this happens, you should be asking yourself who you're trusting that you probably shouldn't be.
- coldtea 10y agoThe same way people write "citation needed" and then put their brains to sleep. It's not as if they will then go to replicate and evaluate those citations (if they were, they could just as well try to evaluate what the other person told them directly, or at least try finding those citations for or against it themselves). They just need some comforting assurances -- which will then repeat freely, few (or nobody) bothering to examine those "citations" at any step of the chain. For me, unless the science is old enough to be including in University 101 courses, I don't much care about it. Unless you work in the field (and will actually use and evaluate the results mentioned in it) a peer reviewed paper is worth almost nothing to the casual HN reader.
- mabcat 10y agoBy the way, "holding a pen in your mouth makes you feel smiley" is definitely in psych 101 courses, and social 201, and also showed up in cognition 301 if memory serves.