3 ms·
>"have never heard a compelling suggestion with what to replace it and why the replacement would be better" You can't just replace/remove peer review and expec
by nonbel 9y ago
>"have never heard a compelling suggestion with what to replace it and why the replacement would be better"
You can't just replace/remove peer review and expect things to improve. It is part of the whole "assembly line" science environment that was created when the US government became the primary source of funding in the 1940s or so.
If we want functioning science, we need to replace at least two things:
1) The search for "significant" p-values with comparing precise predictions to data.
2) Peer review with independent replication.
Both are pretty much just reverting to how things worked earlier.
- BeetleB 9y ago>The search for "significant" p-values with comparing precise predictions to data. Problems: 1. Not sure we have a decent alternative. 2. While p-values are heavily used in some fields (social sciences, medicine, etc) they are not in others (e.g. physics). Yet those other disciplines still have similar problems.
- nonbel 9y agoWhat do you mean about not having a decent alternative? The perfect alternative is given in the second part of what you quoted. Also, I see that physics is now starting to rely on statistical significance (eg LIGO), which I guarantee will be to their detriment. They are just behind those other fields in adopting it.