4 ms·
> “But we were also scared about it being a [mistake]. We took six years to verify it.” In the field of psychology (and likely others) the results would have b
by chmod775 8y ago
> “But we were also scared about it being a [mistake]. We took six years to verify it.”
In the field of psychology (and likely others) the results would have been published six years ago.
This shows how scientific standards and diligence can vary from field to field.
- fifnir 8y agoI don't see why everything published needs to be the absolute truth (which of course nothing can be). If they had published six years ago, the whole community would have been able to validate and confirm in those six years, instead of just their own lab. Someone in a different lab might have had a better idea and the thing could be validated in two years instead of six. As long as results are transparently and reproducibly shared, knowledge is knowledge and there's no reason to hide it.
- tru3_power 8y agoThat’s very true for the scientific audience consuming the paper- but often times media outlets convey anything published as accurate
- naasking 8y agoAgreed, but there's no doubt some ego and prestige at stake for a) not wanting to look stupid for making an elementary mistake, and b) being the one to upend currently accepted wisdom. There's probably a balance to be struck between these, but sometimes it might just take 6 years.
- koheripbal 8y agoOn Social Media the results would have been published six years before the research even started and political tweets would have already labelled opponents for believing the wrong thing.
- jmcqk6 8y agoTo turn this into a criticism of other fields is kind of ridiculous. You can easily find many examples of people in hard sciences rushing to publish - some to the point of having very significant consequences. Andrew Wakefield and vaccines and autism spring to mind. Cold fusion is another example. >This shows how scientific standards and diligence can vary from field to field. No they vary from person to person, journal to journal, school to school, lab to lab. Some fields might tend to do better than others, but why turn this into a field v. field issue?
- ReptileMan 8y agoWakefield was fraud all along. So definitely not a good example.
- jmcqk6 8y agoOkay, just mix in another example instead. How about faster than light neutrinos?
- ReptileMan 8y agoThe scientists team from Italy deliberately let other people try and reproduce results before publishing and they actually refused to mwke claims. They found problem with the equipment.
- RobertRoberts 8y agoIn the spirit of science, I suggest you actually listen to what Wakefield says from his own mouth. A few points most people don't know: 1. He wasn't against vaccines. 2. He found a "correlation" between gut inflammation and autism. 3. His paper in the 90s didn't say vaccines caused autism. (that I recall reading anyway)
- ReptileMan 8y agoHe was shopping for lawsuit and he used shady laboratories IIRC. So he knew he wasn't doing proper science.
- RobertRoberts 8y agoAgain, science, not politics or propaganda. Listen to what he actually said. He knows his sample size was small, he knows he couldn't make any absolute conclusions at the beginning. He simply found something unexpected and reported on it. I would challenge you to read his papers, go to youtube and watch a presentation of his and see what he actually says, not repeat accusations from others against him. I think you will be surprised that he doesn't believe/teach most of what people accuse him of. Edit: Merck caught lying about their measles vaccines. (an actual lawsuit from 2 virologists, the court papers are linked in the article) https://www.courthousenews.com/Class-Says-Merck-Lied-About-Mumps-Vaccine/ https://www.courthousenews.com/Class-Says-Merck-Lied-About-M...