3 ms·

If you feel like bad science and poorly supported practices are up your alley, I build a Chrome extension to flash an overlay on your browser at specifiable fre

• whymauri 8y ago
  You may want to justify why it is "bad science" and write a letter to the editor of Nature and Nature Protocols. Is the media interpretation of these studies misguided? Sure, but the popular science media is not doing the science. I would be peeved if people called my research "bad science" because some pop. sci. article doesn't understand it.
  • fao_ 8y ago
    Nature is hardly the top of the crust these days with regards to academic oversight. I can recall quite easily that a while back they published an article confirming ESP, and then refused to publish a replication of the same paper stating no results. Because the first one sells issues and the second one doesn't.
    • mattkrause 8y ago
      Nature does love flashy stories but the ESP stuff wasn’t them, it was JPSP. Here’s the citation: Bem, D. J. (2011). Feeling the future: Experimental evidence for anomalous retroactive influences on cognition and affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100(3), 407-425. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0021524 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0021524 Nature did publish a thing on “water memory” in the 1980s. To their (partial) credit, it was published with an editorial pointing out how unlikely the findings were.
      • fao_ 8y ago
        Thank you for the correction! :)
• samplatt 8y ago
  Good GOD man, WHY