3 ms·
This ignores the labor market economics involved in research. If there was lots of pre-registration and always multiple replication attempts then there wouldn’t
by DataWorker 7y ago
This ignores the labor market economics involved in research. If there was lots of pre-registration and always multiple replication attempts then there wouldn’t be much of a replication crisis in the first place. It’s not frequentist stats that’s to blame, it’s the labor market for researchers.
- kansface 7y agoI appreciate your point, but surely both are problems? One is bad math while the other is a sort of a prisoners dilemma where everyone has already defected. I don't think changing the incentives would necessarily lead to better math or even that we have to change the incentives before changing the math.
- tomp 7y agoNo, the problem is much wider than just researchers. If for example the public, or at least the media, didn’t buy the bullshit they were selling (with high p values, non-public data and other shoddy statistical hacks), there wouldn’t be any replication crisis either. The general problem is that just stamping the word “science” on a black box that smells of poo gives it much more credibility than it should, and it often also prevents people from thinking critically.