3 ms·
What is the rate of failure for "harder" sciences, does anyone know? In saying that I think there will be a self correcting mechanism in more physically based
by collyw 7y ago
What is the rate of failure for "harder" sciences, does anyone know?
In saying that I think there will be a self correcting mechanism in more physically based science. If something can be replicated it can be built upon and new discoveries made. If something can't be replicated it will end up being forgotten about.
Also I do think that science needs a way of reporting failed studies and failed replication. At the moment all the glory and funding go to studies that produce positive results. Producing a failed result is still valid science and should be doccumented.
- bumby 7y agoThere has been some attempt at this, with the SURE journal for unsurpising economics outcomes being one example. Unfortunately, this approach seems to be at odds with the incentive structure in academia
- BeetleB 7y agoIn all my time in academia, in my discipline (cross between engineering and physics), I never heard anyone try to replicate a study. No advisor would allow students to "waste" time on it. They were also pretty open in vocalizing that they didn't believe the result in paper X in journal Y. They knew the problem existed.
- BurningFrog 7y agoPretty sure dead and unconscious things are way easier to do objective science on. Psychology must be one of the hardest disciplines to design experiments for.