> Maybe with a strong effect for every single subject a little more skepticism would have been warranted in the first place? It is easy to think over these lin

> Maybe with a strong effect for every single subject a little more skepticism would have been warranted in the first place? It is easy to think over these lines in hindsight[1], but it is much harder to do it when there are no known mistakes. Obviously they had some plausible hypothesis, which predicted and explained results. The more strong result is, the better for hypothesis. I mean it was possible and maybe wise to suspect bug because results are too good. But it is hard from a cognitive standpoint. She describes bug as hard to find even after she found that results do not reproduce. It was even more hard to find this bug when there were less reasons to believe that there is a bug. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindsight_bias https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindsight_bias