3 ms·

“reproducibility crisis” is a euphemism for “fake science”, which now, by the numbers, accounts for the majority of mainstream establishment science. Prove me

“reproducibility crisis” is a euphemism for “fake science”, which now, by the numbers, accounts for the majority of mainstream establishment science. Prove me wrong.

fsh 6y ago
"Fake science" implies intent to mislead. The reproducibility crisis is usually attributed to selection bias due to only positive results getting published.
- gonational 6y ago
  You could have five times the accuracy by simply flipping a coin to answer any yes or no question, compared to the level of accuracy in the “reproducibility crisis”. I don’t think this can be explained by “selection bias”, and, if it can, and I do believe that could also qualify the entire industry as “fake science”, if the industry cannot even get close to as accurate as a coin toss.
  - xapata 6y ago
    If you'd read the literature on the reproducibility issue, you'd understand the selection mechanism can easily create the observed phenomenon. By calling it "fake science" you're touching on the idea of a paradigm shift, that periodically the community changes its beliefs about what enables someone to know something or to be certain about something.
    - gonational 6y ago
      My thinking is that, if he’s published papers are a large part of the means by which we share scientific knowledge, then, regardless of the underlying mechanism to be blamed (e.g., selection bias), the entire institution has become corrupted. To illustrate, the literature that you’re describing is presumably in the form of meta-analyses published in Nature. How can we even trust that to be “reproducible” (aka correct)? I think the correct reaction to this situation is to completely stop trusting scientists and their papers, in general. Not trusting scientists add their papers doesn’t mean disbelieving science in general; it just means the established institutions do not know how to do science correctly, and I believe this has been the case since the beginning of modern science. That means we can learn things by reading between the lines and using some common sense, but we can’t simply rely on institutions to tell us the correct answer to anything whatsoever.
      - xapata 6y ago
        > presumably Incorrect. It's in the form of math. Deductive, not inductive. > completely stop trusting scientists and their papers ... since the beginning of modern science You are using a computer right now. You don't trust it? Now you're just trolling me.
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]

“reproducibility crisis” is a euphemism for “fake science”, which now, by the numbers, accounts for the majority of mainstream establishment science. Prove me wrong.

fsh 6y ago

"Fake science" implies intent to mislead. The reproducibility crisis is usually attributed to selection bias due to only positive results getting published.

gonational 6y ago
You could have five times the accuracy by simply flipping a coin to answer any yes or no question, compared to the level of accuracy in the “reproducibility crisis”. I don’t think this can be explained by “selection bias”, and, if it can, and I do believe that could also qualify the entire industry as “fake science”, if the industry cannot even get close to as accurate as a coin toss.
- xapata 6y ago
  If you'd read the literature on the reproducibility issue, you'd understand the selection mechanism can easily create the observed phenomenon. By calling it "fake science" you're touching on the idea of a paradigm shift, that periodically the community changes its beliefs about what enables someone to know something or to be certain about something.
  - gonational 6y ago
    My thinking is that, if he’s published papers are a large part of the means by which we share scientific knowledge, then, regardless of the underlying mechanism to be blamed (e.g., selection bias), the entire institution has become corrupted. To illustrate, the literature that you’re describing is presumably in the form of meta-analyses published in Nature. How can we even trust that to be “reproducible” (aka correct)? I think the correct reaction to this situation is to completely stop trusting scientists and their papers, in general. Not trusting scientists add their papers doesn’t mean disbelieving science in general; it just means the established institutions do not know how to do science correctly, and I believe this has been the case since the beginning of modern science. That means we can learn things by reading between the lines and using some common sense, but we can’t simply rely on institutions to tell us the correct answer to anything whatsoever.
    - xapata 6y ago
      > presumably Incorrect. It's in the form of math. Deductive, not inductive. > completely stop trusting scientists and their papers ... since the beginning of modern science You are using a computer right now. You don't trust it? Now you're just trolling me.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]