3 ms·

This is interesting. I have a couple of points. It says: "To be sure, the problem seems much less acute in harder sciences – e.g., physics, chemistry, cosmol

This is interesting. I have a couple of points. It says: "To be sure, the problem seems much less acute in harder sciences – e.g., physics, chemistry, cosmology – that have an established tradition of skepticism, replication, or even blinding researchers to their own conclusions." Of is this because there are very few people who are trying to replicate the studies? The equipment is a barrier. Its not clear... My second point regards innovation, is that surely replicability is essential. If studies aren't reliably replicated, what exactly can the innovation be? So I see replication as a core issue. Replicability is also only one of the problems science faces. The other issue that isn't well discussed, is that funding comes from 3 sources by and large - the government, the military and corporations. We, as individuals, cannot assume that this method of funding will serve our interests. Why would studies on 'good food' receive funding over a new type of medication. When the funding is tied to profit, or vested interests, there is only so much inclination to 'rock the boat'. But in general, I'm certainly glad this very major issue is being discussed. I'm not holding my breath for any solutions. And I only wish there was greater awareness of how much trust, or faith, goes into un-skeptical acceptance of scientific pronouncements.

Supermancho 6y ago
> Of is this because there are very few people who are trying to replicate the studies? Getting funding to replicate an experiment, which necessarily expanded to spend all of the available funding for the initial experiment so as to minimize the problemspace, is problematic with inflation alone. Imagine how human organizations work. Decisioning about spending relies more on past data than unknown data. If an experiment is in question, that's an unknown. If a finding exists that's a known, so why bother spending to reduce value? This is typical CYA thinking.
- feralimal 6y ago
  Yes. I think we're agreeing... The costs are prohibitive, so why do check? And if you know you aren't likely to get checked and you're running a study that would be very nice to have a particular outcome, well, wouldn't it be nice to get that outcome? Only, that's not how science is meant to work.
zby 6y ago
I imagine that in physics the experiments are more guided by theory - there are less 'random' experiments - like for example the recent testing if some random substance cures Covid19. When you have lots of random experiments - some of them will be just accidents, and it is the accidents that would get published - because they are the new and exciting news.

Supermancho 6y ago

> Of is this because there are very few people who are trying to replicate the studies? Getting funding to replicate an experiment, which necessarily expanded to spend all of the available funding for the initial experiment so as to minimize the problemspace, is problematic with inflation alone. Imagine how human organizations work. Decisioning about spending relies more on past data than unknown data. If an experiment is in question, that's an unknown. If a finding exists that's a known, so why bother spending to reduce value? This is typical CYA thinking.

feralimal 6y ago
Yes. I think we're agreeing... The costs are prohibitive, so why do check? And if you know you aren't likely to get checked and you're running a study that would be very nice to have a particular outcome, well, wouldn't it be nice to get that outcome? Only, that's not how science is meant to work.

zby 6y ago

I imagine that in physics the experiments are more guided by theory - there are less 'random' experiments - like for example the recent testing if some random substance cures Covid19. When you have lots of random experiments - some of them will be just accidents, and it is the accidents that would get published - because they are the new and exciting news.