3 ms·
You present a view of journals as an outlet for correct results. Realistically, that's not possible, and I wish more people accepted that it's not possible. If
by bachmeier 6y ago
You present a view of journals as an outlet for correct results. Realistically, that's not possible, and I wish more people accepted that it's not possible. If a result is confirmed in many studies by many authors using many datasets and many methodologies, that's how we know we can trust a result. I personally do not put much weight on a single paper's results unless there's something special about it.
The most important thing is that everything about the investigation is open: the methodology (including everything not found in the paper), the programs, the data. It's more like posting code for a large project on Github and then new researchers make PRs to correct bugs or extend the program in useful ways.
- einpoklum 6y agoI think you're conflating correctness and degrees of validity. Yes, I expect journals to have to have correct results - not in the sense that the generalizations from their findings are universally valid, but in that the statements of fact and of logical implications are valid. To be more explicit: * "Events X, Y, Z occurred" <- expect this kind of sentences to be correct * "We did X, Y, Z" <- expect this kind of sentences to be correct * "A and A->B, so B" <- expect this kind of sentences to be correct * "We therefore conclude that X" <- Don't expect X to necessarily be correct.
- kansface 6y ago> in that the statements of fact and of logical implications are valid. See for example https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/05/07/5-httlpr-a-pointed-review/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/05/07/5-httlpr-a-pointed-rev... for a slightly different take.
- einpoklum 6y agoI don't see how that disagrees with what I wrote.