3 ms·
It absolutely isn't overblown, and "individual scientific papers have always been close to junk on average" is a pretty damning indictment. Meta-studies have f
by bart_spoon 5y ago
It absolutely isn't overblown, and "individual scientific papers have always been close to junk on average" is a pretty damning indictment.
Meta-studies have found that, depending on the field, up to 70% of published papers can't be reproduced. I'm not sure its possible for considering that a crisis to ever be "overblown".
- Retric 5y agoEven 30% of papers being reproducible is orders of magnitude better than random chance. That’s the signal that pushes science forward. As to old papers, go back to the 1950’s and plate tectonics was still being debated. What do you think the other geological papers where based on? When you read a specific older paper it’s generally because it stood the test fo time, but that’s just selection bias.