4 ms·
It is wrong to believe just because a result cannot be replicated the original result is wrong or fraudulent. It can be totally normal and is to be expected tha
by stewbrew 5y ago
It is wrong to believe just because a result cannot be replicated the original result is wrong or fraudulent. It can be totally normal and is to be expected that a replication study fails to yield the same result just out of chance etc.
Sometimes things are even more complicated than you already believe them to be. And it may take more than just a replication study to say a study is wrong or fraudulent.
- beagle3 5y agoIt is wrong if it doesn’t replicate; it might not be fraudulent. But it is not right. If it doesn’t replicate, it should be relegated to “less than observational” level evidence. Why would you believe that the assumed intervention had the claimed effect, if it doesn’t have it when you try again?
- stewbrew 5y agoIn the present case, replication didn't fail because of statistics but because the experiment was impossible to reproduce. If it fails to replicate certain statistical outcomes, things are more complicated.
- goatlover 5y agoIt means the original result is an anomaly that doesn’t fit into a scientific understanding. Maybe there was an error in the experimental setup, or some unknown factor was at play, or the situation was unique. Whatever the case, nothing scientific can be determined if it can’t be replicated. It’s akin to the WOW SETI signal.