5 ms·

I don't think it was wasted. It's well invested capital and time to find out whether something is true or not That's how science work. No matter what we do to

I don't think it was wasted. It's well invested capital and time to find out whether something is true or not That's how science work. No matter what we do to discourage fraud, we'll always invest tons of capital and time to find and filter it out.

linspace 5y ago
It would be better that independent studies tried to detect errors, not fraud. Sometimes it is difficult to distinguish between both but of there is a track record of fraud no reputable journal should accept more papers from that source. Edit: As I re-read my comment I worry because research should not really depend on "prestige", it should be based on cold facts. On the other hand I don't see any other way to deal with malicious actors.
- rmbyrro 5y ago
  There will always be fraud and we will always need to invest in trying to reproduce everything in order to sort them out. It's absurd to think there will be a way to know which studies need reproduction or not. The whole purpose of reproducing is to find out which ones are true and which are bogus
bilekas 5y ago
> It's well invested capital and time to find out whether something is true or not But it was known not to be true, and so people were sent under false pretenses to go and reproduce and verify it. That is far from well invested.
- rmbyrro 5y ago
  Expecting all scientists to be honest is wishful thinking. We will always need to invest in finding error and fraud, no matter how we perceive scientists honesty. The moment we stop doing these investment, we're doomed.
  - EricE 5y ago
    Science is never settled? Unpossible!
himinlomax 5y ago
That's like saying money spent fighting arson is well invested because you have extinguish accidental fires sometimes anyway.
- waffleiron 5y ago
  Closely related: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window
  - rmbyrro 5y ago
    I don't think it's related. We need to reproduce every single study, including the fraudulent ones. Gosh, ESPECIALLY the fraudulent ones. But we can't possibly know in advance which are which. That's the whole purpose of trying to reproduce. Without reproduction efforts, scientific papers are of no value, as we can't trust them. In this sense, a paper without reproduction effort is not a "window" in the analogy. Only after reproduction efforts it becomes a window. So saying it's a waste to try reproducing an article is just absurd. It's like saying it's a waste to produce the "window" in the first place because a kid might break it in the future (in case of the paper, that we might figure out the paper was fraudulent). It's still valuable to find out a paper was fraudulent. It builds trust in the whole scientific endeavor.
    - _Nat_ 5y ago
      Then how do you trust the replication-studies? Just keep replicating them, too? The overall process assumes trustworthiness. The better that assumption holds, the better science performs.
      - EricE 5y ago
        I don't think many serious scientists would consider assumptions a valuable part of the scientific method.
        5y ago

linspace 5y ago

It would be better that independent studies tried to detect errors, not fraud. Sometimes it is difficult to distinguish between both but of there is a track record of fraud no reputable journal should accept more papers from that source. Edit: As I re-read my comment I worry because research should not really depend on "prestige", it should be based on cold facts. On the other hand I don't see any other way to deal with malicious actors.

rmbyrro 5y ago
There will always be fraud and we will always need to invest in trying to reproduce everything in order to sort them out. It's absurd to think there will be a way to know which studies need reproduction or not. The whole purpose of reproducing is to find out which ones are true and which are bogus

bilekas 5y ago

> It's well invested capital and time to find out whether something is true or not But it was known not to be true, and so people were sent under false pretenses to go and reproduce and verify it. That is far from well invested.

rmbyrro 5y ago
Expecting all scientists to be honest is wishful thinking. We will always need to invest in finding error and fraud, no matter how we perceive scientists honesty. The moment we stop doing these investment, we're doomed.
- EricE 5y ago
  Science is never settled? Unpossible!

himinlomax 5y ago

That's like saying money spent fighting arson is well invested because you have extinguish accidental fires sometimes anyway.

waffleiron 5y ago
Closely related: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window
- rmbyrro 5y ago
  I don't think it's related. We need to reproduce every single study, including the fraudulent ones. Gosh, ESPECIALLY the fraudulent ones. But we can't possibly know in advance which are which. That's the whole purpose of trying to reproduce. Without reproduction efforts, scientific papers are of no value, as we can't trust them. In this sense, a paper without reproduction effort is not a "window" in the analogy. Only after reproduction efforts it becomes a window. So saying it's a waste to try reproducing an article is just absurd. It's like saying it's a waste to produce the "window" in the first place because a kid might break it in the future (in case of the paper, that we might figure out the paper was fraudulent). It's still valuable to find out a paper was fraudulent. It builds trust in the whole scientific endeavor.
  - _Nat_ 5y ago
    Then how do you trust the replication-studies? Just keep replicating them, too? The overall process assumes trustworthiness. The better that assumption holds, the better science performs.
    - EricE 5y ago
      I don't think many serious scientists would consider assumptions a valuable part of the scientific method.
      - 5y ago