3 ms·
But this is just par for the course. Most studies are flawed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisi
by verisimi 5y ago
But this is just par for the course. Most studies are flawed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis
"A 2016 poll of 1,500 scientists reported that 70% of them had failed to reproduce at least one other scientist's experiment (50% had failed to reproduce one of their own experiments)."
or at least - this is what it used to say! This has been memory holed.
and
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-39054778 https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-39054778
"According to a survey published in the journal Nature last summer, more than 70% of researchers have tried and failed to reproduce another scientist's experiments."
- bigbillheck 5y agoThere's still plenty of verbage on wiki about this, including more recent work. (Or maybe that Nature survey failed to reproduce?)
- verisimi 5y agoThey have altered the page to be about psychology, economics and water resource management as well as medicine. If you look at this page, you feel as if you have stumbled into some psychological/sociological discussion. This, to me, is an example of how wiki editors are trying to dampen down the implications of the replication crisis. Take a look at the current version against previous versions, eg: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Replication_crisis&oldid=937393753 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Replication_crisi... The strong "Overall" statement early in the article is gone, and instead we have lots of dull, makeweight context and background.