4 ms·
> If you become known for producing highly biased research that can't be replicated this is surely going to impact your career so there's a strong incentive to
by kayodelycaon 5y ago
> If you become known for producing highly biased research that can't be replicated this is surely going to impact your career so there's a strong incentive to keep this in check?
I would strongly say no.
If the vast majority of studies in the “soft” sciences are already not reproducible, the risk to a person’s career is minimal.
This is before accounting for the pattern of prioritizing short term gains over mitigating long-term risk, especially if that risk is considered to be low.
- SamoyedFurFluff 5y ago> If the vast majority of studies in the “soft” sciences are already not reproducible, the risk to a person’s career is minimal. Let’s not be so arrogant as to say this is isolated to the soft sciences. Soft science is only the most obvious because it’s much harder to run science experiments in the real world. Let’s not forget the fact a computer science PhD student committed suicide because of the degree of academic fakery he was being forced to participate in at an elite institution. That we still have nonsense like unreproduceable ML papers, and physics has multiple examples of older models being wrong and only being held up by the political power of the academics who built their careers off them.