4 ms·

> That's not a crisis, if I understand correctly what you mean. Failed replication is an essential part of science.... Right, but the replication crisis is a b

by dash2 4y ago

> That's not a crisis, if I understand correctly what you mean. Failed replication is an essential part of science.... Right, but the replication crisis is a broad term for a bunch of people, in a bunch of disciplines, worrying that their work might not replicate for reasons like p hacking, forking paths, etc. I mentioned those particular studies because they made people sit up and go "hey, there's a bigger problem here". The OSC paper came out of this situation, it didn't start it. Other symptoms include that spoof paper where listening to newer music "made participants younger". Andrew Gelman's blog. Etc. Etc.

wolverine876 4y ago
> the replication crisis is a broad term for a bunch of people, in a bunch of disciplines, worrying that their work might not replicate for reasons like p hacking, forking paths, etc. Is there something serious - non-partisan, sophisticated, informed - that covers this? Gelman's blog mostly argues by dismissive tone, sadly (though people can't seem to get enough of that on the Internet!).
- dash2 4y ago
  Gelman's tone may be dismissive, but he's a serious statistician and is taken seriously by the community, I think.
  - wolverine876 4y ago
    > he's a serious statistician and is taken seriously by the community Absolutely and I'm sure Gelman's scholarly work is taken seriously. But as Gelman says: Brilliance represents an upper bound on the quality of your reasoning, but there is no lower bound. The most brilliant scientist in the world can take really dumb stances. ... The best driver in the world can still decide to turn the steering wheel and crash into a tree. [0] I don't think the blog is at the upper bound. I think many - including many smart, very human people - get taken in by path of (unfortunately) socially normative Internet rhetoric - it's easy to follow (requires conscious effort to avoid) and socially rewarding - which is heavy on contempt and outrage as the primary forces, as if they indicated truth or value, and not evidence and reason. [0] https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2022/06/08/how-can-a-top-scientist-be-so-confidently-wrong-r-a-fisher-and-smoking-example/ https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2022/06/08/how-can-a-...

by dash2 4y ago

wolverine876 4y ago

> the replication crisis is a broad term for a bunch of people, in a bunch of disciplines, worrying that their work might not replicate for reasons like p hacking, forking paths, etc. Is there something serious - non-partisan, sophisticated, informed - that covers this? Gelman's blog mostly argues by dismissive tone, sadly (though people can't seem to get enough of that on the Internet!).

dash2 4y ago
Gelman's tone may be dismissive, but he's a serious statistician and is taken seriously by the community, I think.
- wolverine876 4y ago
  > he's a serious statistician and is taken seriously by the community Absolutely and I'm sure Gelman's scholarly work is taken seriously. But as Gelman says: Brilliance represents an upper bound on the quality of your reasoning, but there is no lower bound. The most brilliant scientist in the world can take really dumb stances. ... The best driver in the world can still decide to turn the steering wheel and crash into a tree. [0] I don't think the blog is at the upper bound. I think many - including many smart, very human people - get taken in by path of (unfortunately) socially normative Internet rhetoric - it's easy to follow (requires conscious effort to avoid) and socially rewarding - which is heavy on contempt and outrage as the primary forces, as if they indicated truth or value, and not evidence and reason. [0] https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2022/06/08/how-can-a-top-scientist-be-so-confidently-wrong-r-a-fisher-and-smoking-example/ https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2022/06/08/how-can-a-...