3 ms·
> if the work was politically motivated then it won't be reproducible. Why not? If indeed there is a bias ib social science then we could expect some conclusio
by aaplok 4y ago
> if the work was politically motivated then it won't be reproducible.
Why not? If indeed there is a bias ib social science then we could expect some conclusions to remain unpublished if they contradict the bias. But I don't see why the results that do get published wouldn't be reproducible.
- ceeplusplus 4y ago> But I don't see why the results that do get published wouldn't be reproducible The very article we are reading illustrates why published results can be irreproducible and indeed completely made up. The Losada research cited was invalid [1] yet nobody questioned it because it fit their views of how humans should interact (positivity ratio implies some form of constructive criticism, which is often taught in Western schools as the ideal way to give feedback to someone). Any attempt by a sceptic to reproduce it would have realized that the "math" used to model the positivity ratio was wrong. The authors themselves state in the article they still believe the positivity ratio idea even though the Losada research was shown to be egregiously wrong. [1] https://retractionwatch.com/2014/07/29/positivity-ratio-research-now-subject-to-an-expression-of-concern/ https://retractionwatch.com/2014/07/29/positivity-ratio-rese...
- ModernMech 4y agoMost research isn’t reproduced because it’s not economically lucrative for researchers to reproduce research. It’s that simple. If you want scientists to reproduce research, make funding available for that purpose. It has nothing to do with political biases. I mean, if you’re talking about completely made up research then that’s a matter of fraud, not political biases.