6 ms·

The Replication Crisis is real, denying that is anti-intellectual. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_c

by yucky 4y ago

The Replication Crisis is real, denying that is anti-intellectual. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis

Retric 4y ago
Calling something a crisis is arbitrary. So it both is and isn’t a crisis based on completely arbitrary metrics.
- yucky 4y ago
  I encourage you to dig in to the sources posted. The majority of published research can't be and/or hasn't been replicated. That's a crisis by any definition, especially with the amount of idiots running around bleating about "the science is settled" or "trust the science" or whatever catch phrase.
  - Retric 4y ago
    The degree to which the science is settled varies wildly by topic and that’s ok. Nutrition is perceived to be filled with a lot of junk, but without dietary vitamin C you will die. That’s settled even inside a field filled with debate. Individual papers where never intended to be the final arbiters of truth, that’s not their role. If nobody thinks things are worth looking into again then stuff stays in a very nebulous state which is no worse than where things where before a paper was published.
    - yucky 4y ago
      >If nobody thinks things are worth looking into again then stuff stays in a very nebulous state which is no worse than where things where before a paper was published. I don't think so, because of the aforementioned idiots who take a study that can't even be replicated but then cite the paper as evidence for something. If it can't be replicated, logic would say there is a very good chance it's inaccurate. Yet it's treated as being "settled science" which is worse. Also, many times it isn't that nobody thinks it's worth looking into again, it's that coming to "the wrong conclusion" on some things will end their careers so they'd rather play it safe and just keep sucking up grant money to pump out more of the same garbage.
      - Retric 4y ago
        If it’s not worth looking into again then the answer isn’t important. As to what idiots do, they quite literally aren’t worth paying attention to.
    - JamesianP 4y ago
      Those bad papers are an impediment. It's much harder to get your paper/proposal past reviewers when it's for solving a problem someone else claims to have solved already. Also, even if you do get past that higher barrier at an added expense and time (reviewers will want a lot more evidence to support a claim refuting a prior claim versus a groundbreaking new claim), the person who usually gets cited more, funded more, and a bigger career advantage is still the person who's non-replicable publication was first.
  - jhgkjhlkhjkljk 4y ago

by yucky 4y ago

The Replication Crisis is real, denying that is anti-intellectual. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis

Retric 4y ago

Calling something a crisis is arbitrary. So it both is and isn’t a crisis based on completely arbitrary metrics.

yucky 4y ago
I encourage you to dig in to the sources posted. The majority of published research can't be and/or hasn't been replicated. That's a crisis by any definition, especially with the amount of idiots running around bleating about "the science is settled" or "trust the science" or whatever catch phrase.
- Retric 4y ago
  The degree to which the science is settled varies wildly by topic and that’s ok. Nutrition is perceived to be filled with a lot of junk, but without dietary vitamin C you will die. That’s settled even inside a field filled with debate. Individual papers where never intended to be the final arbiters of truth, that’s not their role. If nobody thinks things are worth looking into again then stuff stays in a very nebulous state which is no worse than where things where before a paper was published.
  - yucky 4y ago
    >If nobody thinks things are worth looking into again then stuff stays in a very nebulous state which is no worse than where things where before a paper was published. I don't think so, because of the aforementioned idiots who take a study that can't even be replicated but then cite the paper as evidence for something. If it can't be replicated, logic would say there is a very good chance it's inaccurate. Yet it's treated as being "settled science" which is worse. Also, many times it isn't that nobody thinks it's worth looking into again, it's that coming to "the wrong conclusion" on some things will end their careers so they'd rather play it safe and just keep sucking up grant money to pump out more of the same garbage.
    - Retric 4y ago
      If it’s not worth looking into again then the answer isn’t important. As to what idiots do, they quite literally aren’t worth paying attention to.
  - JamesianP 4y ago
    Those bad papers are an impediment. It's much harder to get your paper/proposal past reviewers when it's for solving a problem someone else claims to have solved already. Also, even if you do get past that higher barrier at an added expense and time (reviewers will want a lot more evidence to support a claim refuting a prior claim versus a groundbreaking new claim), the person who usually gets cited more, funded more, and a bigger career advantage is still the person who's non-replicable publication was first.
- jhgkjhlkhjkljk 4y ago