4 ms·

I take a deep exception to the idea that a group of scientists attempting to reproduce the published work of their peers is, in any way, "an attack". Casting t

• jerf 15y ago
  That is a reaction to the statement from the original article: "Nosek told Science that a senior colleague warned him not to take this on “because psychology is under threat and this could make us look bad.” In a Google discussion group, one of the researchers involved in the project wrote that it was important to stay “on message” and portray the effort to the news media as “protecting our science, not tearing it down.”" I see they say threat in that text, not attack, which appears elsewhere. Might I point out that if you carefully read my post it is vehemently agreeing that replication is necessary, and from there it should seem logical that I would not consider something necessary an "attack".
  • roc 15y ago
    I'm sorry I wasn't more clear. I was agreeing with you. I was just trying to draw focus to just that particular point and its implications.
• mangodrunk 15y ago
  "Reproducing results is science. Perhaps the most important kind." Right, which is the problem because it's supposedly not being done and/or there are incentives against it for three journals of a particular field. This could be a larger problem in other fields as well. Saying what you said is right, but if the system is setup to be against it, then there is a problem.