3 ms·
It's a "win" for science in the sense that the truth was finally revealed. It's "loss" in the sense that our truth determining apparatus (e.g. peer review) app
by dudeinjapan 3y ago
It's a "win" for science in the sense that the truth was finally revealed.
It's "loss" in the sense that our truth determining apparatus (e.g. peer review) appears to be highly unreliable, and a massive, unquantified amount of bullshit research has already passed it and is actively being used as a foundation for subsequent research.
- dekhn 3y agoRealistically, we can't reduce false positives to absolutely zero without giving up on some True Positives (sensitivity/specificity tradeoff). Nature intentionally plays loose with potentially world-changing discoveries. It probably makes sense to have some journals that publish with fairly high rates of (post-hoc determined) false positives, simply to move the fields forward more quickly.
- dudeinjapan 3y agoExtraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence (and validation!)
- trogdor 3y agoPeer review is supposed to review the quality of the research. It is not supposed to validate the findings, let alone detect fraud.
- dudeinjapan 3y agoSo umm... I'm glad that peer review determined this room temperature superconductor paper was excellently researched. Also, it was a complete lie.