4 ms·
Is the scientific method, or more generally modern science and how it is distributed to those outside the field, so poorly designed that not disclosing ties inv
by SkyBelow 2y ago
Is the scientific method, or more generally modern science and how it is distributed to those outside the field, so poorly designed that not disclosing ties invalidates what was communicated? If so, sounds like we shouldn't be relying on such a method as a source of truth for policy making, or at least treating it with much more skepticism. Are we perhaps using science to inform policy makers before there are multiple independent replications which would make an instance of ethical disregard less likely to influence the outcome?
Hiding things, even by omission, is not acceptable. But think of it like a CI/CD system where a junior dev takes down prod. No matter what mistake they made, no matter why they made the mistake, the system shouldn't be so weak that their mistake caused any significant issues. (Please ignore for a moment the junior dev isn't acting with a level of ethnical disregard such as seen by not disclosing ties; the comparison isn't perfect.)
- A_D_E_P_T 2y ago> Is the scientific method, or more generally modern science and how it is distributed to those outside the field, so poorly designed that not disclosing ties invalidates what was communicated? Basically, yeah. There's the famous replication crisis, and of course p-hacking. There's also the forking garden problem, e.g. in: http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~gelman/research/unpublished/p_hacking.pdf http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~gelman/research/unpublished/p_... Put it like this: If you're motivated to reach a certain conclusion in the soft sciences, odds are that you're going to find it. (But not that other researchers who come after you will find the same thing.)