4 ms·

> I don't agree that need we tons more "rigor" in science, instead it would be better to have clearer communication along with less busy work. We do, even with

> I don't agree that need we tons more "rigor" in science, instead it would be better to have clearer communication along with less busy work. We do, even with a self-correcting system. Spurious interpretations and dodgy conclusions remain in the literature forever and the signal to noise ratio degrades significantly over time. Even if no interpretation is perfect, raising the bar is better. And then, the limit between lack of rigour and outright fraud is blurry. It’s better to stay well clear, and that requires rigour.

Turskarama 2y ago
Right, the system is self correcting but even so it can take literally decades sometimes for the corrections to happen, and in the meantime someone may have tried to build a career on what turned out to be a lie. There really needs to be at least one organization out there putting as much effort as possible into verifying high impact papers. I've had the thought before that if I was a Billionaire this would be my pet project.
- kergonath 2y ago
  > I've had the thought before that if I was a Billionaire this would be my pet project. That would be a worthwhile endeavour.
  - tpoacher 2y ago
    https://i4replication.org/ https://i4replication.org/
- tpoacher 2y ago
  https://i4replication.org/ https://i4replication.org/
epistasis 2y ago
> Even if no interpretation is perfect, raising the bar is better. Can you explain why? What metric are you using? What is the end goal? I ask because there are many metrics that I care about: - pace of discovery - cost of discovery - ability to work in directions that have high risk and high reward What I don't really care about - outsiders skimming over the literature, misinterpreting it, and coming to bad conclusions. Raising the "rigor" bar only seems to be positive for this metric that I don't care about.

4 ms·

> I don't agree that need we tons more "rigor" in science, instead it would be better to have clearer communication along with less busy work. We do, even with

by kergonath 2y ago

Turskarama 2y ago
Right, the system is self correcting but even so it can take literally decades sometimes for the corrections to happen, and in the meantime someone may have tried to build a career on what turned out to be a lie. There really needs to be at least one organization out there putting as much effort as possible into verifying high impact papers. I've had the thought before that if I was a Billionaire this would be my pet project.
- kergonath 2y ago
  > I've had the thought before that if I was a Billionaire this would be my pet project. That would be a worthwhile endeavour.
  - tpoacher 2y ago
    https://i4replication.org/ https://i4replication.org/
- tpoacher 2y ago
  https://i4replication.org/ https://i4replication.org/
epistasis 2y ago
> Even if no interpretation is perfect, raising the bar is better. Can you explain why? What metric are you using? What is the end goal? I ask because there are many metrics that I care about: - pace of discovery - cost of discovery - ability to work in directions that have high risk and high reward What I don't really care about - outsiders skimming over the literature, misinterpreting it, and coming to bad conclusions. Raising the "rigor" bar only seems to be positive for this metric that I don't care about.