3 ms·

You literally have no idea what you're talking about. I can't even argue with you because you clearly do not understand the definition of science, and so we're

by brockf 14y ago

You literally have no idea what you're talking about. I can't even argue with you because you clearly do not understand the definition of science, and so we're talking past each other. "Replication is nearly unheard of?" Are you kidding? Read a journal. Seriously. You're citing popular news articles as if you understand anything about the field. Oh, and I'm still waiting for my picture of gravity. But not here, because this thread is no longer worth my time to check on.

lutusp 14y ago
> You literally have no idea what you're talking about. When you have a coherent argument, post again. It may interest you to know that the sitting director of the NIMH takes the same position. > "Replication is nearly unheard of?" Are you kidding? In psychology, replication is nearly unheard of. Richard Feynman commented on this at length many years ago, and much more recently, the same comments appear for the same reason: Source: http://www.nature.com/news/nobel-laureate-challenges-psychologists-to-clean-up-their-act-1.11535 http://www.nature.com/news/nobel-laureate-challenges-psychol... Quote: "Nobel prize-winner Daniel Kahneman has issued a strongly worded call to one group of psychologists to restore the credibility of their field by creating a replication ring to check each others' results. ... 'For all these reasons, right or wrong, your field is now the poster child for doubts about the integrity of psychological research,' Kahneman writes. 'I believe that you should collectively do something about this mess.'" Did you think I just made it up? Psychology is in the midst of a credibility meltdown, and replication is one of the key issues. > ... as if you understand anything about the field. I just proved that I understand the field better than you do.

3 ms·

You literally have no idea what you're talking about. I can't even argue with you because you clearly do not understand the definition of science, and so we're

by brockf 14y ago

lutusp 14y ago
> You literally have no idea what you're talking about. When you have a coherent argument, post again. It may interest you to know that the sitting director of the NIMH takes the same position. > "Replication is nearly unheard of?" Are you kidding? In psychology, replication is nearly unheard of. Richard Feynman commented on this at length many years ago, and much more recently, the same comments appear for the same reason: Source: http://www.nature.com/news/nobel-laureate-challenges-psychologists-to-clean-up-their-act-1.11535 http://www.nature.com/news/nobel-laureate-challenges-psychol... Quote: "Nobel prize-winner Daniel Kahneman has issued a strongly worded call to one group of psychologists to restore the credibility of their field by creating a replication ring to check each others' results. ... 'For all these reasons, right or wrong, your field is now the poster child for doubts about the integrity of psychological research,' Kahneman writes. 'I believe that you should collectively do something about this mess.'" Did you think I just made it up? Psychology is in the midst of a credibility meltdown, and replication is one of the key issues. > ... as if you understand anything about the field. I just proved that I understand the field better than you do.