4 ms·

> Psychologists very rarely replicate prior work This is simply not the case - no matter what Feynman said. Just skim e.g. through the Journal of Personality a

• lutusp 12y ago
  >> Psychologists very rarely replicate prior work > This is simply not the case - no matter what Feynman said. So Nobel Prizewinner Kahnemann was wrong? 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... Title: "Nobel laureate challenges psychologists to clean up their act" 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." Quote: "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.”" The problem is not the existence of perfunctory efforts to re-perform studies, The problem is the absence of serious replications. It's a very serious crisis. But don't take my word for it -- read the literature yourself. > Like in any other science you attract attention when you refute a well-known experiment. Yes, as though that happens, as though an existing psychological theory is falsified by a new one. What you need to realize is that when one study refutes another, no one notices because neither study addresses a falsifiable theory.