4 ms·
Obviously his methodology is unsound, but that doesn't mean he's wrong. A tiny minority of published results in the field can be replicated. When these "scient
by bobcostas55 12y ago
Obviously his methodology is unsound, but that doesn't mean he's wrong. A tiny minority of published results in the field can be replicated.
When these "scientists" spend most of their time massaging data to get that golden 0.049 p-value, I think a bit of derision might be deserved.
- mcguire 12y agoAt this point, I suspect that the majority of published results in any field cannot be replicated. A certain number of the ones that get a great deal of publicity[1] don't seem to pass a sniff test. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7143630 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7143630 [2] [2] Before you go all "grr, journanists, grr", I first heard about that one on both the Science and Nature podcasts.