😊 Paolo Greco @ 2019-05-09 06:28:49
I'm pretty sure most of you read SCC, but I'm going to share this anyway because I want to know what @roger thinks about this: https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/05/07/5-httlpr-a-pointed-review/
😊 Roger Giner-Sorolla @ 2019-05-09 08:16:54
Yeah, my science reform Twitter is pretty shocked and sees it as an example that no field is safe from the "publish if significant" model. Just as studies with n = 1000 are being refuted by systematic studies with n = 60000, in our field n = 20 findings are proving very weak when tested using more like n = 200.
😊 Mamading Ceesay @ 2019-05-09 10:04:09
Science is an institution like any other and as such can become degenerate and corrupt due to the wrong incentives along with academic and commercial pressures.
😊 Richard G @ 2019-05-09 13:24:04
Blaming individual researchers for this is like blaming parents for gaming the US college applications procedure. The problems are systemic: imagine seeking funding to contribute some small part of a really big and useful study, so all the collected results can add up to a proper statistical sample. Imagine trying to get credit for it, towards your cv and/or tenure review.

Log in to comment.