The Irreproducibility Crisis of Modern Science
1–10 of 265 posts
Re: The Irreproducibility Crisis of Modern Science
#2I think Planet Money did an episode on this a few years ago. Good stuff, and maybe easier than reading a paper. :)
https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2018/03/07/591213302/epis...
Re: The Irreproducibility Crisis of Modern Science
#3Being reproducible is only critically important if people treat individual studies as meaningful.
That IMO is a far more dangerous stance. Any study can have hidden flaws, none should be trusted without some form of replication.
Re: The Irreproducibility Crisis of Modern Science
#4This is the exact reason I don't believe science should be used blindly to affect government policy. It flies in the face of democracy and is subject to falsehoods just like any other human endeavor.
Re: The Irreproducibility Crisis of Modern Science
#5I think Planet Money did an episode on this a few years ago. Good stuff, and maybe easier than reading a paper. :) https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2018/03/07/591213302/epis...
The report (not a paper) is actually written for a lay audience and very readable: https://www.nas.org/images/documents/irreproducibility_repor...
Re: The Irreproducibility Crisis of Modern Science
#6Being reproducible is only critically important if people treat individual studies as meaningful. That IMO is a far more dangerous stance. Any study can have hidden flaws, none should be trusted without some form of replication.
not sure what you're getting at. are you saying meta analysis is more important than individual studies? but if a large % of your studies in the meta analysis can't be reproduced, what faith do you have in the meta analysis at all?
Re: The Irreproducibility Crisis of Modern Science
#7Being reproducible is only critically important if people treat individual studies as meaningful. That IMO is a far more dangerous stance. Any study can have hidden flaws, none should be trusted without some form of replication.
How often is a study even repeated in the course of normal scientific research? I think most studies are focused on expanding the research and therefore knowledge about the science being studied. Accepting previous studies as fact is dangerous and could easily lead to a house of cards scenario. I think this is especially true in the very specific, niche studies that are common in today's highly competitive graduate student and publish or die research landscape.
Re: The Irreproducibility Crisis of Modern Science
#8This is the exact reason I don't believe science should be used blindly to affect government policy. It flies in the face of democracy and is subject to falsehoods just like any other human endeavor.
Lysenkoism happens in the American and European scientific establishments as well. As an example I would suggest Ancel Keys and the cholesterol hypothesis of heart disease.
Re: The Irreproducibility Crisis of Modern Science
#9I mean, this is still a good thing, since it charts a map of decidedly grey areas, where information may always be ambiguous, and useful information needs to be sussed out carefully.
It's better than presumptively assuming that "Science" is an infallible always black-and-white.
Re: The Irreproducibility Crisis of Modern Science
#10I think Planet Money did an episode on this a few years ago. Good stuff, and maybe easier than reading a paper. :) https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2018/03/07/591213302/epis...
The report (not a paper) is actually written for a lay audience and very readable: https://www.nas.org/images/documents/irreproducibility_repor...
It's a position paper from a conservative think tank and needs to be treated as such.