An erroneous paper on religion and generosity is retracted
psychologytoday.com
An erroneous paper on religion and generosity is retracted
1–10 of 165 posts
Re: An erroneous paper on religion and generosity is retracted
#2"The paper received a great deal of attention, and was covered by over 80 media outlets including The Economist, the Boston Globe, the Los Angeles Times, and Scientific American."
And how many of these will cover the retraction? A dozen at most? And all those articles will be sitting out there, getting cited and read on occasion.
Re: An erroneous paper on religion and generosity is retracted
#3"The paper received a great deal of attention, and was covered by over 80 media outlets including The Economist, the Boston Globe, the Los Angeles Times, and Scientific American." And how many of these will cover the retraction? A dozen at most? And all those articles will be sitting out there, getting cited and read on occasion.
The article said that the retraction was covered by 4 outlets.
Re: An erroneous paper on religion and generosity is retracted
#4My default presumption is that all results from the "social sciences" are false if they contradict my intuition. Whatever these fields are producing, it's not science in the Popperian or practical sense. A ton of policy has been built on the bad research and wishful thinking of the past few decades, and it's going to take a long time to unwind it all.
The problem, really, has been accelerating for a while. Something really went off the rails after WWII.
Re: An erroneous paper on religion and generosity is retracted
#5As much as I like spreadsheets and other general purpose numerical analysis tools, I wish there was a restricted subset of their functionality that could be used that was more formally verifiable, to prevent issues like this and Reinhart–Rogoff (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Growth_in_a_Time_of_Debt#Metho... ) from being a common occurrence.
Re: An erroneous paper on religion and generosity is retracted
#6"The paper received a great deal of attention, and was covered by over 80 media outlets including The Economist, the Boston Globe, the Los Angeles Times, and Scientific American." And how many of these will cover the retraction? A dozen at most? And all those articles will be sitting out there, getting cited and read on occasion.
Really sad to see and feels like it's becoming more common (maybe just because I'm paying closer attention). If it fits the narrative, accept first, retract later. It would be interesting to see view statistics on the original article vs the retraction.
Re: An erroneous paper on religion and generosity is retracted
#7"The paper received a great deal of attention, and was covered by over 80 media outlets including The Economist, the Boston Globe, the Los Angeles Times, and Scientific American." And how many of these will cover the retraction? A dozen at most? And all those articles will be sitting out there, getting cited and read on occasion.
Really sad to see and feels like it's becoming more common (maybe just because I'm paying closer attention). If it fits the narrative, accept first, retract later. It would be interesting to see view statistics on the original article vs the retraction.
It's not just narrative fitting. There is also a strong bias towards publishing results that seem surprising because that gets more readers. Of course, that also biases toward wrong results because wrong results are likely to be surprising.
Re: An erroneous paper on religion and generosity is retracted
#8"The paper received a great deal of attention, and was covered by over 80 media outlets including The Economist, the Boston Globe, the Los Angeles Times, and Scientific American." And how many of these will cover the retraction? A dozen at most? And all those articles will be sitting out there, getting cited and read on occasion.
The article said that the retraction was covered by 4 outlets.
Boy how common and sad that is. Sensational findings on the front page. Correction saying sensational finding totally wrong buried on page ten or not published at all.
Re: An erroneous paper on religion and generosity is retracted
#9"The paper received a great deal of attention, and was covered by over 80 media outlets including The Economist, the Boston Globe, the Los Angeles Times, and Scientific American." And how many of these will cover the retraction? A dozen at most? And all those articles will be sitting out there, getting cited and read on occasion.
Really sad to see and feels like it's becoming more common (maybe just because I'm paying closer attention). If it fits the narrative, accept first, retract later. It would be interesting to see view statistics on the original article vs the retraction.
[deleted]
Re: An erroneous paper on religion and generosity is retracted
#10From the article:
Although Decety’s paper had reported that they had controlled for country, they had accidentally not controlled for each country, but just treated it as a single continuous variable so that, for example “Canada” (coded as 2) was twice the “United States” (coded as 1).
I mean I don't even understand how this seemed like a normal thing to do?