Noted study in psychology fails to replicate, crumbles with evidence of fraud
statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu
Noted study in psychology fails to replicate, crumbles with evidence of fraud
1–10 of 110 posts
Re: Noted study in psychology fails to replicate, crumbles with evidence of fraud
#2I'm pretty sure this was discussed in an earlier HN post.
However, I want to point out that "not replicating" doesn't necessarily equate to bad science (or, more accurately, bad practice on the part of the principal investigators irt accepted best practices in their field).
There are a bunch of studies in the social sciences that failed to replicate simply because a p value was slightly below a threshold target, even though the coefficient direction/magnitude &c... agreed with the earlier study.
That said, I'm not defending - at all - the paper discussed in the article.
Re: Noted study in psychology fails to replicate, crumbles with evidence of fraud
#3I'm pretty sure this was discussed in an earlier HN post. However, I want to point out that "not replicating" doesn't necessarily equate to bad science (or, more accurately, bad practice on the part of the principal investigators irt accepted best practices in their field). There are a bunch of studies in the social sciences that failed to replicate simply because a p value was slightly below a threshold target, even…
There is a bigger accusation of fraud, not only failure to replicate
Edit: Also [0] was on HN 5 days ago (discussion here: [1]). This is another blogpost that discusses [0]
[0]https://datacolada.org/98 [1]https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28210642
Re: Noted study in psychology fails to replicate, crumbles with evidence of fraud
#4I'm pretty sure this was discussed in an earlier HN post. However, I want to point out that "not replicating" doesn't necessarily equate to bad science (or, more accurately, bad practice on the part of the principal investigators irt accepted best practices in their field). There are a bunch of studies in the social sciences that failed to replicate simply because a p value was slightly below a threshold target, even…
Failure to replicate is the definition of bad science. Science is based on objective, repeatable experiments. If the experiments can't even be reproduced how can they be hypothesized and validated?
Re: Noted study in psychology fails to replicate, crumbles with evidence of fraud
#5The prediction market stuff it mentions is really interesting.
https://polymarket.com/market/will-pnas-retract-dan-arielys-...
There is also money to not have it retracted. But it is time limited. You just have to ensure it's not retracted before October.
It's interesting to think where it would end up. A system that finally fixes incorrect papers but a battle ground over when.
Re: Noted study in psychology fails to replicate, crumbles with evidence of fraud
#6I'm pretty sure this was discussed in an earlier HN post. However, I want to point out that "not replicating" doesn't necessarily equate to bad science (or, more accurately, bad practice on the part of the principal investigators irt accepted best practices in their field). There are a bunch of studies in the social sciences that failed to replicate simply because a p value was slightly below a threshold target, even…
There is a bigger accusation of fraud, not only failure to replicate Edit: Also [0] was on HN 5 days ago (discussion here: [1]). This is another blogpost that discusses [0] [0] https://datacolada.org/98 [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28210642
And Buzzfeed : https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28257860 ( Yesterday, 86 comments )
Re: Noted study in psychology fails to replicate, crumbles with evidence of fraud
#7I'm pretty sure this was discussed in an earlier HN post. However, I want to point out that "not replicating" doesn't necessarily equate to bad science (or, more accurately, bad practice on the part of the principal investigators irt accepted best practices in their field). There are a bunch of studies in the social sciences that failed to replicate simply because a p value was slightly below a threshold target, even…
Failure to replicate is the definition of bad science. Science is based on objective, repeatable experiments. If the experiments can't even be reproduced how can they be hypothesized and validated?
[deleted]
Re: Noted study in psychology fails to replicate, crumbles with evidence of fraud
#8In private I have heard of science done that is suspected to be fraudulent. The results are so intriguing and promising as to send multiple grad students across multiple groups barreling into replicating and expanding the results. What happened? Years of time wasted with no publications. PIs and journals aren't interested in publishing negative results. The person who lied in their research is reaping career benefits of such a valuable contribution to research. Academia takes something as beautiful as the closed loop of science and opens it up only to benefit charlatans and punish the best and brightest.
Re: Noted study in psychology fails to replicate, crumbles with evidence of fraud
#9I'm pretty sure this was discussed in an earlier HN post. However, I want to point out that "not replicating" doesn't necessarily equate to bad science (or, more accurately, bad practice on the part of the principal investigators irt accepted best practices in their field). There are a bunch of studies in the social sciences that failed to replicate simply because a p value was slightly below a threshold target, even…
Failure to replicate is the definition of bad science. Science is based on objective, repeatable experiments. If the experiments can't even be reproduced how can they be hypothesized and validated?
If we report p values around 0.05 wouldn’t you expect about 1 in 20 studies failing to replicate without being bad science?
Re: Noted study in psychology fails to replicate, crumbles with evidence of fraud
#10You don't even need the graphs, miles driven per year is a sum. Sums converge to gaussians yet here the deviation was half of mean which means they used a uniform variable generator for miles.