Yes, this (in anticipation of my upcoming series of blog rants on the state of clinical medical publications):
My previous post discussed the myths surrounding the “replication crisis” in psychology/neuroscience research. As usual, it became way too long and I didn’t even cover several additional points I wanted to mention. I will leave most of these for a later post in which I will speculate about why failed replications, papers about incorrect/questionable procedures, and other actions by the Holy Warriors for Research Truth cause such a lot of bad blood. I will try to be quick in that one or split it up into parts. Before I can get around to this though, let me briefly (and I am really trying this time!) have a short intermission with practical examples of the largely theoretical and philosophical arguments I made in previous posts.
Science is self-correcting
I’ve said it before but it deserves saying again. Science self-corrects, no matter how much the Crusaders want to whine and claim that…
View original post 1,482 more words