Please no. Don't assume it's false just because it hasn't been replicated. Treat it with a healthy skepticism, sure. Don't assume it's true? Sure, I can be on board with that. But not assuming something is true is very different from assuming it's false.
-
-
-
Assume it's no better than an unsubstantiated hypothesis. Assume the data was massaged to produce the results wanted by the "researchers".
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
My mom is a researcher and from time to time tries to get funding for replication experiments, however unless she disguize the proposal as novel research it's really difficult to get the money.
-
Yes - and this is a massive problem. It's not considered important to replicate things. It should be considered very important. It should be funded, it should be required. Replication is really what science is, at its heart - science is the discovery of that which replicates.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Statistics is pretty cool but it's 1000x less reliable than software. The real news flash is that some studies get reproduced succesfully
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I have seen this project which checks the consistency and outcomes of studies done on nutrition and supplements. https://examine.com/supplements/whey-protein/ …pic.twitter.com/BICsBrjXwp
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Good thing there's such healthy funding for confirmation studies.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.