@sTeamTraen @PhDefunct Why the ha ha ha? Isn't that exactly what happened?
-
-
Replying to @jessesingal
@jessesingal@PhDefunct Yes, by very good fortune. But clearly he didn't think he was likely to be caught. Why not?, is the $64K question.2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @sTeamTraen
.
@sTeamTraen@PhDefunct of him NOT being caught at some point were zero. What happens when study after study fails to replicate? 2/22 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @jessesingal
@jessesingal@PhDefunct What happens in psychology when study after study fails to replicate? Not very much, as far as I can see.1 reply 1 retweet 0 likes -
Replying to @sTeamTraen
.
@sTeamTraen@PhDefunct I take and agree w/your general critique, but I'm convinced he was gonna get caught. Too brazen not to1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @jessesingal
@jessesingal@PhDefunct Well, obviously (with hindsight caveat). But apparently his calibration of likelihood differs from yours and mine.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @sTeamTraen
@sTeamTraen@jessesingal I am really shocked that he got caught, precisely because most scientists wanted to believe the results.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @PhDefunct
@sTeamTraen@jessesingal Most cases of fraud are uncovered by skepticism, aren't they? Not by disappointment over failed repl?2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @PhDefunct
@PhDefunct@sTeamTraen Maybe, but this is a strange case to stake that claim on. There was no public skepticism from anyone - it was 1/21 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @jessesingal
@jessesingal@sTeamTraen That was my point--it seems like this is the less common way for fraud to be uncovered.2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
.@PhDefunct @sTeamTraen As one who covered it, gotta admit:
1. Impressive result
2. Respected journal
3. Confirmation bias re:mechanisms
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.