@jessesingal @PhDefunct Well, obviously (with hindsight caveat). But apparently his calibration of likelihood differs from yours and mine.
-
-
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 -
Replying to @PhDefunct
@PhDefunct@sTeamTraen Ah, okay. Yeah I think we're in agreement. Important question is why ppl weren't more skeptical here, of course5 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @jessesingal
@jessesingal@sTeamTraen I think that is easy: collective confirmation bias and wishful thinking re a sociopolitical issue5 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @PhDefunct
@PhDefunct@sTeamTraen Not that those are whole story, but as a journalist who isn't going to have time to dissect every single paper1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @jessesingal
@jessesingal@sTeamTraen That's the big problem: Critical appraisal/skeptical dissection of papers is too time-consuming to become routine.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @PhDefunct
@jessesingal@sTeamTraen As a result, we tend to dissect the ones with results we are already biased against.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
@PhDefunct @sTeamTraen yeah, accourse!
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.