Wanted: a metareview for disciplines (e.g. in neuro or cog). Like @cochranecollab. Logically and data wise analyzes any sub-field and evaluates if it's logic works.
As nearly as I can tell, nearly all disciplines operate on a ratchet, not a binary "does its logic work": the methods start out terrible, and gradually improve, with standards slowly getting higher and higher as more is understood.
-
-
Sure. And that's why a metareview is useful. The rest of science needs to know which level a field is on. And some fields never become solid.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
The reason, as nearly as I can tell, is that a stronger theoretical understanding helps enforce higher standards in new experiments. So as a discipline matures it can afford to impose higher standards.
-
Is there a way to make this happen faster?
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
There's no way to improve data-mining to make it more reliable. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Giuseppe_Longo2/publication/297656557_The_Deluge_of_Spurious_Correlations_in_Big_Data/links/59d9d97ca6fdcc2aad127c05/The-Deluge-of-Spurious-Correlations-in-Big-Data.pdf … Has
@cochranecollab actually made research results more reliable? -
Or simply given cover, a false sense of security? Can meta analysis correct this situation:https://mythsofvisionscience.wordpress.com/2018/12/02/it-is-bullshit-none-of-it-replicates/ …
End of conversation
New conversation -
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.