As it should be for all journals. All. Journals.https://twitter.com/PsychScience/status/953675782429331456 …
-
-
Replying to @chrisdc77
No. Many things are not easily replicable. There are entire fields (eg Big Bang cosmology, certain types of field work) around non-replicable events.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @michael_nielsen
There is tons of replication in astrophysics. In any case, normalising replication as a key feature within all empirical journals does not logically lead to the conclusion that all empirical results within those journals must be (or can be) replicated.
3 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @chrisdc77 @michael_nielsen
*Events* do not need to be replicated to value replication. Replication for historical events (e.g., paleontology, earthquake science, big bang) is about replicating methods providing evidence for claims.
1 reply 0 retweets 7 likes -
Replying to @BrianNosek @chrisdc77
Even the methods are sometimes non-replicable, as when the analysis consumes samples (as in much field work).
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
Of course, I agree that this situation is problematic, especially when not only the events but also the methods are non-replicable. But I'm very reluctant to declare it not fair game as part of science.
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.