I'm a bit confused by the parallel between E. coli in drinking water and science that can't be reproduced in the scientific literature. For three related reasons:
-
-
This last point also reminds me of this to a certain extent.https://twitter.com/j_c_young/status/1095624753988157440?s=21 …
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.
E. coli shouldn't be detectable in drinking water. I hope an expert can chime in here but it seems to me it's not allowed to be in drinking water unlike findings that cannot be replicated, which have a role and are unavoidable.
Table 1.1 here, for ex:
Calling research sewage is a bit too silly for me. Just because something can't be replicated doesn't mean it's sewage. Physics has many events that can't be replicated, but so does psychology, e.g., a corpus of all words in newspapers from the 50s can't be collected de novo.
I'm uncomfortable w metaphors about bad stuff occurring in developing countries (sewage in the water, which is what E. coli means typically) being used to discuss "first world problems" however serious to us in science on Twitter. It's just a bit too crass, on the nose for me.