Here's my current (contrarian) dicta on how to identify credible science in a world where most apparent results don't replicate. (1/n)
-
-
Simple hypotheses >> conjunctive hypotheses. (e.g. "something in this organ causes this effect" is more likely than "this specific protein causes this effect"). (7/n)
Show this thread -
Evidence from fields like agriculture, where there's a competitive industry that doesn't get much publicity, gets bonus credibility points. (8/n)
Show this thread -
Evidence from multiple different scientific fields, especially if it includes evolutionary biology as well as molecular biology, gets bonus credibility points. (9/n)
Show this thread -
Accidental discoveries, and phenomena that emerge from unbiased/global screens or general-purpose datasets, get bonus credibility points. (10/n)
Show this thread -
Basically all these heuristics are attempts to compensate for motivated cognition and persuasive rhetoric. "I know you're trying to sell me on this claim, so I want evidence that's as independent of your opinion as possible." (11/n)
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Do you mean that rigor of papers went down in the 80s, or just that if something's still being cited 40 years later, it's probably true?
-
*average* rigor of a randomly chosen published paper has decreased as more low-quality papers get published, IMO.
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.