Here's my current (contrarian) dicta on how to identify credible science in a world where most apparent results don't replicate. (1/n)
-
-
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 -
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.