Here's my current (contrarian) dicta on how to identify credible science in a world where most apparent results don't replicate. (1/n)
-
-
Science was smaller in the past (in # of people and money) and less subject to systematic distortions from the pharma industry or public opinion.
- 2 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
I like this. How about another one if you want to avoid motivated cognition: findings that fail social desirability bias or are politically unpopular with researchers are more credible.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I see why you would give "accidental discoveries" bonus points in theory. But do you mean things the discoverer claims were accidental? It seems to me we'd need some independent way of verifying it was actually as accidental as claimed.
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.