Here's my current (contrarian) dicta on how to identify credible science in a world where most apparent results don't replicate. (1/n)
-
Show this thread
-
Testing the validity of experimental methods is underrated. As in Feynman's Cargo Cult Science essay. http://calteches.library.caltech.edu/51/2/CargoCult.htm … (2/n)
1 reply 1 retweet 18 likesShow this thread -
Big effect sizes >> small but statistically significant effects. (3/n)
1 reply 0 retweets 24 likesShow this thread -
Experimental results >> correlational results. (4/n)
1 reply 0 retweets 18 likesShow this thread -
Diverse or weird animal models >> only standard animal models. (5/n)
1 reply 0 retweets 10 likesShow this thread -
Old (pre-1980's) studies get bonus points for credibility. (6/n)
3 replies 0 retweets 11 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @s_r_constantin
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?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
*average* rigor of a randomly chosen published paper has decreased as more low-quality papers get published, IMO.
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.