On the psychology replication crisis
>Overall, 36% of the replications yielded significant findings (p value below 0.05) compared to 97% of the original studies that had significant effects. The mean effect size in the replications was approximately half the magnitude of the effects reported in the original studies.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis#Psychology_...
Of course if you point out that psychology research is strongly biased, the immediate response is that you must be an anti-intellectual. As if the system that produced such misleading results is a representation of all intellectual pursuits, and not just a mistake. The same way you get called an anti-intellectual for questioning the post-modern-analyses of whatever.
I'm really sick of people claiming that criticizing obviously bad science is "anti-intellectual". When you produce that many useless papers you're obviously, as a field, lacking an understanding of why science is good and useful in the first place.
I'm presuming that economics has similar problems with replication, and that you can only trust the most basic and obvious of their findings.
>Overall, 36% of the replications yielded significant findings (p value below 0.05) compared to 97% of the original studies that had significant effects. The mean effect size in the replications was approximately half the magnitude of the effects reported in the original studies.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis#Psychology_...
Of course if you point out that psychology research is strongly biased, the immediate response is that you must be an anti-intellectual. As if the system that produced such misleading results is a representation of all intellectual pursuits, and not just a mistake. The same way you get called an anti-intellectual for questioning the post-modern-analyses of whatever.
I'm really sick of people claiming that criticizing obviously bad science is "anti-intellectual". When you produce that many useless papers you're obviously, as a field, lacking an understanding of why science is good and useful in the first place.
I'm presuming that economics has similar problems with replication, and that you can only trust the most basic and obvious of their findings.