Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?

Psychology's Replication Battle 172

An anonymous reader sends this excerpt from Slate: Psychologists are up in arms over, of all things, the editorial process that led to the recent publication of a special issue of the journal Social Psychology. This may seem like a classic case of ivory tower navel gazing, but its impact extends far beyond academia. ... Those who oppose funding for behavioral science make a fundamental mistake: They assume that valuable science is limited to the "hard sciences." Social science can be just as valuable, but it's difficult to demonstrate that an experiment is valuable when you can't even demonstrate that it's replicable. ...Given the stakes involved and its centrality to the scientific method, it may seem perplexing that replication is the exception rather than the rule. The reasons why are varied, but most come down to the perverse incentives driving research. Scientific journals typically view "positive" findings that announce a novel relationship or support a theoretical claim as more interesting than "negative" findings that say that things are unrelated or that a theory is not supported. The more surprising the positive finding, the better, even though surprising findings are statistically less likely to be accurate."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Psychology's Replication Battle

Comments Filter:
  • Re:WTF? (Score:5, Informative)

    by Oligonicella ( 659917 ) on Sunday August 03, 2014 @10:54AM (#47593605)

    Recording supernovae

    Not an experiment.

    Dissecting passenger pigeons

    Not an experiment.

    Studying the medical complications of Thalidomide babies

    You got one.

    Any scientific analysis of an event which occurred once may not be directly replicable.

    Actually the analysis can be replicated ad nauseam.

"The following is not for the weak of heart or Fundamentalists." -- Dave Barry