Post #1517098

2024-08-21 18:37 UTC

I really love this description of a retracted study: not only does it explain what was retracted (turns out men don&#39;t generally divorce their sick wives), but also it covers what the error was (a coding problem treated people who left the study as divorced) how it all went down (someone tried to replicate, asked for data and didn&#39;t get the same analysis. Contacted the authors and they were horrified and immediately worked to retract). It&#39;s a really nice story of why replication matters and how to be good at science. This is how I was taught science should work, but I rarely come across such good retrospectives. https://retractionwatch.com/2015/07/21/to-our-horror-widely-reported-study-suggesting-divorce-is-more-likely-when-wives-fall-ill-gets-axed/ #science #PeerReview

Replies (13)

@MylesRyden@social.vivaldi.net 2024-08-21 22:22

@terri@social.afront.org I will say this, even in the face of the comment that already exists here... People like to say things like "science doesn't work" and then go on to name fraud, commercial interests and so on. Which is all true enough. But when we find that "science doesn't work" it is because "science" itself found the errors. It was other researchers who tried to replicate, reanalyzed, looked at the books, etc to determine that the results were in question. Figuring out that "science doesn't work" is part of the process of science. And Retraction Watch is an important part of that!

Open ##2279012
@Homebrewandhacking@mastodon.ie 2024-08-21 23:18

@terri@social.afront.org That's nice. I often see it repeated and it makes me very sad 😔

Open ##2279017
@moz@fosstodon.org 2024-08-22 00:01

@terri@social.afront.org it's also the ongoing preconception bias. That's problematic inside science, but as we see from which studies "happen" to go viral, it's a much wider societal problem. If only news that contradicts prejudices and biases was received the same way.

Open ##2279018
@iris@neuromatch.social 2024-08-22 01:47

@terri@social.afront.org is the code excerpt rendering weird for just me or for everyone else too? I can't figure out what raw text would have rendered as these i`' bits. (I know very little html.)

Open ##2279019
@ireneista@adhd.irenes.space 2024-08-22 05:22

@terri@social.afront.org oh wow, absolutely

Open ##2279025
@slideruth@social.seattle.wa.us 2024-08-22 05:53

@terri@social.afront.org That's great! I had heard of this study and it made me sad, but hearing that (a) it was wrong, and (b) that the researchers did a good job of finding and fixing their error, is wonderful news! Thanks for sharing it.

Open ##2279026
@M0KHR@mastodon.radio 2024-08-22 06:54

@terri@social.afront.org unless you are a US Republican leader?

Open ##2279027
@TimWardCam@c.im 2024-08-22 10:57

@terri@social.afront.org Yeahbut ... and yes, I know this is 20-20 hindsight ... surely that obviously suspicious number should have flagged itself up to someone doing a sanity check?

Open ##2279028
@tshirtman@mas.to 2024-08-22 15:05

@terri@social.afront.org thanks for sharing, and to the scientists who tried to reproduce it, i believed that to be a fact, good to know the science, at least doesn't support it (anymore).

Open ##2279029
@demi@xeno.glyphpress.com 2024-08-22 15:54

@terri@social.afront.org So Raphael ‘Ted’ Cruz is just an asshole, and it’s not genetically evolved behavior.

Open ##2279031
@only_ohm@mas.to 2024-08-22 16:26

@terri@social.afront.org So was the retracted study the only primary source of the widely-repeated claim?

Open ##2279032
@Lironah@mstdn.games 2024-08-22 16:55

@terri@social.afront.org The most ironic thing for me reading this is that my sister's husband divorced her while she was in chemo.

Open ##2279033
@Mabande@mastodon.social 2024-08-22 16:57

@terri@social.afront.org I'm really glad you posted this, cause I hadn't seen the retraction before! Thank you! [* Edit because of autocorrect]

Open ##2279034