Post #2279012

2024-08-21 22:22 UTC

@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!

Replies (4)

@tyx@lor.sh 2024-08-21 22:52

@MylesRyden@social.vivaldi.net @terri@social.afront.org Totally, unless you try to find the data to make a decision and realize that the field from which the data come is deep in the reproducibility crisis and funding/publication bias. Trust is a continuous variable and many fields are waay below the standards in STEM (which is not perfect on itself). It's great that one wrong paper was retracted, it adds a bit trust, but how many bad papers were published/amplified by media the same day?

Open ##2279013
@DavidM_yeg@mstdn.ca 2024-08-22 16:43

@MylesRyden@social.vivaldi.net @terri@social.afront.org I will add that fraud, commercial interests, etc aren’t actually science, they are part of the all too human structures in which we embed science. People fail, science ultimately uncovers the failures.

Open ##2279014
@KinkyTurtle@dragon.style 2024-08-23 14:06

@MylesRyden@social.vivaldi.net @terri@social.afront.org Yes, that isn't science NOT working, that's science WORKING.

Open ##2279016
@nicolaromano@qoto.org 2024-08-24 07:54

@MylesRyden@social.vivaldi.net @terri@social.afront.org Yet, we don't teach students how to do science well. A lot of the bad practices that are behind "bad science" could be mitigated by better teaching of statistics, data analysis, experimental design etc.

Open ##2893291