I'm a midwit, can someone explain to me what the replication crisis means in application?
people don't want to have kids anymore
>>16993494kek
people want the kids
>>16993491Over a decade ago, it was discovered that ~80% of a sample of psychology papers could not be replicated when attempted. Since then, scientists in various fields have taken it as a call to action to conduct mass replication studies and conduct further inspection of proor research post-peer-review. Many established journals have faced increased scrutiny in their peer review process as a result and certain landmark findings have since been retracted (notably: amyloid plaque hypothesis for alzheimer's).In practice: whenever somebody brings it up, they are most likely just using it as an excuse to ignore evidence presented to them. But realistically, the fact that the problem was identified and measures are constantly being taken to mitigate it should indicate to anyone who took more than two seconds to think about it that the scientific process is more robust and reliable now than ever before.
>>16993542>psychologynot science
>>16993552Elitist virtue signaling aside, the problem was shown to exist to a lesser degree in other fields. The takeaway is "don't take every study at face value" which is something I'm pretty sure we all already knew anyway.
>>16993542>To a lesser degreeThe replication crisis was realized just after clomategate happened and yet you're here saying we should still trust the science?
>>16993542>Many established journals have faced increased scrutiny in their peer review process...Any resources you recommend for reading more about examples of how the peer review processes have changed?
I find something of value the AI says and try to get it back later and it's never the same.
>>16993491It means whatever shit published in science might as well be fake.>Mask stops spread of covid?Fake>Getting shots helps prevent getting covidFake>Vaccine has 100% efficacyFake>Vaccine has 50% efficacyFakeNo double blind test, nothing. Its all fraudsters defrauding their authority to lord over people
>>16993576Have you ever bothered to actually read the content of those emails and attempt to understand what they were actually talking about or did you just hear somewhere online tell you third hand that it means climate data is fabricated?>>16993580https://retractionwatch.com/Mostly highlights individual retracted papers but they regularly publish articles about entire journals coming under scrutiny. Great place to get started.
>>16993542I expect soft sciences to be fabricated and have faulty data. What troubles me is when fields like physics or chemistry have large amounts of unproven and doubtful papers.
