This is a really valuable and scary piece of information about the reliability of the scientific process.
I didn’t realise neuroscience was subject to the replication crisis at all—this really is changing how I think about science. I’m increasingly feeling like I shouldn’t trust any field until I have a model detailed enough (cf. Inadequate Equilibria) that it occasionally says to not trust a result in the field.
As with all SlateStarCodex posts, this was really fun and easy to read.
My biggest hesitation in curating this post was:
People have probably already read it on SSC.
In general I will try not to curate things I think people have already read (e.g. on SSC). I just think this is an important enough argument and that there aren’t many people writing up models and data-points for when and where to trust different fields of science. Thanks for (cross)posting this!
I’ve curated this post for these reasons:
This is a really valuable and scary piece of information about the reliability of the scientific process.
I didn’t realise neuroscience was subject to the replication crisis at all—this really is changing how I think about science. I’m increasingly feeling like I shouldn’t trust any field until I have a model detailed enough (cf. Inadequate Equilibria) that it occasionally says to not trust a result in the field.
As with all SlateStarCodex posts, this was really fun and easy to read.
My biggest hesitation in curating this post was:
People have probably already read it on SSC.
In general I will try not to curate things I think people have already read (e.g. on SSC). I just think this is an important enough argument and that there aren’t many people writing up models and data-points for when and where to trust different fields of science. Thanks for (cross)posting this!