Haven't Joined Gentlemint Yet?

Join

The Tacks

Helpful Pages

Discover and discuss the manliest content on the Web

Added in WTF

4 comments

  • Chet_Manly

    Chet_Manly 2 months ago

    This was good. I often remind my friends who put all their faith in science/data that while I agree that science itself is infallible, humans taint the process. We are so prone to error even when we aren't trying to commit errors.

    I am left curious about how far back we have to go to get to a time when 70% (or more) studies were able to be replicated by peers. When did things start to go wrong, what is the benchmark for replicateble studies?

    If the article mentioned that, I missed it, but I am human and I err...a lot.

    Reply

    • electrovista

      electrovista 2 months ago

      Great post Chet_Manly. With greater connectivity/collaboration thanks to technology, it seems reasonable to hypothesize that replicability would have been increasing. When SkyNet gets wind of this...

      Reply

  • MacTexas

    MacTexas 2 months ago

    Makes you wonder about climate change doesn't it. Don't worry climate change is a computer model and you know they can change the model to fit the theory and collect big bucks from the government.

    Reply