and 3 others like this
Embed this tack by clicking the box below, copying, and pasting
Source: www.bbc.com via electrovista on Gentlemint
Login to comment →
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.
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...
Haha... SkyNet, right on!
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.
From the collection WTF:
Gentlemint is a community for sharing and discussing all things manly.
Learn more →
See all Reserve items →
A weekly discourse on all things manly, courtesy of your Gentlemint co-founders. Listen now →