Talk:3117: Replication Crisis - Revision history

181.234.89.171 at 20:44, 21 July 2025

2025-07-21T20:44:45Z

181.234.89.171 at 20:43, 21 July 2025

2025-07-21T20:43:21Z

82.13.184.33 at 08:10, 21 July 2025

2025-07-21T08:10:52Z

2A02:2455:1960:4000:C4A6:6A1F:ABC0:DC1F at 07:15, 20 July 2025

2025-07-20T07:15:06Z

Barmar at 01:47, 20 July 2025

2025-07-20T01:47:05Z

Rtanenbaum at 20:06, 19 July 2025

2025-07-19T20:06:41Z

174.53.211.85 at 16:09, 19 July 2025

2025-07-19T16:09:12Z

174.53.211.85 at 16:07, 19 July 2025

2025-07-19T16:07:49Z

2605:59C8:160:DB08:C1B3:77CD:F0E3:3391 at 03:09, 19 July 2025

2025-07-19T03:09:30Z

2605:59C8:160:DB08:C1B3:77CD:F0E3:3391 at 03:09, 19 July 2025

2025-07-19T03:09:10Z

@@ Line 6: / Line 6: @@
 ::This also makes fun of the tendency of newspapers to sensationalize the result of a single study (in this case, the replication of the earlier study on non-reproducible results). This is why we often see things flip-flopping -- one time they'll say that wine is bad for you, a year later they'll say that it's good for you, and so on. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 01:47, 20 July 2025 (UTC)
 : I always prefer a self-referential explanation :-) BTW, we DO have a category Self-reference, does it encompass both in-universe (like here) and ex-universe (the comic itself is self-ref)?
 This explanation is very convoluted and (IMHO), mostly wrong (and partially OK). I do not agree with Justhalt's interpretation, but I DO agree with Rtanenbaum's one (who says that they agree with Justhalt's! What!?). Here's my take in slow motion:
-. In 2010s, researchers reported some issues in science.
+:1. In 2010s, researchers reported some issues in science.
-. One decade later, the team in the panel wanted to see if these issues have improved over time.
+:2. One decade later, the team in the panel wanted to see if these issues have improved over time.
-. The team in the panel replicated the exact same issues as the 2010s teams. So the issues haven't improved at all, but...
+:3. The team in the panel replicated the exact same issues as the 2010s teams. So the issues haven't improved at all, but...
-. ... the team in the panel did replicate the 2010s' teams work ''exactly''.
+: 4. ... the team in the panel did replicate the 2010s' teams work ''exactly''.
 Now: because the "issues" are that a lot of studies couldn't be replicated, an absurd paradox arises: by replicating a study succesfully, the panel team seems to have solved the "replication crisis" (because it looks like new teams like the panel team use robust methods for their science), which is ridiculous because they actually confirmed that the crisis is ongoing. --[[Special:Contributions/181.234.89.171|181.234.89.171]] 20:43, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:43, 21 July 2025
Line 6:		Line 6:
	::This also makes fun of the tendency of newspapers to sensationalize the result of a single study (in this case, the replication of the earlier study on non-reproducible results). This is why we often see things flip-flopping -- one time they'll say that wine is bad for you, a year later they'll say that it's good for you, and so on. [[User:Barmar\|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar\|talk]]) 01:47, 20 July 2025 (UTC)		::This also makes fun of the tendency of newspapers to sensationalize the result of a single study (in this case, the replication of the earlier study on non-reproducible results). This is why we often see things flip-flopping -- one time they'll say that wine is bad for you, a year later they'll say that it's good for you, and so on. [[User:Barmar\|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar\|talk]]) 01:47, 20 July 2025 (UTC)
	: I always prefer a self-referential explanation :-) BTW, we DO have a category Self-reference, does it encompass both in-universe (like here) and ex-universe (the comic itself is self-ref)?		: I always prefer a self-referential explanation :-) BTW, we DO have a category Self-reference, does it encompass both in-universe (like here) and ex-universe (the comic itself is self-ref)?
		+
		+	This explanation is very convoluted and (IMHO), mostly wrong (and partially OK). I do not agree with Justhalt's interpretation, but I DO agree with Rtanenbaum's one (who says that they agree with Justhalt's! What!?). Here's my take in slow motion:
		+	1. In 2010s, researchers reported some issues in science.
		+	2. One decade later, the team in the panel wanted to see if these issues have improved over time.
		+	3. The team in the panel replicated the exact same issues as the 2010s teams. So the issues haven't improved at all, but...
		+	4. ... the team in the panel did replicate the 2010s' teams work ''exactly''.
		+
		+	Now: because the "issues" are that a lot of studies couldn't be replicated, an absurd paradox arises: by replicating a study succesfully, the panel team seems to have solved the "replication crisis" (because it looks like new teams like the panel team use robust methods for their science), which is ridiculous because they actually confirmed that the crisis is ongoing. --[[Special:Contributions/181.234.89.171\|181.234.89.171]] 20:43, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 <!-- Please sign your posts with ~~~~ and don't delete this text. New comments should be added at the bottom. -->
-I believe the current explanation is a bit missing the point. It's supposed to mean that the authors shown in the comic failed to reproduce the result of the papers claiming that there are replication crisis, and therefore the original claim that there is a replication crisis going on is unfounded (since the papers claiming it cannot be replicated), and comically the headline in the last panel takes this to the next level by saying that this means there was no replication crisis to begin with.
+I believe the current explanation is a bit missing the point. It's supposed to mean that the authors shown in the comic failed to reproduce the result of the papers claiming that there are replication crisis, and therefore the original claim that there is a replication crisis going on is unfounded (since the papers claiming it cannot be replicated), and comically the headline in the last panel takes this to the next level by saying that this means there was no replication crisis to begin with. [[User:Justhalf|Justhalf]] ([[User talk:Justhalf|talk]]) 00:57, 19 July 2025 (UTC)
 : I favor the current explanation's interpretation. "Today's studies", I think, refers to 2025 primary research papers across fields of science, and the team finds issues with their reproducibility similar to those found with 2015 primary research papers. I argue that the headline appropriate for "falsifying the replication crisis" would be REPLICATION CRISIS DEBUNKED, not CRISIS SOLVED; the latter tacitly <em>accepts</em> the finding of a replication crisis. I argue further that the demons responsible for the replication crisis are legion, and include the sheer mass and rapid worldwide growth of 'the literature', the 'publish or perish' demands of employers and funders especially given the inadequate money and time granted by funders (<em>before</em> the currently unfolding catastrophe), the rules of (usually volunteer) print-journal editors desperate to save money and space, the collapse under multiple pressures of peer review, the devolution of most actual work to the least paid and least experienced, the disastrous consequences of replacing integrity with propaganda ("don't be such a scientist"), yada. Issues that won't be addressed by publication of null results (oh goody, yet <em>another</em> predatory for-profit journal opportunity!) or annoying results, even if that idea does stimulate a wry chuckle on first reading. Once upon a time, there <em>was</em> a {{w|Journal_of_Irreproducible_Results|<em>Journal of Irreproducible Results</em>}}. "So what {{w|Annals_of_Improbable_Research|happened to it?}}" "That's what they <em>all</em> are now." [[Special:Contributions/2605:59C8:160:DB08:C1B3:77CD:F0E3:3391|2605:59C8:160:DB08:C1B3:77CD:F0E3:3391]] 02:59, 19 July 2025 (UTC)
 : I agree with the interpretation of [[User:Justhalf|Justhalf]] since it is simpler and more direct to the punchline than what is written in the explanation. Here's the joke: 1. in the 2010's a study showed there were too many research results that could not be replicated. 2. in 2025 another study looking at current research results, also found that many could not be replicated. 3. This second study confirms the first study thereby replicating their results, 4. the newspaper then announces "replication crisis solved" basing that on the fact that the second paper replicated the first one. Of course the newspaper got it wrong, because simply replicating one study, doesn't solve the problem that all the other studies were never replicated. That's the joke. It's very simple. please don't over think it and make it more complicated [[User:Rtanenbaum|Rtanenbaum]] ([[User talk:Rtanenbaum|talk]]) 20:06, 19 July 2025 (UTC)
 ::This also makes fun of the tendency of newspapers to sensationalize the result of a single study (in this case, the replication of the earlier study on non-reproducible results). This is why we often see things flip-flopping -- one time they'll say that wine is bad for you, a year later they'll say that it's good for you, and so on. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 01:47, 20 July 2025 (UTC)
 : I always prefer a self-referential explanation :-) BTW, we DO have a category Self-reference, does it encompass both in-universe (like here) and ex-universe (the comic itself is self-ref)?

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:15, 20 July 2025
Line 9:		Line 9:
	: I agree with the interpretation of [[User:Justhalf\|Justhalf]] since it is simpler and more direct to the punchline than what is written in the explanation. Here's the joke: 1. in the 2010's a study showed there were too many research results that could not be replicated. 2. in 2025 another study looking at current research results, also found that many could not be replicated. 3. This second study confirms the first study thereby replicating their results, 4. the newspaper then announces "replication crisis solved" basing that on the fact that the second paper replicated the first one. Of course the newspaper got it wrong, because simply replicating one study, doesn't solve the problem that all the other studies were never replicated. That's the joke. It's very simple. please don't over think it and make it more complicated [[User:Rtanenbaum\|Rtanenbaum]] ([[User talk:Rtanenbaum\|talk]]) 20:06, 19 July 2025 (UTC)		: I agree with the interpretation of [[User:Justhalf\|Justhalf]] since it is simpler and more direct to the punchline than what is written in the explanation. Here's the joke: 1. in the 2010's a study showed there were too many research results that could not be replicated. 2. in 2025 another study looking at current research results, also found that many could not be replicated. 3. This second study confirms the first study thereby replicating their results, 4. the newspaper then announces "replication crisis solved" basing that on the fact that the second paper replicated the first one. Of course the newspaper got it wrong, because simply replicating one study, doesn't solve the problem that all the other studies were never replicated. That's the joke. It's very simple. please don't over think it and make it more complicated [[User:Rtanenbaum\|Rtanenbaum]] ([[User talk:Rtanenbaum\|talk]]) 20:06, 19 July 2025 (UTC)
	::This also makes fun of the tendency of newspapers to sensationalize the result of a single study (in this case, the replication of the earlier study on non-reproducible results). This is why we often see things flip-flopping -- one time they'll say that wine is bad for you, a year later they'll say that it's good for you, and so on. [[User:Barmar\|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar\|talk]]) 01:47, 20 July 2025 (UTC)		::This also makes fun of the tendency of newspapers to sensationalize the result of a single study (in this case, the replication of the earlier study on non-reproducible results). This is why we often see things flip-flopping -- one time they'll say that wine is bad for you, a year later they'll say that it's good for you, and so on. [[User:Barmar\|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar\|talk]]) 01:47, 20 July 2025 (UTC)
		+
		+	: I always prefer a self-referential explanation :-) BTW, we DO have a category Self-reference, does it encompass both in-universe (like here) and ex-universe (the comic itself is self-ref)?

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:47, 20 July 2025
Line 8:		Line 8:

	: I agree with the interpretation of [[User:Justhalf\|Justhalf]] since it is simpler and more direct to the punchline than what is written in the explanation. Here's the joke: 1. in the 2010's a study showed there were too many research results that could not be replicated. 2. in 2025 another study looking at current research results, also found that many could not be replicated. 3. This second study confirms the first study thereby replicating their results, 4. the newspaper then announces "replication crisis solved" basing that on the fact that the second paper replicated the first one. Of course the newspaper got it wrong, because simply replicating one study, doesn't solve the problem that all the other studies were never replicated. That's the joke. It's very simple. please don't over think it and make it more complicated [[User:Rtanenbaum\|Rtanenbaum]] ([[User talk:Rtanenbaum\|talk]]) 20:06, 19 July 2025 (UTC)		: I agree with the interpretation of [[User:Justhalf\|Justhalf]] since it is simpler and more direct to the punchline than what is written in the explanation. Here's the joke: 1. in the 2010's a study showed there were too many research results that could not be replicated. 2. in 2025 another study looking at current research results, also found that many could not be replicated. 3. This second study confirms the first study thereby replicating their results, 4. the newspaper then announces "replication crisis solved" basing that on the fact that the second paper replicated the first one. Of course the newspaper got it wrong, because simply replicating one study, doesn't solve the problem that all the other studies were never replicated. That's the joke. It's very simple. please don't over think it and make it more complicated [[User:Rtanenbaum\|Rtanenbaum]] ([[User talk:Rtanenbaum\|talk]]) 20:06, 19 July 2025 (UTC)
		+	::This also makes fun of the tendency of newspapers to sensationalize the result of a single study (in this case, the replication of the earlier study on non-reproducible results). This is why we often see things flip-flopping -- one time they'll say that wine is bad for you, a year later they'll say that it's good for you, and so on. [[User:Barmar\|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar\|talk]]) 01:47, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:06, 19 July 2025
Line 6:		Line 6:

	: I favor the current explanation's interpretation. "Today's studies", I think, refers to 2025 primary research papers across fields of science, and the team finds issues with their reproducibility similar to those found with 2015 primary research papers. I argue that the headline appropriate for "falsifying the replication crisis" would be REPLICATION CRISIS DEBUNKED, not CRISIS SOLVED; the latter tacitly <em>accepts</em> the finding of a replication crisis. I argue further that the demons responsible for the replication crisis are legion, and include the sheer mass and rapid worldwide growth of 'the literature', the 'publish or perish' demands of employers and funders especially given the inadequate money and time granted by funders (<em>before</em> the currently unfolding catastrophe), the rules of (usually volunteer) print-journal editors desperate to save money and space, the collapse under multiple pressures of peer review, the devolution of most actual work to the least paid and least experienced, the disastrous consequences of replacing integrity with propaganda ("don't be such a scientist"), yada. Issues that won't be addressed by publication of null results (oh goody, yet <em>another</em> predatory for-profit journal opportunity!) or annoying results, even if that idea does stimulate a wry chuckle on first reading. Once upon a time, there <em>was</em> a {{w\|Journal_of_Irreproducible_Results\|<em>Journal of Irreproducible Results</em>}}. "So what {{w\|Annals_of_Improbable_Research\|happened to it?}}" "That's what they <em>all</em> are now." [[Special:Contributions/2605:59C8:160:DB08:C1B3:77CD:F0E3:3391\|2605:59C8:160:DB08:C1B3:77CD:F0E3:3391]] 02:59, 19 July 2025 (UTC)		: I favor the current explanation's interpretation. "Today's studies", I think, refers to 2025 primary research papers across fields of science, and the team finds issues with their reproducibility similar to those found with 2015 primary research papers. I argue that the headline appropriate for "falsifying the replication crisis" would be REPLICATION CRISIS DEBUNKED, not CRISIS SOLVED; the latter tacitly <em>accepts</em> the finding of a replication crisis. I argue further that the demons responsible for the replication crisis are legion, and include the sheer mass and rapid worldwide growth of 'the literature', the 'publish or perish' demands of employers and funders especially given the inadequate money and time granted by funders (<em>before</em> the currently unfolding catastrophe), the rules of (usually volunteer) print-journal editors desperate to save money and space, the collapse under multiple pressures of peer review, the devolution of most actual work to the least paid and least experienced, the disastrous consequences of replacing integrity with propaganda ("don't be such a scientist"), yada. Issues that won't be addressed by publication of null results (oh goody, yet <em>another</em> predatory for-profit journal opportunity!) or annoying results, even if that idea does stimulate a wry chuckle on first reading. Once upon a time, there <em>was</em> a {{w\|Journal_of_Irreproducible_Results\|<em>Journal of Irreproducible Results</em>}}. "So what {{w\|Annals_of_Improbable_Research\|happened to it?}}" "That's what they <em>all</em> are now." [[Special:Contributions/2605:59C8:160:DB08:C1B3:77CD:F0E3:3391\|2605:59C8:160:DB08:C1B3:77CD:F0E3:3391]] 02:59, 19 July 2025 (UTC)
		+
		+	: I agree with the interpretation of [[User:Justhalf\|Justhalf]] since it is simpler and more direct to the punchline than what is written in the explanation. Here's the joke: 1. in the 2010's a study showed there were too many research results that could not be replicated. 2. in 2025 another study looking at current research results, also found that many could not be replicated. 3. This second study confirms the first study thereby replicating their results, 4. the newspaper then announces "replication crisis solved" basing that on the fact that the second paper replicated the first one. Of course the newspaper got it wrong, because simply replicating one study, doesn't solve the problem that all the other studies were never replicated. That's the joke. It's very simple. please don't over think it and make it more complicated [[User:Rtanenbaum\|Rtanenbaum]] ([[User talk:Rtanenbaum\|talk]]) 20:06, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:09, 19 July 2025
Line 6:		Line 6:

	: I favor the current explanation's interpretation. "Today's studies", I think, refers to 2025 primary research papers across fields of science, and the team finds issues with their reproducibility similar to those found with 2015 primary research papers. I argue that the headline appropriate for "falsifying the replication crisis" would be REPLICATION CRISIS DEBUNKED, not CRISIS SOLVED; the latter tacitly <em>accepts</em> the finding of a replication crisis. I argue further that the demons responsible for the replication crisis are legion, and include the sheer mass and rapid worldwide growth of 'the literature', the 'publish or perish' demands of employers and funders especially given the inadequate money and time granted by funders (<em>before</em> the currently unfolding catastrophe), the rules of (usually volunteer) print-journal editors desperate to save money and space, the collapse under multiple pressures of peer review, the devolution of most actual work to the least paid and least experienced, the disastrous consequences of replacing integrity with propaganda ("don't be such a scientist"), yada. Issues that won't be addressed by publication of null results (oh goody, yet <em>another</em> predatory for-profit journal opportunity!) or annoying results, even if that idea does stimulate a wry chuckle on first reading. Once upon a time, there <em>was</em> a {{w\|Journal_of_Irreproducible_Results\|<em>Journal of Irreproducible Results</em>}}. "So what {{w\|Annals_of_Improbable_Research\|happened to it?}}" "That's what they <em>all</em> are now." [[Special:Contributions/2605:59C8:160:DB08:C1B3:77CD:F0E3:3391\|2605:59C8:160:DB08:C1B3:77CD:F0E3:3391]] 02:59, 19 July 2025 (UTC)		: I favor the current explanation's interpretation. "Today's studies", I think, refers to 2025 primary research papers across fields of science, and the team finds issues with their reproducibility similar to those found with 2015 primary research papers. I argue that the headline appropriate for "falsifying the replication crisis" would be REPLICATION CRISIS DEBUNKED, not CRISIS SOLVED; the latter tacitly <em>accepts</em> the finding of a replication crisis. I argue further that the demons responsible for the replication crisis are legion, and include the sheer mass and rapid worldwide growth of 'the literature', the 'publish or perish' demands of employers and funders especially given the inadequate money and time granted by funders (<em>before</em> the currently unfolding catastrophe), the rules of (usually volunteer) print-journal editors desperate to save money and space, the collapse under multiple pressures of peer review, the devolution of most actual work to the least paid and least experienced, the disastrous consequences of replacing integrity with propaganda ("don't be such a scientist"), yada. Issues that won't be addressed by publication of null results (oh goody, yet <em>another</em> predatory for-profit journal opportunity!) or annoying results, even if that idea does stimulate a wry chuckle on first reading. Once upon a time, there <em>was</em> a {{w\|Journal_of_Irreproducible_Results\|<em>Journal of Irreproducible Results</em>}}. "So what {{w\|Annals_of_Improbable_Research\|happened to it?}}" "That's what they <em>all</em> are now." [[Special:Contributions/2605:59C8:160:DB08:C1B3:77CD:F0E3:3391\|2605:59C8:160:DB08:C1B3:77CD:F0E3:3391]] 02:59, 19 July 2025 (UTC)
−
−	: I agree with justhalf. The authors tried to reproduce the results produced by the researchers in 2010. Unfortunately, the authors encountered exactly the same problems, i.e., they were not able to reproduce the results of the studies they were investigating - the studies done in 2010. Therefore, the original studies are valid after all, leading to the joke in the final panel, that the replication crisis has been solved.
−	: The interpretation that the authors reproduced the results of the 2010 researchers, confirming the replication crisis, doesn't make sense for two reasons. First, accepting the existence of a replication crisis in no way solves the crisis. Second, instead of being a joke, the final panel would just be nonsense. [[Special:Contributions/174.53.211.85\|174.53.211.85]] 16:07, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:07, 19 July 2025
Line 6:		Line 6:

	: I favor the current explanation's interpretation. "Today's studies", I think, refers to 2025 primary research papers across fields of science, and the team finds issues with their reproducibility similar to those found with 2015 primary research papers. I argue that the headline appropriate for "falsifying the replication crisis" would be REPLICATION CRISIS DEBUNKED, not CRISIS SOLVED; the latter tacitly <em>accepts</em> the finding of a replication crisis. I argue further that the demons responsible for the replication crisis are legion, and include the sheer mass and rapid worldwide growth of 'the literature', the 'publish or perish' demands of employers and funders especially given the inadequate money and time granted by funders (<em>before</em> the currently unfolding catastrophe), the rules of (usually volunteer) print-journal editors desperate to save money and space, the collapse under multiple pressures of peer review, the devolution of most actual work to the least paid and least experienced, the disastrous consequences of replacing integrity with propaganda ("don't be such a scientist"), yada. Issues that won't be addressed by publication of null results (oh goody, yet <em>another</em> predatory for-profit journal opportunity!) or annoying results, even if that idea does stimulate a wry chuckle on first reading. Once upon a time, there <em>was</em> a {{w\|Journal_of_Irreproducible_Results\|<em>Journal of Irreproducible Results</em>}}. "So what {{w\|Annals_of_Improbable_Research\|happened to it?}}" "That's what they <em>all</em> are now." [[Special:Contributions/2605:59C8:160:DB08:C1B3:77CD:F0E3:3391\|2605:59C8:160:DB08:C1B3:77CD:F0E3:3391]] 02:59, 19 July 2025 (UTC)		: I favor the current explanation's interpretation. "Today's studies", I think, refers to 2025 primary research papers across fields of science, and the team finds issues with their reproducibility similar to those found with 2015 primary research papers. I argue that the headline appropriate for "falsifying the replication crisis" would be REPLICATION CRISIS DEBUNKED, not CRISIS SOLVED; the latter tacitly <em>accepts</em> the finding of a replication crisis. I argue further that the demons responsible for the replication crisis are legion, and include the sheer mass and rapid worldwide growth of 'the literature', the 'publish or perish' demands of employers and funders especially given the inadequate money and time granted by funders (<em>before</em> the currently unfolding catastrophe), the rules of (usually volunteer) print-journal editors desperate to save money and space, the collapse under multiple pressures of peer review, the devolution of most actual work to the least paid and least experienced, the disastrous consequences of replacing integrity with propaganda ("don't be such a scientist"), yada. Issues that won't be addressed by publication of null results (oh goody, yet <em>another</em> predatory for-profit journal opportunity!) or annoying results, even if that idea does stimulate a wry chuckle on first reading. Once upon a time, there <em>was</em> a {{w\|Journal_of_Irreproducible_Results\|<em>Journal of Irreproducible Results</em>}}. "So what {{w\|Annals_of_Improbable_Research\|happened to it?}}" "That's what they <em>all</em> are now." [[Special:Contributions/2605:59C8:160:DB08:C1B3:77CD:F0E3:3391\|2605:59C8:160:DB08:C1B3:77CD:F0E3:3391]] 02:59, 19 July 2025 (UTC)
		+
		+	: I agree with justhalf. The authors tried to reproduce the results produced by the researchers in 2010. Unfortunately, the authors encountered exactly the same problems, i.e., they were not able to reproduce the results of the studies they were investigating - the studies done in 2010. Therefore, the original studies are valid after all, leading to the joke in the final panel, that the replication crisis has been solved.
		+	: The interpretation that the authors reproduced the results of the 2010 researchers, confirming the replication crisis, doesn't make sense for two reasons. First, accepting the existence of a replication crisis in no way solves the crisis. Second, instead of being a joke, the final panel would just be nonsense. [[Special:Contributions/174.53.211.85\|174.53.211.85]] 16:07, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:09, 19 July 2025
Line 5:		Line 5:
	[[User:Justhalf\|Justhalf]] ([[User talk:Justhalf\|talk]]) 00:57, 19 July 2025 (UTC)		[[User:Justhalf\|Justhalf]] ([[User talk:Justhalf\|talk]]) 00:57, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

−	: I favor the current explanation's interpretation. "Today's studies", I think, refers to 2025 primary research papers across fields of science, and the team finds issues with their reproducibility similar to those found with 2015 primary research papers. I argue that the headline appropriate for "falsifying the replication crisis" would be REPLICATION CRISIS DEBUNKED, not CRISIS SOLVED; the latter tacitly <em>accepts</em> the finding of a replication crisis. I argue further that the demons responsible for the replication crisis are legion, and include the sheer mass and rapid worldwide growth of 'the literature', the 'publish or perish' demands of employers and funders especially given the inadequate money and time granted by funders (<em>before</em> the currently unfolding catastrophe), the rules of (usually volunteer) print-journal editors desperate to save money and space), the collapse under multiple pressures of peer review, the devolution of most actual work to the least paid and least experienced, the disastrous consequences of replacing integrity with propaganda ("don't be such a scientist"), yada. Issues that won't be addressed by publication of null results (oh goody, yet <em>another</em> predatory for-profit journal opportunity!) or annoying results, even if that idea does stimulate a wry chuckle on first reading. Once upon a time, there <em>was</em> a {{w\|Journal_of_Irreproducible_Results\|<em>Journal of Irreproducible Results</em>}}. "So what {{w\|Annals_of_Improbable_Research\|happened to it?}}" "That's what they <em>all</em> are now." [[Special:Contributions/2605:59C8:160:DB08:C1B3:77CD:F0E3:3391\|2605:59C8:160:DB08:C1B3:77CD:F0E3:3391]] 02:59, 19 July 2025 (UTC)	+	: I favor the current explanation's interpretation. "Today's studies", I think, refers to 2025 primary research papers across fields of science, and the team finds issues with their reproducibility similar to those found with 2015 primary research papers. I argue that the headline appropriate for "falsifying the replication crisis" would be REPLICATION CRISIS DEBUNKED, not CRISIS SOLVED; the latter tacitly <em>accepts</em> the finding of a replication crisis. I argue further that the demons responsible for the replication crisis are legion, and include the sheer mass and rapid worldwide growth of 'the literature', the 'publish or perish' demands of employers and funders especially given the inadequate money and time granted by funders (<em>before</em> the currently unfolding catastrophe), the rules of (usually volunteer) print-journal editors desperate to save money and space, the collapse under multiple pressures of peer review, the devolution of most actual work to the least paid and least experienced, the disastrous consequences of replacing integrity with propaganda ("don't be such a scientist"), yada. Issues that won't be addressed by publication of null results (oh goody, yet <em>another</em> predatory for-profit journal opportunity!) or annoying results, even if that idea does stimulate a wry chuckle on first reading. Once upon a time, there <em>was</em> a {{w\|Journal_of_Irreproducible_Results\|<em>Journal of Irreproducible Results</em>}}. "So what {{w\|Annals_of_Improbable_Research\|happened to it?}}" "That's what they <em>all</em> are now." [[Special:Contributions/2605:59C8:160:DB08:C1B3:77CD:F0E3:3391\|2605:59C8:160:DB08:C1B3:77CD:F0E3:3391]] 02:59, 19 July 2025 (UTC)