Psychology?

[billcu1]

Perhaps… Although I’d prefer to think that psychologists would try to give examples of good research to illustrate such things… Why give a relatively bad example, when you can give a better one…?

Well, I guess you have more faith in peer review than I have… Also, it seemed reasonable to expect that that’s how things looked *after *peer review…

The thing is that peer review is part of scientific method. Statistics can be deceiving. Flashing numbers around really doesn’t impress me philosophically speaking because it’s not necessarily epistemic. Number only show correlations and possible links.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology

 

[MPat]

The thing is that peer review is part of scientific method.

Sure. It is useful. But it is not infallible. And thus perhaps it is a bit too much to expect that all problems will be solved by peer review… Especially the problems with experiment’s design… That is, it is easy to refuse to publish the paper, but actually redesigning and redoing the experiment (and writing a new paper) is not that easy…

Statistics can be deceiving. Flashing numbers around really doesn’t impress me philosophically speaking because it’s not necessarily epistemic. Number only show correlations and possible links.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology

Sure. But adding bad statistics to bad philosophy is not likely to make things much better…

 

[billcu1]

Sure. It is useful. But it is not infallible. And thus perhaps it is a bit too much to expect that all problems will be solved by peer review… Especially the problems with experiment’s design… That is, it is easy to refuse to publish the paper, but actually redesigning and redoing the experiment (and writing a new paper) is not that easy…

Sure. But adding bad statistics to bad philosophy is not likely to make things much better…

Well I guess a line of reasoning is only as good as its’ postulates.