tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6976144462093297473.post577414863028033414..comments2024-03-26T19:10:00.791-04:00Comments on West Coast Stat Views (on Observational Epidemiology and more): Replication in ScienceJosephhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10760453165301871031noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6976144462093297473.post-88438277402466376022011-09-10T08:31:18.945-04:002011-09-10T08:31:18.945-04:00@mpledger If you read the original post, the teste...@mpledger If you read the original post, the testers are industry scientists who want to base new drugs on published research. Therefore their bias should be towards successful replication. But of course, they may be just as error prone as the original researchers.Dominik Lukešhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03071876778771965740noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6976144462093297473.post-12725167396905665672011-09-10T08:20:30.480-04:002011-09-10T08:20:30.480-04:00I don't agree with the 'softer disciplines...I don't agree with the 'softer disciplines' tag. I am convinced that just as good replication (or falsification) is possible in the social sciences. It's entirely due to the lack of funding for this sort of thing. I know I had a great replication study lined up and couldn't find anyone interested in funding it. And humanities and social sciences need replication just as much as science.<br /><br />This 50% just shows how bogus this "science by step by step small contributions and testing of claims" story is. I wonder how much stuff commonly distributed in science textbooks is actually not properly tested and just passed down by consensus and tradition.Dominik Lukešhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03071876778771965740noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6976144462093297473.post-34519942678515331552011-09-09T21:42:27.844-04:002011-09-09T21:42:27.844-04:00Good point. That 50% may not be a perfect estimat...Good point. That 50% may not be a perfect estimate but the idea that major journal articles are not replicating is concerning. The insistence on replication studies is one thing that the genetic epidemiologists have right.Josephhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10760453165301871031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6976144462093297473.post-2991663342282516482011-09-09T16:22:46.789-04:002011-09-09T16:22:46.789-04:00While the initial investigators may be biased to g...While the initial investigators may be biased to getting a result, the re-testers may be biased to *not* getting a result. It's a huge waste of their time if they keep getting identical results, the job is only interesting if their work proves something different. Therefore, how much of the 50% is due to the original investigators and how much is due to the re-testers.MPledgerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15845074140006920009noreply@blogger.com