= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Douglas_Knight comments on She Blinded Me With Science - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (38)
The obvious solution, IMO, is to have journals approve study designs for publication in advance, including all statistical tools to be used; and then you do the study and run the preselected analysis and publish the results, regardless of whether positive or negative.
But just like many other obvious improvements we can all think of to the process of science, this one will not be carried out.
Did you get that off me? I was planning a post on it at some point or another.
To a certain extent, it is being carried out for drug studies, but it requires centralization. At least, various central authorities have promised to require some pre-registration, but they may fail, as in the data availability story. Individuals can do meta-analyses that are skeptical of the original publications. and they do, on special occasions.
I think I've heard the line about parapsychology as a joke in a number of places, but I heard it seriously from Vassar.