= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
PhilGoetz comments on The Journal of (Failed) Replication Studies - 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 (14)
I think you're focusing on the wrong part of the right problem. Studies that attempt to replicate someone else's work, but produce negative results; are much more common than studies that provide negative results using a method that hasn't been published before.