It sure looks that way. Many of the failures come from that specific area.
They denied away ANY replicable failure for years.
This isn’t something I’m making up but it hasn’t hit mainstream because suppression. It’s commonly known within academic circles.
Here’s an entire paper on it. I don’t think they covered their arses quite enough?
Over the last few years, psychology researchers have become increasingly preoccupied with the question of whether findings from psychological studies are generally replicable.
forced to pretend you care
The debates have originated from some unfortunate events of scientific misconduct
mistakes were made
in the field, and they have reached a climax with the recent discovery of a relatively weak rate of replicability of published literature,
lots of lies without liars
leading to the so-called replicability crisis in psychology.
so-called problem in a science funded by the taxpayer
The present paper is concerned with examining the issue of replicability in the field of social psychology.
where most failure is, as if by magic!
We begin by drawing a state of the art of the crisis in this field.
lotta people need to get fired
We then highlight some possible causes for the crisis, discussing topics of statistical power, questionable research practices, publication standards, and hidden auxiliary assumptions of context-dependency of social psychological theories.
Nurture =/= making shit up.
Sociologist’s fallacy also comes into play.
Finally, we argue that given the absence of absolute falsification in science, social psychology could greatly benefit from adopting McGuire’s perspectivist approach to knowledge construction.
Let us have some creative license, like theoretical physics!
Without postmodernism, we’d have to get a real job!
Another paper because someone, somewhere will claim I’m imagining things.
A dude who feels threatened intellectually.
The (latest) crisis in confidence in social psychology has generated much heated discussion about the importance of replication, including how it should be carried out as well as interpreted by scholars in the field. For example, what does it mean if a replication attempt “fails”—
what is a red hand, really?
You were caught red-handed. “Oh, it isn’t crimson, it’s scarlet!”
does it mean that the original results, or the theory that predicted them, have been falsified?
What is a lie? That’s where you are going with this?
And how should “failed” replications
bitchy quote marks, I know thee well
our belief in the validity of the original research?
trans. We said it so fuck you. It’s true.
In this paper, we consider the replication debate from a historical and philosophical perspective, and provide a conceptual analysis of both replication and falsification as they pertain to this important discussion.
If we talk long enough, we can talk our way out of this!
Lying in a professional role is up for debate!
Along the way, we highlight the importance of auxiliary assumptions (for both testing theories and attempting replications), and introduce a Bayesian framework for assessing “failed” replications in terms of how they should affect our confidence in original findings.
trans. You should trust us anyway, fuck your data. Something something Bayesian.
Hint: that isn’t how Bayesian models work?
Bayesian models are predictive.
The whole point is you predict nothing real. Re-train for climate science.
Why did this take so long to come out? Well, they were hiding it.
Modern psychology is apparently in crisis and the prevailing view is that this partly reflects an inability to replicate past findings.
No, it’s about people who clearly fudged their data then published it. The replication proved this after the fact.
If a crisis does exists, then it is some kind of ‘chronic’ crisis, as psychologists have been censuring themselves over replicability for decades.
no need to take our monies away, taxpayers!
While the debate in psychology is not new,
public admission is
the lack of progress across the decades is disappointing.
Deliberate and to be expected.
Recently though, we have seen a veritable surfeit of debate alongside multiple orchestrated and well-publicised replication initiatives.
Blame the skeptics!
Doubt is a sin!
The spotlight is being shone on certain areas and although not everyone agrees on how we should interpret the outcomes, the debate is happening and impassioned. The issue of reproducibility occupies a central place in our whig history of psychology.
We fucked up, majorly. We’re hoping to pretend this is ongoing, normal and nothing to react to.
No Evidence for a Replicability Crisis in Psychological Science