I don't think this is what the article is about. At least for physical and biological phenomena, there is some objective truth. For example, Seroquel does or does not reduce schizophrenic symptoms---the reason an original finding is "temporary" and wears off is not because the efficacy has changed over time---it's because it was never efficacious in the first place (and we were mistaken because of bad research practices).
But that is my point. Whether we call it objective or not is solely based on our practices, our observations. And these can never be completely satisfactory. The scientific method no matter how rigor is not telling us whether something is objectively true but rather that as far as we have tested something to be true it is.
More specifically I was commenting on this:
...For many scientists, the effect is especially troubling because of what it exposes about the scientific process. If replication is what separates the rigor of science from the squishiness of pseudoscience, where do we put all these rigorously validated findings that can no longer be proved?...
I see your point---my point is that this article is not a good jumping off point for discussions about philosophy of science or epistemology (bold title notwithstanding). It's about bad statistical practice. More importantly, it's about a bad practice that is well-known (at least among statisticians) and has remedies.
Comments
I don't think this is what the article is about. At least for physical and biological phenomena, there is some objective truth. For example, Seroquel does or does not reduce schizophrenic symptoms---the reason an original finding is "temporary" and wears off is not because the efficacy has changed over time---it's because it was never efficacious in the first place (and we were mistaken because of bad research practices).
But that is my point. Whether we call it objective or not is solely based on our practices, our observations. And these can never be completely satisfactory. The scientific method no matter how rigor is not telling us whether something is objectively true but rather that as far as we have tested something to be true it is.
More specifically I was commenting on this:
...For many scientists, the effect is especially troubling because of what it exposes about the scientific process. If replication is what separates the rigor of science from the squishiness of pseudoscience, where do we put all these rigorously validated findings that can no longer be proved?...
I see your point---my point is that this article is not a good jumping off point for discussions about philosophy of science or epistemology (bold title notwithstanding). It's about bad statistical practice. More importantly, it's about a bad practice that is well-known (at least among statisticians) and has remedies.
Fair enough.