Ga offline met de app Player FM !
Science's Replication Crisis 101 with Remco Heesen
Gearchiveerde serie ("Inactieve feed" status)
When? This feed was archived on October 26, 2023 10:08 (). Last successful fetch was on May 30, 2023 02:33 ()
Why? Inactieve feed status. Onze servers konden geen geldige podcast feed ononderbroken ophalen.
What now? You might be able to find a more up-to-date version using the search function. This series will no longer be checked for updates. If you believe this to be in error, please check if the publisher's feed link below is valid and contact support to request the feed be restored or if you have any other concerns about this.
Manage episode 338328057 series 2968120
#19. Across many scientific fields, roughly half of the research findings established over the past century – hundreds of thousands of results – might simply be untrue, and the rest might me much less important than previously thought. At the same time, more and more people trying to find the scientific literature themselves to interpret it. This seems like an interesting combination, which I discuss with philosoper of science Remco Heesen.
Timeline
03:00 What does a (single) scientific study reporting a "significant result" tell you?
06:00 The replication crisis
09:00 The holy grail of science: the p-value (or: how most scientists think about evidence and what you can conclude from it)
13:00 P-hacking
15:00 Why whether some study's result is (probably) Really True, depends on doing only study at a time
19:00 Salami publishing and wrong economic and reputational incentives in the academic publication and career systems
25:00 Solutions: preregistration, publishing negative results, opening up peer review
More info
- Remco Heesen: website, twitter, UWA pagina, RUG pagina
- Maarten van Doorn: website, substack, twitter, RU pagina
- Prinz, F., Schlange, T., & Asadullah, K. (2011). Believe it or not: How much can we rely on published data on potential drug targets? Nature Reviews Drug Discovery, 10, 712. doi:10.1038/nrd3439-c1
- John Ionnadis - "Why Most Published Research Findings Are False"
- Remco Heesen - Why the Reward Structure of Science Makes Reproducibility Problems Inevitable
- Nature article over de replicatiecrisis en priming
- Peerreview (Wikipedia)
- Preregistration (Wikipedia)
32 afleveringen
Gearchiveerde serie ("Inactieve feed" status)
When? This feed was archived on October 26, 2023 10:08 (). Last successful fetch was on May 30, 2023 02:33 ()
Why? Inactieve feed status. Onze servers konden geen geldige podcast feed ononderbroken ophalen.
What now? You might be able to find a more up-to-date version using the search function. This series will no longer be checked for updates. If you believe this to be in error, please check if the publisher's feed link below is valid and contact support to request the feed be restored or if you have any other concerns about this.
Manage episode 338328057 series 2968120
#19. Across many scientific fields, roughly half of the research findings established over the past century – hundreds of thousands of results – might simply be untrue, and the rest might me much less important than previously thought. At the same time, more and more people trying to find the scientific literature themselves to interpret it. This seems like an interesting combination, which I discuss with philosoper of science Remco Heesen.
Timeline
03:00 What does a (single) scientific study reporting a "significant result" tell you?
06:00 The replication crisis
09:00 The holy grail of science: the p-value (or: how most scientists think about evidence and what you can conclude from it)
13:00 P-hacking
15:00 Why whether some study's result is (probably) Really True, depends on doing only study at a time
19:00 Salami publishing and wrong economic and reputational incentives in the academic publication and career systems
25:00 Solutions: preregistration, publishing negative results, opening up peer review
More info
- Remco Heesen: website, twitter, UWA pagina, RUG pagina
- Maarten van Doorn: website, substack, twitter, RU pagina
- Prinz, F., Schlange, T., & Asadullah, K. (2011). Believe it or not: How much can we rely on published data on potential drug targets? Nature Reviews Drug Discovery, 10, 712. doi:10.1038/nrd3439-c1
- John Ionnadis - "Why Most Published Research Findings Are False"
- Remco Heesen - Why the Reward Structure of Science Makes Reproducibility Problems Inevitable
- Nature article over de replicatiecrisis en priming
- Peerreview (Wikipedia)
- Preregistration (Wikipedia)
32 afleveringen
Alle afleveringen
×Welkom op Player FM!
Player FM scant het web op podcasts van hoge kwaliteit waarvan u nu kunt genieten. Het is de beste podcast-app en werkt op Android, iPhone en internet. Aanmelden om abonnementen op verschillende apparaten te synchroniseren.