News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Classic and contemporary psychology experiments replicated. Parent comment

Re:Classic and contemporary psychology experiments replicated by pfortuny on Wednesday November 21, 2018 @12:39PM (#18504434)
Not exactly: it is ok to say that there were no original findings. This is a tiny semantic detail but important: if the author does not support his findings, it is OK to re-assert the null hypothesis but not to say that "the findings were wrong".

What I mean is: "no experiment" does not mean the same as "wrong experiment".

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Classic and contemporary psychology experiments replicated by iandanforth on Wednesday November 21, 2018 @12:51PM (#18504527)
Well, let's agree that 'wrong' doesn't mean 'bad.' I use the term in the Feynman sense, if your guess doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong. The assertion that they found a statistically significant effect was wrong (or to Trevor's point in a sibling comment, is no longer true.)
[ Parent | on HN ]