News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on 50% of neuroscience papers suffer from a major statistical error.. Parent comment

Re:50% of neuroscience papers suffer from a major statistica... by forensic on Tuesday November 29, 2011 @11:33PM (#3293737)
Why are you stating the obvious?

I am trying to make a point that in the world of vicious competition for grant money, every shitty incremental experiment is lauded as groundbreaking. For very understandable reasons.

I'm being facetious about the way that the key quality of a scientist has shifted from doing and teaching science to being a great marketer who can win grants. The "best" scientists these days are generally the ones who are really great at hype.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:50% of neuroscience papers suffer from a major statistica... by scott_s on Thursday December 01, 2011 @03:59PM (#3301365)
It was not clear that you were using "groundbreaking" facetiously. Hence my confusion.

I agree there are problems with how science works right now, and I agree on what the problems are. I disagree on the weights of the incentives, though. You describe "rampant" fraud. I have observed none. Then my conclusion is that the claim that fraud is rampant is incorrect.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:50% of neuroscience papers suffer from a major statistica... by forensic on Saturday December 03, 2011 @11:09PM (#3309841)
>I have observed none.

How hard have you looked and what is your definition of fraud?

[ Parent | on HN ]