UCLA Professor Refuses to Cover for Dan Ariely in Issue of Data Provenance

Re:UCLA Professor Refuses to Cover for Dan Ariely in Issue o... by Zetice on Tuesday July 11, 2023 @06:47PM (#36688265)

The presumption here is that it was a true replication, and that's pretty damn hard to accomplish in the soft sciences. It matters, just not nearly as much or as conclusively as in something like physics.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:UCLA Professor Refuses to Cover for Dan Ariely in Issue o... by davisoneee on Wednesday July 12, 2023 @07:55AM (#36693249)

If a result is incredibly hard to replicate, that's a good indicator that the effect is either so niche, or so small, that it's not actually telling you any details of the world worth talking about.

If 'priming' only works every wet Tuesday in February, after someone has had a cheeseburger with no sauce and took their Grandma to the bingo, perhaps there's some _actual_ interesting artefact explaining it...or it could just be random noise.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:UCLA Professor Refuses to Cover for Dan Ariely in Issue o... by Zetice on Thursday July 13, 2023 @05:56PM (#36716613)

A lot of the studies involved do replicate, just with reduced effects.

But the presumption here is that the same experiment is even being run a second time, and my point is that many studies who have the stated goal of replication do so in ways that I find hard to justify.

So even when a study claims to "fail to replicate", I don't think we should just take that on face value.

[ Parent | on HN ]