doi: 10.1037//0021-843x.105.3.440

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 26 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Critique and analysis of a study or experiment is the default. It isn't a religion; science thrives on repeat analysis.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (2 children)

    Which is why someone should repeat the study to confirm or contradict it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago* (1 child)

    This whole discussion you see above is part of the process of repeating a study. You can't just do exactly what the previous study did and expect all the flaws to magically disappear. You need to first uncover the flaws, and more eyes and collaboration means a higher likelihood that the flaws get found, hence the importance of these discussions. Then you redesign the experiment to fix those flaws, and then you can run it again.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment