|
I was very concerned there, but for more than one reason. He started out volunteering to replicate the study and also helping the researchers out a LOT with the experimental re-set-up. Then, when his research is found to be suspect, he starts to throw doubt on it. Or at least that is what the news article author wrote. Both groups, the new author and the researchers, have incentive to recast what the results of the re-do say. One to sell ads, the other, it is implied, to keep tenure or something, I dunno. Looking at the redo, there are many good reasons the original researchers have to continue to say their research may be 'good' still. Reasons that the rest of the field entertains and to some extent, believes. Still, to your point that they may think it is impossible to replicate: That means that no real research occured in the first place. If they are seriously arguing, as the news author implicates, that a research team cannot ever replicate a study, they what they are doing is not 'science' or even psuedoscience. There then is NO POINT to doing any of the research in the first place. If you can't prove an effect, even with large errorbars or something, then you are wasting your life and the money of others. |