[prakashk]

> Is it not possible that the low-hanging fruit had been found earlier, in the 1970s-1990s, and the problem got harder?

The problem of "problems getting harder" is a continuous phenomenon. Why would that be the case suddenly after 2000, and not before?

> However, I'm a bit puzzled by the weird direction the journalist ran with this, which is straight to his preconceived notions that are not that supported by the data he's looking at.

Is it possible that your own preconceived notions about the author and the publication may have caused you to judge this way?

In any case, don't trust every comment posted on Hacker News (including my own) :)

[Natsu]

> The problem of "problems getting harder" is a continuous phenomenon. Why would that be the case suddenly after 2000, and not before?

Well, there was that whole dotcom boom and a lot of things changed for computers & the internet which led to researchers being able to share more information, use more powerful computer techniques, etc.

[cinquemb]

>Well, there was that whole dotcom boom and a lot of things changed for computers & the internet which led to researchers being able to share more information, use more powerful computer techniques, etc.

In my experience working with/contracting for neuro labs, a lot of researchers don't really know how to fully leverage the technology that's available, and often rely upon proprietary tools they have limited knowledge of, which doesn't bode well for being able explore for themselves.

The few that I have met that can push the limits of current technology are working in labs ran by the above…

I'm not sure how it is in other fields, but in convos from some other commentators on HN over the past years, makes me think this is not just in neuroscience.

Maybe the problem is that the skills needed to explore the solution space and communicate it effectively have gone up because the complexity it has added to the process without research labs/academia addressing the gap sufficiently? I don't think this is a problem with just labs or academia though, not many people in general have the skills to be able to leverage technology to it's fullest for even the most banal tasks.

[Natsu]

I think it's one of those things where a few point shift in the average of the distribution really changes some numbers near the edges of it, though.

[epistasis]

I don't see that chart supporting a sudden change. The time point could be moved quite a bit and tell the same story.

Also I had not heard of Kevin Drum before this, and had a positive view of Mother Jones. I'm left with a poor impression of Kevin Drum and a hit to Mother Jones' reputation after reading this.

[dbt00]

You could go read the original paper and examine the actual data and scientific conclusions drawn from the underlying data as represented on that chart.

You could look for confirmation or disconfirmation of the hypothesis that preregistration leads to an increase in null results in other data sets.

Both of those seem like more useful ways to dispute this finding than squinting at a graph and finding fault with a blog post headline.

[epistasis]

I'm not sure if you meant to reply to me, because every aspect of your post is wrong.

The "squinting at the graph" was assuming that there's a sudden change. I read the paper, and looked up several studies and came to the conclusion that the paper was being misrepresented by the blog text. And I agreed with the headline, but not with the blog text.