[Tomte]

As far as I understand it, only a small part of his book is based on distrusted research (and was that even his work or did he just write it up? Cannot remember).

Most of the book is still considered correct.

Plus, he readily admitted to the faulty parts and made a very strong request to the affected research teams to clean up their act and pretty much re-do all experiments multiple times, by multiple labs, with external oversight.

[Symmetry]

The things Kahneman worked on himself all did pretty well out of the replication crisis as far as I can tell. The fact that his findings got so much pushback when introduced probably helped a lot with making them more rigorous. And Kahneman didn't dig in his heels when the crisis hit. But there is an awful lots of stuff that needs to be expunged from his book because it was based on what turned out to be bad science.

[mistermann]

> But there is an awful lots of stuff that needs to be expunged from his book because it was based on what turned out to be bad science.

Can you give an example of this? I haven't seen anything he said in here that fundamentally needs to rest on a theory that could be the outcome of some study, but maybe I'm interpreting somehow differently.

[champagneben]

I'm not sure if this is what you're looking for, but here: https://replicationindex.com/2017/02/02/reconstruction-of-a-...