[JoelMcCracken]

So basically this study is “we looked at various publicly available data sets of information, and here is a thing we notice that has previously gone unnoticed”.

The noticed it in multiple datasets.

What would replication look like here besides someone else looking at the dataset and agreeing that they also see the curiosities?

Or do you mean someone measuring a new fresh set of data and looking at it?

Asking for replication in this case is surprising, because seemingly the entire value is to prompt other research to go figure out what’s going on with these things.

[niam]

My reading is that the GP moreso takes issue with how social sciences are discussed, and is using an arbitrary replication-less finding in the 'hard sciences' (this one) as a podium to speak from--regardless of why replication doesn't exist for it, or whether that reason makes sense.

[kelseyfrog]

Is it falsifiable? What is H_0 in this study?

[CRConrad]

> Is it falsifiable?

Rather obviously, I'd think, if someone else looks at similar samples and sees no "Obelisks" at all. Or looks at their samples.

> What is H_0 in this study?

"The stuff we're seeing here doesn't exist"?

Or, IOW, "All the electron microscopes used have the same weird bug, showing obelisk-shaped pieces of RNA material where there really isn't anything at all"?

Feels a bit like what you want is really "We were all high on funny mushrooms when we saw that".

Look, I see from your other comments that you're actually not talking about this, but something else entirely. And you may well have a point there, but in order to make that point here, you would have had to come up with something a lot better than this. Because I'm fairly sure they weren't all high on funny mushrooms. Aren't you too, really?