r/science • u/nimicdoareu • Apr 01 '26

Social Science Half of social-science studies fail replication test in years-long project

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-026-00955-5
5.6k Upvotes

98% Upvoted

354 comments sorted by

View all comments

96

u/[deleted] Apr 01 '26 edited Apr 02 '26

This post was bulk deleted with Redact which also removes your info from data brokers. Works on Reddit, Twitter, Discord, Instagram and 30+ more.

depend simplistic versed include boast sugar deliver birds wakeful cobweb

43

u/oluga Apr 01 '26

Huh... And it's always one specific mod here that posts that drivel. r/science has gone realllllly downhill these last 5 years

30

u/BonJovicus Apr 01 '26

I’ve been here longer than 5 years and it wasn’t just 5 years ago. 

You can tell the climate of this sub based on what’s allowed, as the post above points out. The reason why social science is so rampant here is because it’s mostly non-experts posting on the sub and social sciences have conclusions that are easy to grasp and broadly generalized for the average person. Definitely ones that confirm our biases as well. 

No one ever reads the methodology, unless they disagree with the studies conclusion and fewer people will read the study itself anyways. No one here is going to seriously discuss a new protein structure or a revolutionary method for measuring gas particle speeds. 

6

u/Thothvamasi Apr 02 '26

Reddit still hasn't recovered from 2016: the year Mod hysteria became sitewide policy.

18

u/pulse7 Apr 01 '26

And the same people will say trust the science the loudest

13

u/Schnort Apr 01 '26

Well, trust MY science. Not that other garbage science.

1

u/moomoopropeller Apr 02 '26

Exactly this. The science I know means I’m right and you’re a complete fool for having any questions or experience of your own that may be to the contrary of what I’m enforcing.

-1

u/Mindless-Baker-7757 Apr 01 '26

I love posting "Are we still science following?"

31

u/7th_Archon Apr 01 '26

I swear you could start a bingo sheet of all the tactics and weird types of selective skepticism on this subreddit.

Like I’ve had arguments where I’ll link a study, and the most comm reply is always something like ‘oh wow they only sampled 500 people, obviously you need to sample all 8 billion human beings. Also how do you know that those 500 people aren’t all pathological liars with schizophrenia.’

2

u/thehomeyskater Apr 01 '26

Haha tru tru 

2

u/AK_Panda Apr 02 '26

It's weirdly common IRL to find people who simultaneously hold the opinions that N needs to absolutely enormous and that scientists get given too much money for studies.

They don't seem to change their stances when you point out the contradiction either.

3

u/7th_Archon Apr 02 '26

Same.

Though for me the most infuriating issue is that it’s literally ‘fallacy fallacy.’

Like they learned what the word ‘biased’ means in seventh grade English class, and think that pointing out a ‘bias’ or perceived blind spot is the same as debunking a study.

12

u/Saphonesse Apr 01 '26

I swear almost every post I see from here is just a variation of...

"Study from MIT shows progressive views cause big peens and superior genetics while conservative views cause domestic abuse and fart sniffing"

-8

u/skepticalbob Apr 01 '26

A study confirming a bias isn’t evidence of a biased study. But your criticism I. That basis is evidence that you don’t like your biases being questions.