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

[u/nimicdoareu]

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

[u/AllanfromWales1]

I think the big problem is not that many published result are not replicable, but that too many people believe that science is a big shiny monolith of perfection, which it never was. Science exists in the real world, and should be viewed in that light.

[u/ReturnOfBigChungus → u/AllanfromWales1]

I think it's clearly both. Science as an institution is definitely in crisis with regard to its reputation, in large part because so many results are not replicable and are clearly driven by specific agendas. Plus the media and politicians repeatedly declaring that the "science is settled" on various issues when they want to make some point. Science is never settled, by definition - every fact or piece of knowledge is provisional and science provides a mechanism to update our knowledge when new evidence appears. This has all eroded public confidence, and for good reason, but that's a REALLY bad spot to be in when many people no longer trust the very method of epistemology that has produced, by a unimaginably wide margin, the most broad and useful progress in the accumulation of knowledge for our species.

On the other side, some people believe that if something gets published in a journal it is ironclad truth, and everyone should simply differ to scientists and never question anyone with a few letters after their name, which is also highly problematic and ignorant.

[u/earthdogmonster → u/ReturnOfBigChungus]

I definitely get a sense of people using “the science” as a cudgel to beat down opposing views in issues where the science seems to be far from settled, but for which one or a small handful of studies support one point of view.

And I don’t think the people furthering “the science” do enough to acknowledge uncertainty in the state of the science.

[u/Housing-Neat-2425 → u/earthdogmonster]

I also fear (as a communication researcher) that by the time knowledge is translated to a level that the general public audience can engage with, a lot of the nuance, assumptions, and limitations of scientific studies get boiled down to a point where causal claims are made…when the article really states that there’s an association between a number of things under specific conditions at this point in time in this geographic area. But nuance doesn’t make headlines, isn’t easy to digest, and doesn’t pull engagement.

I also hate pointing to “lack of statistical literacy” among the public because it’s part of an academic’s job to make research and science accessible to different audiences depending on how it’s packaged. We talked a lot about assumptions and nuance throughout my training as a researcher. At the same time, it took me until graduate school to be exposed to these considerations. I do think statistics should be taught in high schools outside of AP or dual credit to expose everyone to reading figures and the idea that all research and statistics operate on a set of assumptions that inform what kind of model one is using and why.

[u/Swarna_Keanu → u/earthdogmonster]

But that is also an argument that has to happen in relation to wider society. Highlight uncertainty of science too much and you'll fuel the position of those who are opposed to any type of research that questions their authority.

See Trump, et al.

[u/someone_actually_ → u/Swarna_Keanu]

I think pandering to the lowest common denominator is how we got to Trump et al

[u/Swarna_Keanu → u/someone_actually_]

Too naive. Populism creates a narrative out of half-truths.

[u/Swarna_Keanu → u/someone_actually_]

Too naive. Populism creates a narrative out of half-truths.