• boyi@lemmy.sdf.org
      31·
      11 个月前

      How is this incorrect? In which field? And how do you confirm you the validity of your methodology?

      • ryathal@sh.itjust.works
        2·
        11 个月前

        Replication rarely happens and in many cases is outright impossible due to lack of shared code.

        Things should be replicable, but that hasn’t been the case for a while.

        • surewhynotlem@lemmy.world
          4·
          11 个月前

          So then the failure of the scientific method is that people aren’t following it. That’s not so much a problem with the method.

          • ryathal@sh.itjust.works
            21·
            11 个月前

            If a method can’t practically be followed it’s a sign of a bad method, or at least one that needs modification.

            • emergencyfood@sh.itjust.works
              3·
              11 个月前

              It’s not that it can’t practically be followed, it is just that everyone running after H-index or whatever the hot thing is now has resulted in a drop in quality.

            • surewhynotlem@lemmy.world
              1·
              11 个月前

              It can easily be followed. Just not within capitalism.

              Edit: But you’re correct. And that’s what we’re seeing. A modified version.

        • boyi@lemmy.sdf.org
          31·
          11 个月前

          the correct term you need is ‘unachievable’, not ‘false’. […] anyway, it depends on the field and type of study.

            • force@lemmy.world
              3·
              11 个月前

              Common standards for language formally used in a specific field/profession/discipline aren’t “wordplay” lol

              • ryathal@sh.itjust.works
                12·
                11 个月前

                This isn’t a professional forum. Playing the “it’s a technical term” game is absolutely wordplay.