• boyi@lemmy.sdf.org
    31·
    4 months ago

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

    • ryathal@sh.itjust.works
      2·
      4 months ago

      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·
        4 months ago

        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·
          4 months ago

          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·
            4 months ago

            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·
            4 months ago

            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·
        4 months ago

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

          • force@lemmy.world
            3·
            4 months ago

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

            • ryathal@sh.itjust.works
              12·
              4 months ago

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