• 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.