Article: Nature, "Robust research needs many lines of evidence", Marcus R. Munafò and George Davey Smith

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-01023-3

Can't remember if it was PACE or some other part of BPS research GDS supported, so I guess he's being ironic when he says "If a study is skewed and replications recapitulate that approach, findings will be consistently incorrect or biased.".

 

He resigned from the Journal of Health Psychology in a huff when it published the PACE special edition. I suspect his current drive for good methodology is the usual two-faced bullshit we get from that sort of people ... they pay lip service to good science in the effort to make a name for themselves, but are happy to promote blatant pseudoscience when it's done by the "right" people.

I suspect that their promotion of good science is an attempt to cover up their own poor work, and their ongoing support of the poor work of others. Much like a compulsive liar yelling "fake news!" periodically, in an attempt to make himself look like the arbiter of truth

 

Yeah, i'm done with these sorts of people. They say things because they make them sound and look good, while on the other hand making a complete mockery of the scientific process by their actual actions.

 

Has this figure (40%) been reliably replicated?

What an odd way to start an article, about the unreliability of published figures, by using......

(sorry, it just amused me)

 

Seems to me exactly the same problem as the Chalmers article on the other thread ('Evidence Based Medicine'). It makes one wonder whether this is sort of Lady MacBeth syndrome:
'out damned spot'.

 

The idea of triangulation is quite sensible though - just common sense, but there does not seem to be much of that around these days.