• boyi@lemmy.sdf.org
      31·
      10 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·
        10 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·
          10 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·
            10 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·
              10 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·
              10 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·
          10 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·
              10 months ago

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

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

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