• boyi@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    8 months ago

    strength is it’s replicable. Not just somebody claiming something without justifying it can happen.

      • boyi@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        8 months ago

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

        • ryathal@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          8 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
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            8 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
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              8 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
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                8 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
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                8 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
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            8 months ago

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

              • force@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                edit-2
                8 months ago

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

                • ryathal@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  8 months ago

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