Recently it has become clear that too many findings reported in the scientific literature are irreproducible.

Although a certain amount of irreproducible research is unavoidable due to the randomness inherent to scientific observation, two related phenomena conspire to increase the proportion of such findings: publication bias, i.e. the custom that negative findings are usually not published, and confirmation bias, i.e. the human inclination to interpret observations in a way that confirms prior beliefs. 

Both biases are poorly held in check in the current scientific publication model in which there is no explicit role for the views of a critic, i.e. a scientist with opposing theoretical views. 

In the words of the famous statistician Ronald Fisher "To consult the statistician after an experiment is finished is often merely to ask him to conduct a post mortem examination. He can perhaps say what the experiment died of."  

from: Randomness and the Games of Science, by Jelle J. Goeman (2016)
in: K. Landsman and E. van Wolde (eds.), The Challenge of Chance,
The Frontiers Collection, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-26300-7_5

             ***********************************************
The BEE-L mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned
LISTSERV(R) list management software.  For more information, go to:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html