this post was submitted on 07 Jul 2025
835 points (97.2% liked)

Science Memes

15637 readers
2354 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.



Rules

  1. Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
  2. Keep it rooted (on topic).
  3. No spam.
  4. Infographics welcome, get schooled.

This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.



Research Committee

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

doi: 10.1037//0021-843x.105.3.440

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] the_mighty_kracken@lemmy.world 0 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Which is why someone should repeat the study to confirm or contradict it.

[–] howrar@lemmy.ca 6 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

This whole discussion you see above is part of the process of repeating a study. You can't just do exactly what the previous study did and expect all the flaws to magically disappear. You need to first uncover the flaws, and more eyes and collaboration means a higher likelihood that the flaws get found, hence the importance of these discussions. Then you redesign the experiment to fix those flaws, and then you can run it again.

I agree with you.