Fwiw the reproducibility crisis isn’t because of “horseshit” science. There are a few examples of that for sure. But the vast majority of it is just good science that happens to be wrong. The scientific method doesn’t mean the wrong conclusion can be drawn, especially when for budgetary reasons sample sizes are relatively limited, or when the effect size being studied is small, or there are too many confounding variables.
That’s not a mark against the studies though. It’s just a mark in favour of attempting to reproduce studies and giving good funding to attempts to do so. And perhaps a mark against using one-off studies with small effect sizes to shape public policy or health advice.
My critique was not aimed at the scientific method itself nor at constraints faced by researchers. I was aiming more towards the sneering attitude that published research is the only valid method of drawing a conclusion, especially at the person level.
Fwiw the reproducibility crisis isn’t because of “horseshit” science. There are a few examples of that for sure. But the vast majority of it is just good science that happens to be wrong. The scientific method doesn’t mean the wrong conclusion can be drawn, especially when for budgetary reasons sample sizes are relatively limited, or when the effect size being studied is small, or there are too many confounding variables.
That’s not a mark against the studies though. It’s just a mark in favour of attempting to reproduce studies and giving good funding to attempts to do so. And perhaps a mark against using one-off studies with small effect sizes to shape public policy or health advice.
My critique was not aimed at the scientific method itself nor at constraints faced by researchers. I was aiming more towards the sneering attitude that published research is the only valid method of drawing a conclusion, especially at the person level.
One published paper is not a valid method of drawing a conclusion. Studying references, citations and related papers is.